The hemodynamically unstable patient in the intensive care unit: Hemodynamic vs. transesophageal echocardiographic monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Transesophageal echocardiography is a diagnostic and monitoring modality. The objectives of our study were to compare the diagnoses obtained with continuous transesophageal echocardiography and hemodynamic monitoring in the intensive care unit, to determine interobserver variability of diagnosis obtained with both modalities, and to evaluate its impact. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Surgical intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Consecutive hemodynamically unstable patients after cardiac surgery. INTERVENTIONS: At admission, unstable patients were monitored during 4 hrs with transesophageal echocardiography and standard hemodynamic monitoring. The critical care physician evaluated the patients based on all information except the transesophageal echocardiography at 0, 2, and 4 hrs and formulated a hypothesis on the most likely cause of hemodynamic instability. Transesophageal echocardiography information was provided after each evaluation. To evaluate interobserver variability, all the hemodynamic and echocardiographic information was gathered, randomized, and evaluated by five clinicians for the hemodynamic data and five echocardiographers for the transesophageal echocardiography data. The evaluators were blinded to all other information. Kappa statistics were used to evaluate agreement. Impact of transesophageal echocardiography was assessed retrospectively by using the Deutsch scale. RESULTS: Twenty patients qualified for the study. The agreement between the hemodynamic and echocardiographic diagnosis showed a kappa at admission, 2 hrs, and 4 hrs of 0.33, 0.47, and 0.28. The interobserver agreement for the initial diagnosis (p =.014) and between all evaluators (p <.001) was significantly higher in the echocardiographic compared with the hemodynamic group. The transesophageal echocardiographic information was considered retrospectively to be essential in 34% and valuable in 34% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: These observations support the belief that transesophageal echocardiographic monitoring in the intensive care unit is associated with higher interobserver agreement in diagnosing and excluding significant causes of hemodynamic instability for postoperative cardiac surgical patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".