↓ Skip to main content

Can we improve transthoracic echocardiography training in non-cardiologist residents? Experience of two training programs in the intensive care unit

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Can we improve transthoracic echocardiography training in non-cardiologist residents? Experience of two training programs in the intensive care unit
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13613-016-0150-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vincent Labbé, Stéphane Ederhy, Blandine Pasquet, Romain Miguel-Montanes, Cédric Rafat, David Hajage, Stéphane Gaudry, Didier Dreyfuss, Ariel Cohen, Muriel Fartoukh, Jean-Damien Ricard

Abstract

To evaluate the diagnostic performances of two training programs for residents with no prior ultrasound experience to reach competences in extended basic critical care transthoracic echocardiography (CCE) including Doppler capabilities. This is a prospective observational study in two intensive care units of teaching hospitals. Group I (five residents) completed a short training program (4-h theory; 3-h practical); group II (six residents) completed a longer training program (6-h theory; 12-h practical). The residents and an expert examined all patients who required a transthoracic echocardiography. Their agreement studied by Cohen's κ coefficient, concordance coefficient correlation (CCC) and Bland-Altman plots was used as an indicator of program effectiveness. Group I performed 136 CCEs (mean/resident 27; range 22-32; 65 in ventilated patients) in 115 patients (62 men; 64 ± 18 years; Simplified Acute Physiologic Score [SAPS] II 37 ± 18). Group II performed 158 CCEs (mean/resident 26; range 21-31; 65 in ventilated patients) in 108 patients (64 men; 58 ± 17 years; SAPS II 42 ± 22). Both groups adequately assessed left ventricular (LV) systolic function (κ 0.75, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.86; κ 0.77, 95 % CI 0.66-0.88, respectively) and pericardial effusion (κ 0.83, 95 % CI 0.67-0.99; κ 0.76, 95 % CI 0.60-0.93, respectively). Group II appraised severe right ventricular dilatation and significant left-sided valve disease with good to very good agreement (κ 0.80, 95 % CI 0.56-0.96; κ 0.79, 95 % CI 0.66-0.93, respectively). Regarding left ventricular ejection fraction, E/A ratio, E/e' ratio and aortic peak velocity assessed by group II, CCCs were all >0.70 and the bias (mean difference) ±SD on Bland-Altman analysis was 1.3 ± 8.8 %, 0 ± 0.3, 0.4 ± 2.2 and 0.1 ± 0.4 m/s, respectively. Detection of paradoxical septum (κ 0.65, 95 % CI 0.37-0.93), of heterogeneous LV contraction (κ 0.49, 95 % CI 0.33-0.65) and of respiratory variation of the inferior vena cava (κ 0.27, 95 % CI 0.09-0.45), as well as stroke volume measurement (CCC 0.65, 95 % CI 0.54-0.74; bias ± SD -1.4 ± 4.7 cm), was appraised by group II with moderate agreement requiring probably more comprehensive training. Although a training program blending 6-h theory and 12-h practical may be adapted to achieve some essential competences, it seems to be insufficiently to perform a complete extended basic critical care transthoracic echocardiography including Doppler capabilities.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 19%
Librarian 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 7 26%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 May 2016.
All research outputs
#8,970,451
of 16,258,151 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#441
of 734 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,538
of 267,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,258,151 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 734 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,036 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.