Advertisement

Pediatric Cardiology

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 537–545 | Cite as

Practice Variations in Pediatric Echocardiography Laboratories

  • Joseph A. CamardaEmail author
  • Angira Patel
  • Michael R. Carr
  • Luciana T. Young
Original Article

Abstract

Quantification guidelines for pediatric echocardiograms were published in 2010 establishing consensus regarding standard measurements. However, a standard protocol for performance and analysis of pediatric echocardiograms was not defined. This study aims to identify practice variations among pediatric laboratories. A survey was sent to 85 North American pediatric laboratory directors. The survey included 29 questions assessing: demographics, methods of image acquisition, parameters routinely evaluated and reported, and methods used to assess chamber sizes, valves, and ventricular function. There were 47/85 (55%) responses; 83% were academic centers and 77% in an urban setting. Wide variations exist in acquisition method (clips versus sweeps) and color scale settings. The most commonly used methods for left ventricular (LV) function are M-mode shortening fraction, qualitative assessment, and Doppler Tissue Imaging. The most commonly used parameter for right ventricular function is qualitative. LV mass is routinely measured by the majority of centers with variations in methods of calculation. Conversely, while a minority measure left atrial volume, there is consensus regarding the preferred method. While multiple techniques exist for assessing valves, qualitative assessment is reported to be the preferred method. Despite quantification guidelines, there is a lack of uniformity in performance and analysis of pediatric echocardiograms. Further studies are needed to determine why variations exist and whether development of consensus guidelines might improve interpretation, consistency and quality of reports, patient care, and provide a standardized system allowing for comparative research among centers.

Keywords

Pediatric echocardiography Protocols Guidelines Variation 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. The survey was approved by our institutional review board.

References

  1. 1.
    Gardin J, Adams D, Douglas P, Feigenbaum H, Forst D, Fraser A et al (2002) Recommendations for a standardized report for adult transthoracic echocardiography: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography’s Nomenclature and Standards Committee and Task Force for a Standardized Echocardiography Report. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 15:275–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Quiñones M, Otto C, Stoddard M, Waggoner A, Zoghbi W (2002) Recommendations for quantification of Doppler echocardiography: a report from the Doppler Quantification task force of the nomenclature and standards committee of the American Society of echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 15:167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lang R, Badano L, Mor-Avi V, Afilalo J, Armstrong A, Ernande L et al (2015) Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American society of echocardiography and the European association of cardiovascular imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 28:1–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nagueh S, Appleton C, Gillebert T, Marino P, Oh J, Smiseth O et al (2009) Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 22:107–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rudski L, Lai W, Afilalo J, Hua L, Handschumacher M, Chandrasekaran K et al (2010) Guidelines for the echocardiographic assessment of the right heart in adults: a report from the American society of echocardiography: endorsed by the European association of echocardiography, a registered branch of the European society of cardiology, and the Canadian society of echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 23:685–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mor-Avi V, Lang R, Badano L, Belohlavek M, Cardim N, Derumeaux G et al (2011) Current and evolving echocardiographic techniques for the quantitative evaluation of cardiac mechanics: ASE/EAE consensus statement on methodology and indications: endorsed by the Japanese society of echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 24:277–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Picard M, Adams D, Bierig M, Dent J, Douglas P, Gillam L et al (2011) American society of echocardiography recommendations for quality echocardiography laboratory operations. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 24:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lai W, Geva T, Shirali G, Frommelt P, Humes R, Brook M et al (2006) Guidelines and Standards for performance of a pediatric echocardiogram: a report from the task force of the pediatric council of the American society of echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 19:1413–1430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lopez L, Colan S, Frommelt P, Ensing G, Kendall K, Younoszai A et al (2010) Recommendations for quantification methods during the performance of a pediatric echocardiogram: a report from the pediatric measurements writing group of the American society of echocardiography pediatric and congenital heart disease council. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 23:465–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Longjohn M, Pershad J (2011) Point-of-care echocardiography by pediatric emergency physicians. Clin Pediatr Emerg Med 12:37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roehr C, te Pas A, Dold S, Breindahl M, Blennos M, Rudiger M et al (2013) Investigating the European perspective of neonatal point-of-care echocardiography in the neonatal intensive care unit—a pilot study. Eur J Pediatr 172:907–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bustam A, Azhar M, Veriah R, Arumugam K, Loch A (2014) Performance of emergency physicians in point-of-care echocardiography following limited training. Emerg Med J 31:369–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Labovitz A, Noble V, Bierig M, Goldstein S, Jones R, Kort S et al (2010) Focused Cardiac ultrasound in the emergent setting: a consensus statement of the American society of echocardiography and American college of emergency physicians. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 23:1225–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Via G, Hussain A, Wells M, Reardon R, Elbarbary M, Noble V et al (2014) International evidence-based recommendations for focused cardiac ultrasound. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 27:683.e1–683.e33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Congenital Cardiac Care (Providers in North America at Hospitals that offer open heart surgery for children Version 10.23.13. Congenital Cardiology Today; Directory 2014) http://www.congenitalcardiologytoday.com
  16. 16.
    Zoghbi W, Enriquez-Sarano E, Foster E, Grayburn P, Kraft C, Levine R et al (2003) Recommendations for evaluation of the severity of native valvular regurgitation with two-dimensional and Doppler echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 16:777–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    American College of Cardiology. Adult congenital and pediatric cardiology section quality metrics. http://www.acc.org/membership/sections-and-councils/adult-congenital-and-pediatric-cardiology-section/features/2014/12/acpc-quality-metrics

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of CardiologyAnn & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Northwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Division of CardiologySeattle Children’s HospitalSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations