Usefulness and limitations of transthoracic echocardiography in heart transplantation recipients

Transthoracic echocardiography is a primary non-invasive modality for investigation of heart transplant recipients. It is a versatile tool which provides comprehensive information about cardiac structure and function. Echocardiographic examinations can be easily performed at the bedside and serially repeated without any patient's discomfort. This review highlights the usefulness of Doppler echocardiography in the assessment of left ventricular and right ventricular systolic and diastolic function, of left ventricular mass, valvular heart disease, pulmonary arterial hypertension and pericardial effusion in heart transplant recipients. The main experiences performed by either standard Doppler echocardiography and new high-tech ultrasound technologies are summarised, pointing out advantages and limitations of the described techniques in diagnosing acute allograft rejection and cardiac graft vasculopathy. Despite the sustained efforts of echocardiographic technique in predicting the biopsy state, endocardial myocardial biopsies are still regarded as the gold standard for detection of acute allograft rejection. Conversely, stress echocardiography is able to identify accurately cardiac graft vasculopathy and has a recognised prognostic in this clinical setting. A normal stress-echo justifies postponement of invasive studies. Another use of transthoracic echocardiography is the monitorisation and the visualisation of the catheter during the performance of endomyocardial biopsy. Bedside stress echocardiography is even useful to select appropriately heart donors with brain death. The ultrasound monitoring is simple and effective for monitoring a safe performance of biopsy procedures

Doppler analysis of pulmonary venous flow profiles in orthotopic heart transplant recipients: a comparison with mitral flow profiles and atrial function

Previous Doppler studies of transmitral flow profiles in heart transplant recipients suggested left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction. The influence of left atrial filling and emptying on mitral Doppler profiles in heart transplant recipients has not been studied systematically. In the present study, pulmonary venous flow profiles, mitral flow profiles, left atrial area change and mitral annulus motion were analyzed in 20 orthotopic heart transplant recipient and 20 control subjects by transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography and Doppler. Mitral flow profiles revealed a "restrictive" pattern with a high early-to-late diastolic flow velocity ratio in transplant patients (2.16 +/- 0.52 vs. 1.30 +/- 0.25, p < 0.0001), which was mainly due to a reduced late diastolic maximum mitral flow velocity (32.6 +/- 8.3 vs. 51.6 +/- 12.4 cm/s, p < 0.0001). Left atrial area change (35.9 +/- 13.9 vs. 58.1 +/- 17.0%, p < 0.0006) and mitral annulus motion (9.2 +/- 3.3 vs. 12.2 +/- 2.0%, p < 0.05) were reduced in transplant recipients, compared to controls. Pulmonary venous flow parameters in transplant recipients were markedly altered during systole, when pulmonary venous flow parameters are influenced primarily by atrial function rather than by diastolic LV properties: peak systolic flow velocity (45.5 +/- 8.2 vs. 62.3 +/- 14.0 cm/s, p < 0.001), maximum flow velocity ratio (0.87 +/- 0.19 vs. 1.45 +/- 0.33), time velocity integral of pulmonary venous flow during systole (9.3 +/- 2.3 vs. 17.1 +/- 4.0 cm, p < 0.001) and the systolic fraction of the time velocity integral (52.6 +/- 10.8 vs. 68.5 +/- 6.8%, p < 0.001) were lower in heart transplant recipients than in controls. These findings are compatible with atrial dysfunction and reduced mitral annulus motion. The results of this study indicate that LV diastolic dysfunction is not the only possible cause of altered transmitral Doppler profiles in heart transplant recipients. Atrial abnormalities represent a major contributing factor to altered mitral and pulmonary venous flow patterns. Analysis of transmitral Doppler profiles alone are therefore not adequate for analysis of diastolic LV function in heart transplant recipients

Diagnostic accuracy of dobutamine stress echocardiography in the detection of cardiac allograft vasculopathy in heart transplant recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis study

BACKGROUND: Dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) is a well-established imaging modality used to screen patients with mild-to-moderate risk for coronary artery disease. In heart transplantation recipients, cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is a common and lethal complication. The use of DSE to detect CAV showed promising results initially, but later studies showed limitation in its use to detect CAV. It is unclear if this cohort of patients derives benefit from DSE. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and Scopus from inception through March 2018 for studies examining the accuracy of DSE in correlation to coronary angiography (CA) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) to detect CAV. Original studies comparing the ability of DSE to detect CAV in comparison with CA or IVUS were included. Relevant data were extracted and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic analysis was conducted to test the overall diagnostic accuracy of DSE for patients with CAV. RESULTS: Eleven studies (749 participants) met the inclusion criteria. The sensitivity of DSE varied from 1.7% to 93.8%, and specificity, from 54.8% to 98.8%. Pooled sensitivity was 60.2% (95% confidence interval (CI), 33.0%-82.3%) and specificity 85.7% (95% CI, 73.8%-92.7%). DSE had an overall diagnostic odds ratio (OR) of 9.1 (95% CI, 4.6-17.8), positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 4.1 (95% CI, 2.8-6.1), negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.47 (95% CI: 0.23-0.73), and area under curve (AUC) of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.72-0.75). Heterogeneity among studies was not statistically significant (tau(2 ) = 0.32, Cochran\u27s Q = 9.5, P = 0.483). CONCLUSION: Dobutamine stress echocardiography has a limited sensitivity to detect early CAV but its specificity is much higher. There remains a need for an alternative noninvasive modality which will have both high sensitivity and high specificity for detecting CAV