MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286214206 · doi:10.1177/08850666221115348

Indications, Clinical Impact, and Complications of Critical Care Transesophageal Echocardiography: A Scoping Review

2022· review· en· W4286214206 on OpenAlex
Ross Prager, Joshua Bowdridge, Michael Pratte, Jason E. Cheng, Matthew D. F. McInnes, Robert Arntfield

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intensive Care Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care unitIntensive care medicineIntensivistPerforationCochrane LibraryRetrospective cohort studyMEDLINEIntravascular volume statusIntensive careObservational studyEmergency medicineHemodynamicsInternal medicineMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Critical care transesophageal echocardiography (ccTEE) is an increasingly popular tool used by intensivists to characterize and manage hemodynamics at the bedside. Its usage appears to be driven by expanded diagnostic scope as well as the limitations of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) - lack of acoustic windows, patient positioning, and competing clinical interests (eg, the need to perform chest compressions). The objectives of this scoping review were to determine the indications, clinical impact, and complications of ccTEE. METHODS: , 2021. Studies were included if they assessed TEE performed for adult critically ill patients by intensivists, emergency physicians, or anesthesiologists. Intraoperative or post-cardiac surgical TEE studies were excluded. Study demographics, indication for TEE, main results, and complications were extracted in duplicate. RESULTS: Of the 4403 abstracts screened, 289 studies underwent full-text review, with 108 studies (6739 patients) included. Most studies were retrospective (66%), performed in academic centers (84%), in the intensive care unit (73%), and were observational (55%). The most common indications for ccTEE were hemodynamic instability, trauma, cardiac arrest, respiratory failure, and procedural guidance. Across multiple indications, ccTEE was reported to change the diagnosis in 52% to 78% of patients and change management in 32% to79% patients. During cardiac arrest, ccTEE identified the cause of arrest in 25% to 35% of cases. Complications of ccTEE included two cases of significant gastrointestinal bleeding requiring intervention, but no other major complications (death or esophageal perforation) reported. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ccTEE has been described for the diagnosis and management of a broad range of clinical problems. Overall, ccTEE was commonly reported to offer additional diagnostic yield beyond TTE with a low observed complication rate. Additional high quality ccTEE studies will permit stronger conclusions and a more precise understanding of the trends observed in this scoping review.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.191
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.355 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it