Contribution of transesophageal echocardiography to patient diagnosis and treatment: A prospective analysis

Gregory S. Pavlides, Andrew M. Hauser, James R. Stewart, William W. O'Neill, Gerald C. Timmis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

34 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The capability of transesophageal (TEE) versus transthoracic (TTE) echocardiography as a diagnostic tool in clinical practice was prospectively examined in 86 consecutive cases. A conclusive diagnosis was possible in 95% with TEE, whereas the same result was achieved in 48% by TTE. Specifically, TEE provided a conclusive diagnosis in 14 of 16 cases of infective endocarditis, while TTE gave this result in 4 of the 16 cases (p < 0.001). Similarly, TEE allowed a conclusive diagnosis in 11 of 11 instances of aortic dissection, while TTE gave this indication in two cases (p < 0.001). TEE was similarly effective in eight of eight cases of atrial thrombl, whereas TTE gave the diagnosis in three of eight cases (p < 0.01). In five subjects with intracardiac masses, TEE gave a conclusive diagnosis in all five, whereas TTE was able to diagnose conclusively in one subject (p < 0.02). In seven patients with mitral regurgitation, TEE gave the conclusive diagnosis in all seven and TTE was able to provide this information in four (p = NS). TEE was able to provide a conclusive diagnosis in four patients with aortic insufficiency, and TTE gave the same information in two of the four (p = NS). In 14 patients with prosthetic valve dysfunction, TEE gave the diagnosis in 12 and TTE gave it in eight patients (p = NS). Both methods gave a conclusive diagnosis in 13 out of 13 cases of mitral stenosis (p = NS). Also, TEE provided a conclusive diagnosis in eight of eight patients with adult congenital heart disease and TTe gave this information in four (p = NS). TEE obviated five planned cardiac catheterizations, eight computed tomography scans, and one magnetic resonance imaging session, whereas TTE was only able to obviate two cardiac catheterizations (p < 0.001). Treatment was altered in 24% of cases by TEE versus the same result in 10% of cases with TTE (p < 0.02). When it is clinically indicated, TEE is a powerful diagnostic tool, with a significant impact on patient course and treatment. Nevertheless, TTE remained efficacious in 48% of this selective group of patients, and the two techniques are complementary.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)910-914
Number of pages5
JournalAmerican Heart Journal
Volume120
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1990

Fingerprint

Transesophageal Echocardiography
Therapeutics
Cardiac Catheterization
Mitral Valve Stenosis
Mitral Valve Insufficiency
Endocarditis
Echocardiography
Dissection
Heart Diseases
Tomography
Magnetic Resonance Imaging

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Contribution of transesophageal echocardiography to patient diagnosis and treatment : A prospective analysis. / Pavlides, Gregory S.; Hauser, Andrew M.; Stewart, James R.; O'Neill, William W.; Timmis, Gerald C.

In: American Heart Journal, Vol. 120, No. 4, 10.1990, p. 910-914.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Pavlides, Gregory S. ; Hauser, Andrew M. ; Stewart, James R. ; O'Neill, William W. ; Timmis, Gerald C. / Contribution of transesophageal echocardiography to patient diagnosis and treatment : A prospective analysis. In: American Heart Journal. 1990 ; Vol. 120, No. 4. pp. 910-914.
@article{385e949b615a4dc5af81672c78df75c4,
title = "Contribution of transesophageal echocardiography to patient diagnosis and treatment: A prospective analysis",
abstract = "The capability of transesophageal (TEE) versus transthoracic (TTE) echocardiography as a diagnostic tool in clinical practice was prospectively examined in 86 consecutive cases. A conclusive diagnosis was possible in 95{\%} with TEE, whereas the same result was achieved in 48{\%} by TTE. Specifically, TEE provided a conclusive diagnosis in 14 of 16 cases of infective endocarditis, while TTE gave this result in 4 of the 16 cases (p < 0.001). Similarly, TEE allowed a conclusive diagnosis in 11 of 11 instances of aortic dissection, while TTE gave this indication in two cases (p < 0.001). TEE was similarly effective in eight of eight cases of atrial thrombl, whereas TTE gave the diagnosis in three of eight cases (p < 0.01). In five subjects with intracardiac masses, TEE gave a conclusive diagnosis in all five, whereas TTE was able to diagnose conclusively in one subject (p < 0.02). In seven patients with mitral regurgitation, TEE gave the conclusive diagnosis in all seven and TTE was able to provide this information in four (p = NS). TEE was able to provide a conclusive diagnosis in four patients with aortic insufficiency, and TTE gave the same information in two of the four (p = NS). In 14 patients with prosthetic valve dysfunction, TEE gave the diagnosis in 12 and TTE gave it in eight patients (p = NS). Both methods gave a conclusive diagnosis in 13 out of 13 cases of mitral stenosis (p = NS). Also, TEE provided a conclusive diagnosis in eight of eight patients with adult congenital heart disease and TTe gave this information in four (p = NS). TEE obviated five planned cardiac catheterizations, eight computed tomography scans, and one magnetic resonance imaging session, whereas TTE was only able to obviate two cardiac catheterizations (p < 0.001). Treatment was altered in 24{\%} of cases by TEE versus the same result in 10{\%} of cases with TTE (p < 0.02). When it is clinically indicated, TEE is a powerful diagnostic tool, with a significant impact on patient course and treatment. Nevertheless, TTE remained efficacious in 48{\%} of this selective group of patients, and the two techniques are complementary.",
author = "Pavlides, {Gregory S.} and Hauser, {Andrew M.} and Stewart, {James R.} and O'Neill, {William W.} and Timmis, {Gerald C.}",
year = "1990",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/0002-8703(90)90209-G",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "120",
pages = "910--914",
journal = "American Heart Journal",
issn = "0002-8703",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Contribution of transesophageal echocardiography to patient diagnosis and treatment

T2 - A prospective analysis

AU - Pavlides, Gregory S.

AU - Hauser, Andrew M.

AU - Stewart, James R.

AU - O'Neill, William W.

AU - Timmis, Gerald C.

PY - 1990/10

Y1 - 1990/10

N2 - The capability of transesophageal (TEE) versus transthoracic (TTE) echocardiography as a diagnostic tool in clinical practice was prospectively examined in 86 consecutive cases. A conclusive diagnosis was possible in 95% with TEE, whereas the same result was achieved in 48% by TTE. Specifically, TEE provided a conclusive diagnosis in 14 of 16 cases of infective endocarditis, while TTE gave this result in 4 of the 16 cases (p < 0.001). Similarly, TEE allowed a conclusive diagnosis in 11 of 11 instances of aortic dissection, while TTE gave this indication in two cases (p < 0.001). TEE was similarly effective in eight of eight cases of atrial thrombl, whereas TTE gave the diagnosis in three of eight cases (p < 0.01). In five subjects with intracardiac masses, TEE gave a conclusive diagnosis in all five, whereas TTE was able to diagnose conclusively in one subject (p < 0.02). In seven patients with mitral regurgitation, TEE gave the conclusive diagnosis in all seven and TTE was able to provide this information in four (p = NS). TEE was able to provide a conclusive diagnosis in four patients with aortic insufficiency, and TTE gave the same information in two of the four (p = NS). In 14 patients with prosthetic valve dysfunction, TEE gave the diagnosis in 12 and TTE gave it in eight patients (p = NS). Both methods gave a conclusive diagnosis in 13 out of 13 cases of mitral stenosis (p = NS). Also, TEE provided a conclusive diagnosis in eight of eight patients with adult congenital heart disease and TTe gave this information in four (p = NS). TEE obviated five planned cardiac catheterizations, eight computed tomography scans, and one magnetic resonance imaging session, whereas TTE was only able to obviate two cardiac catheterizations (p < 0.001). Treatment was altered in 24% of cases by TEE versus the same result in 10% of cases with TTE (p < 0.02). When it is clinically indicated, TEE is a powerful diagnostic tool, with a significant impact on patient course and treatment. Nevertheless, TTE remained efficacious in 48% of this selective group of patients, and the two techniques are complementary.

AB - The capability of transesophageal (TEE) versus transthoracic (TTE) echocardiography as a diagnostic tool in clinical practice was prospectively examined in 86 consecutive cases. A conclusive diagnosis was possible in 95% with TEE, whereas the same result was achieved in 48% by TTE. Specifically, TEE provided a conclusive diagnosis in 14 of 16 cases of infective endocarditis, while TTE gave this result in 4 of the 16 cases (p < 0.001). Similarly, TEE allowed a conclusive diagnosis in 11 of 11 instances of aortic dissection, while TTE gave this indication in two cases (p < 0.001). TEE was similarly effective in eight of eight cases of atrial thrombl, whereas TTE gave the diagnosis in three of eight cases (p < 0.01). In five subjects with intracardiac masses, TEE gave a conclusive diagnosis in all five, whereas TTE was able to diagnose conclusively in one subject (p < 0.02). In seven patients with mitral regurgitation, TEE gave the conclusive diagnosis in all seven and TTE was able to provide this information in four (p = NS). TEE was able to provide a conclusive diagnosis in four patients with aortic insufficiency, and TTE gave the same information in two of the four (p = NS). In 14 patients with prosthetic valve dysfunction, TEE gave the diagnosis in 12 and TTE gave it in eight patients (p = NS). Both methods gave a conclusive diagnosis in 13 out of 13 cases of mitral stenosis (p = NS). Also, TEE provided a conclusive diagnosis in eight of eight patients with adult congenital heart disease and TTe gave this information in four (p = NS). TEE obviated five planned cardiac catheterizations, eight computed tomography scans, and one magnetic resonance imaging session, whereas TTE was only able to obviate two cardiac catheterizations (p < 0.001). Treatment was altered in 24% of cases by TEE versus the same result in 10% of cases with TTE (p < 0.02). When it is clinically indicated, TEE is a powerful diagnostic tool, with a significant impact on patient course and treatment. Nevertheless, TTE remained efficacious in 48% of this selective group of patients, and the two techniques are complementary.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025173389&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025173389&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0002-8703(90)90209-G

DO - 10.1016/0002-8703(90)90209-G

M3 - Article

C2 - 2220545

AN - SCOPUS:0025173389

VL - 120

SP - 910

EP - 914

JO - American Heart Journal

JF - American Heart Journal

SN - 0002-8703

IS - 4

ER -