RESUMEN
La ecocardiografía transesfofágica es una técnica semiinvasiva que permite una evaluación de la morfología y función cardiaca a tiempo real y que constituye, a día de hoy, un estándar de calidad en las intervenciones de cirugía cardiovascular. Se ha convertido en una herramienta fundamental tanto de monitorización como de diagnóstico en el perioperatorio que permite la correcta planificación quirúrgica y manejo farmacológico dirigido. El objetivo de este documento es dar respuesta de forma consensuada y avalada por la evidencia científica de cuándo y cómo debe hacerse la ecocardiografía transesfofágica intraoperatoria en cirugía cardiovascular, qué aplicaciones tiene en el intraoperatorio, quién debe realizarla y cómo debe transmitirse la información obtenida durante el estudio. Los autores han hecho una revisión sistemática de las guías internacionales, artículos de revisión y ensayos clínicos para dar respuesta a estas preguntas
Transesophageal echocardiography is a semi-invasive technique that allows an evaluation of cardiac morphology and function in real time and it is a quality standard in cardiovascular surgery. It has become a fundamental tool for both monitoring and diagnosis in the intraoperative period that allows decide the correct surgical planning and pharmacological management. The goal of this document is to answer the questions of when and how the perioperative TEE should be performed in cardiovascular surgery, what are their applications in the intraoperative, who should perform it and how the information should be transmitted. The authors made a systematic review of international guidelines, review articles and clinical trials to answer by consensus to these questions
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Ecocardiografía Transesofágica/métodos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Cardiovasculares/métodos , Monitoreo Intraoperatorio/métodos , Monitorización Hemodinámica/métodos , ConsensoRESUMEN
Transesophageal echocardiography is a semi-invasive technique that allows an evaluation of cardiac morphology and function in real time and it is a quality standard in cardiovascular surgery. It has become a fundamental tool for both monitoring and diagnosis in the intraoperative period that allows decide the correct surgical planning and pharmacological management. The goal of this document is to answer the questions of when and how the perioperative TEE should be performed in cardiovascular surgery, what are their applications in the intraoperative, who should perform it and how the information should be transmitted. The authors made a systematic review of international guidelines, review articles and clinical trials to answer by consensus to these questions.
RESUMEN
OBJETIVOS: Comparar la tolerancia, la duración de la ventilación mecánica (VM) y los desenlaces clínicos durante la retirada de la VM en 2 modalidades ventilatorias: la ventilación con presión de soporte (PSV) frente a la ventilación proporcional asistida (VPA). DISEÑO: Estudio observacional y prospectivo. Ámbito: Servicio de Medicina Intensiva. PACIENTES: Inclusión consecutiva de 20 pacientes en PSV y 20 pacientes en VPA cuando cumplieron los criterios de inicio de retirada de VM y su médico responsable decidió iniciar este proceso. La modalidad ventilatoria escogida y los parámetros ventilatorios durante el estudio fueron realizados por su médico responsable. INTERVENCIONES: Ninguna. Variables de interés: Variables demográficas, de mecánica respiratoria, parámetros ventilatorios, duración de VM y desenlaces clínicos (reintubación, traqueostomía, mortalidad).RESULTADOS: Los 2 grupos fueron similares en sus características basales. No existieron diferenciasen la duración total de VM (10 [5-18] días en PSV frente a 9 [7-19] días en VPA; p = 0,85).Tampoco existieron diferencias en términos de reintubación (5 [31%] en PSV frente a 3 [19%] enVPA; p = 0,69) ni de mortalidad (4 [20%] en PSV frente a 5 [25%] en VPA; p = 1). Ocho pacientes (40%) en PSV y 6 en VPA (30%) (p = 0,74) presentaron deterioro clínico y requirieron regresar a la modalidad asistida controlada por volumen. CONCLUSIONES: La PSV y la VPA presentan similar tolerancia, duración de la VM y desenlaces clínicos durante la retirada de esta
OBJECTIVES: To compare tolerance, duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) and clinical outcomes during weaning from MV in patients subjected to either pressure support ventilation (PSV)or proportional assist ventilation (PAV).DESIGN: A prospective, observational study was carried out. SETTING: Intensive Care Unit. PATIENTS: A total of 40 consecutive subjects were allocated to either the PSV or the PAV groupuntil each group contained 20 patients. Patients were included in the study when they met the criteria to begin weaning and the attending physician decided to initiate the weaning process. The physician selected the modality and set the ventilatory parameters. INTERVENTIONS: None. Variables of interest: Demographic data, respiratory mechanics, ventilatory parameters, duration of MV, and clinical outcomes (reintubation, tracheostomy, mortality).RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. No significant differences were RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. No significant differences were observed between the PSV and PAV groups in terms of the total duration of MV (10 [5-18] vs. 9 [7-19] days; P = .85), reintubation (5 [31%] vs. 3 [19%]; P = .69), or mortality (4 [20%] vs. 5 [25%] deaths; P = 1). Eight patients (40%) in the PSV group and 6 patients (30%) in the PAV group (P = .74) required a return to volume assist-control ventilation due to clinical deterioration. CONCLUSIONS: Tolerance, duration of MV and clinical outcomes during weaning from mechanical ventilation were similar in PSV and PAV
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Soporte Ventilatorio Interactivo/métodos , Presión de las Vías Aéreas Positiva Contínua/métodos , Desconexión del Ventilador/métodos , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos/estadística & datos numéricos , Enfermedad Crítica , Estudios ProspectivosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To compare tolerance, duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) and clinical outcomes during weaning from MV in patients subjected to either pressure support ventilation (PSV) or proportional assist ventilation (PAV). DESIGN: A prospective, observational study was carried out. SETTING: Intensive Care Unit. PATIENTS: A total of 40 consecutive subjects were allocated to either the PSV or the PAV group until each group contained 20 patients. Patients were included in the study when they met the criteria to begin weaning and the attending physician decided to initiate the weaning process. The physician selected the modality and set the ventilatory parameters. INTERVENTIONS: None. VARIABLES OF INTEREST: Demographic data, respiratory mechanics, ventilatory parameters, duration of MV, and clinical outcomes (reintubation, tracheostomy, mortality). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. No significant differences were observed between the PSV and PAV groups in terms of the total duration of MV (10 [5-18] vs. 9 [7-19] days; P=.85), reintubation (5 [31%] vs. 3 [19%]; P=.69), or mortality (4 [20%] vs. 5 [25%] deaths; P=1). Eight patients (40%) in the PSV group and 6 patients (30%) in the PAV group (P=.74) required a return to volume assist-control ventilation due to clinical deterioration. CONCLUSIONS: Tolerance, duration of MV and clinical outcomes during weaning from mechanical ventilation were similar in PSV and PAV.