Efficacy and time-efficiency of a “sonographer-driven” contrast echocardiography protocol in a high-volume echocardiography laboratory
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Ramon Castello ; Jonathan N. Bella ; Aleks ; r Rovner ; Jimmy Swan ; John Smith ; Leslie Shaw
- 刊名：American Heart Journal
- 出版年：2003
- 出版时间：March 2003
- 年：2003
- 卷：145
- 期：3
- 页码：535-541
- 全文大小：102 K
文摘
Background Contrast echocardiography (CE) has not gained widespread use despite numerous studies demonstrating its efficacy in the assessment of left ventricular (LV) function. Methods We sought to determine whether CE could be used in a high-volume echocardiography laboratory in a clinically effective and time efficient manner. We implemented a protocol with a feasibility phase and an established phase. Cost-benefit analyses were done on the basis of time use. Results During the feasibility and established phases, data on 119 and 672 patients, respectively, were obtained. After a “sonographer-driven” protocol, contrast studies represented 7 % to 8 % of the total number of routine transthoracic and stress studies. Stress studies accounted for only 15 % of the total number of contrast studies. Obesity was the most common indication for contrast use. LV visualization indices and wall thickening assessment, as evaluated by 2 blinded readers, were significantly improved with CE compared with second harmonic imaging alone. The time to make the decision to use CE and the time taken to administer contrast decreased significantly from the feasibility phase to the established phase (8.3 ± 5 vs 7.6 ± 5 min, P < .01, and 13.4 ± 10 vs 10.2 ± 5 min, P < .001, respectively). On the basis of time use only, a cost analysis indicated that savings were obtained at a 10-minute reduction in study time. Conclusions A “sonographer-driven” CE protocol for LV assessment is feasible in high-volume echocardiography laboratories. It is clinically effective because it significantly improves LV global and regional wall motion visualization. A “sonographer-driven” CE protocol can reduce decision and administration times substantially, thus making CE time-efficient. (Am Heart J 2003;145:535-41.)