ArticleCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2023
Right ventricular ejection fraction derived from intraoperative three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography versus cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Calculation of Ejection Fraction Using Cardiac Computed Tomography: Clinical Evolution, Reliability, and Technological Challenges-A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
- Advancing intraoperative assessment of the right ventricle through three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2023Article
- Effect of Preoperative Pulmonary Hypertension on the Course of Right Ventricular Function: A Three-dimensional Echocardiographic Study in Valvular Surgery Patients.Journal of cardiovascular echographyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRight ventricle (RV) assessment is critical during cardiac surgery. Traditional assessment consists of visual estimation and measurement of validated parameters. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) is the gold standard for RV analysis, and transthoracic three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography is validated against this. We aimed to show that intraoperative 3D transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) RV assessment is feasible and can produce results that correlate with cMRI.
methodsWe recruited cardiac surgery patients who underwent cMRI within the preceding twelve preoperative months. An anesthetic protocol was followed pre-sternotomy and a 3D RV data set was acquired. We used TOMTEC 4D RV-Function to derive RV end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), and ejection fraction (EF). We compared these data with the corresponding MRI values.
resultsTwenty-five patients were included. Transesophageal echocardiography EDV and ESV differed from MRI measurements with a mean bias of -53 mL (95% confidence interval [CI], -80 to 26) and -21 mL (95% CI, -34 to -9). Transesophageal echocardiography EF did not differ significantly, with a mean bias of -4% (95% CI, -8 to 1). Results were unchanged after excluding MRIs older than 180 days. Correlation coefficients for EDV, ESV, and EF were r = 0.85, 0.91, and 0.80, respectively. Interclass correlation coefficients for EDV, ESV, and EF were 0.86, 0.89, and 0.96, respectively.
conclusionsIntraoperative TEE RV, EDV, and ESV are underestimated relative to cMRI because of analysis, anesthetic, and ventilation factors. The EF showed a low mean difference, and all values showed strong correlation with MRI. Reproducibility and feasibility were excellent and increased use in clinical practice should be considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.