Systematic review and literature appraisal on methodology of conducting and reporting critical-care echocardiography studies: a report from the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine PRICES expert panel

Abstract

Background: The echocardiography working group of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine recognized the need to provide structured guidance for future CCE research methodology and reporting based on a systematic appraisal of the current literature. Here is reported this systematic appraisal. Methods: We conducted a systematic review, registered on the Prospero database. A total of 43 items of common interest to all echocardiography studies were initially listed by the experts, and other "topic-specific" items were separated into five main categories of interest (left ventricular systolic function, LVSF n = 15, right ventricular function, RVF n = 18, left ventricular diastolic function, LVDF n = 15, fluid management, FM n = 7, and advanced echocardiography techniques, AET n = 17). We evaluated the percentage of items reported per study and the fraction of studies reporting a single item. Results: From January 2000 till December 2017 a total of 209 articles were included after systematic search and screening, 97 for LVSF, 48 for RVF, 51 for LVDF, 36 for FM and 24 for AET. Shock and ARDS were relatively common among LVSF articles (both around 15%) while ARDS comprised 25% of RVF articles. Transthoracic echocardiography was the main echocardiography mode, in 87% of the articles for AET topic, followed by 81% for FM, 78% for LVDF, 70% for LVSF and 63% for RVF. The percentage of items per study as well as the fraction of study reporting an item was low or very low, except for FM. As an illustration, the left ventricular size was only reported by 56% of studies in the LVSF topic, and half studies assessing RVF reported data on pulmonary artery systolic pressure. Conclusion: This analysis confirmed sub-optimal reporting of several items listed by an expert panel. The analysis will help the experts in the development of guidelines for CCE study design and reporting.

COVID-19-related echocardiographic patterns of cardiovascular dysfunction in critically ill patients: A systematic review of the current literature

“…Interestingly, the sole large study (n = 1216) accounting for one-third of the patients included in this systematic review provided qualitative rather than quantitative echocardiographic data. Moreover, only seven studies with heterogeneous designs reported data on pure ICU patients, and none followed the recent PRICES statement and recommendation for reporting critical care echocardiography data [ 47 , 48 ]. This lack of accurate echocardiography data on COVID-19 patients may be multifactorial.…”

Prognostic Role of Left Ventricular Systolic Function Measured by Speckle Tracking Echocardiography in Septic Shock

“…Thirdly, patients with septic shock admitted to the ICU had different underlying diseases and severity, so it was difficult to assess the cause of death accurately. Fourthly, speckle tracking echocardiography is a new imaging technique requiring adequate image quality, which could be a challenge, especially in patients with mechanical ventilation [ 30 ]. Finally, other speckle tracking parameters to evaluate LV systolic function, such as global circumferential and radial strain, which is showed to be promising, were not obtained [ 30 ].…”

Assessing left ventricular diastolic function in prone position

“…Second, interpretation of this echocardiography study would benefit from of full observance of the PRICES (“Preferred Reporting Items for Critical-care Echocardiography Studies)” guidelines published at the end of 2020 and suggesting the items that should be reported when describing critical care echocardiography scientific research [ 4 , 5 ]. Full adherence to the PRICES checklist and in particular to the items suggested as “essential” may simplify a between-study comparison with new scientific research performed and provide external validation to the study by Ugalde et al [ 1 ].…”