ArticleCritical care (London, England)2026
Derivation of a pragmatic three-view protocol for point-of-care transesophageal echocardiography in the cardiovascular ICU: a real-world cohort study.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid identification of the cause of hemodynamic instability is essential in the cardiovascular intensive care unit (CV-ICU), and transesophageal echocardiography provides superior diagnostic image quality compared with transthoracic echocardiography in this setting. However, point-of-care transesophageal echocardiography (POCUS-TEE) is not routinely used, partly because of perceived training barriers. We therefore sought to summarize the etiologies of hemodynamic instability in the CV-ICU and to identify a pragmatic minimal set of TEE views required for their diagnosis.
methodsThis single-center retrospective study evaluated consecutive adult cardiovascular ICU admissions over five years. All POCUS-TEE examinations were performed as part of routine clinical care at the discretion of the treating team. Examinations in patients with hemodynamic instability were analyzed to identify the "first informative view" supporting the diagnosis. A cumulative coverage analysis was performed to derive a minimal-view set. Inter-rater reproducibility was assessed for view acquisition and management decisions.
resultsAmong 6,898 admissions, POCUS-TEE was performed in 353 examinations (5.1%), predominantly in patients with higher severity scores compared to those without TEE. In preoperative stable patients (n = 37), POCUS-TEE altered planned surgery in 6 patients (16.2%). In postoperative stable patients (n = 101), management changes included optimization of mechanical support and anticoagulation. In postoperative-unstable examinations (n = 238), 79.4% prompted procedural interventions. A derived minimal three-view set (mid-esophageal bicaval, mid-esophageal four-chamber, and transgastric mid-short-axis) achieved 92.4% diagnostic coverage in unstable examinations. While the specific view acting as the first diagnostic window varied due to acquisition sequence (κ 0.06-0.11), the core three-view set was highly reproducible across raters (Jaccard similarity coefficient 0.60), and agreement on management decisions was moderate. No procedure-related complications were observed during bedside POCUS-TEE.
conclusionsPOCUS-TEE frequently drives urgent interventions in postoperative hemodynamic instability. Although the sequence of diagnostic capture is operator-dependent, a simple three-view protocol provides > 90% diagnostic coverage. This derivation supports a physiology-based, limited-view approach for training, early competency development, and resuscitation in cardiovascular critical care.
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.