Premium
An assessment of transesophageal echocardiography studies rated as rarely appropriate tests for infective endocarditis at an academic medical center
Author(s) -
Amuchastegui Tomas,
Hur David J.,
Lynn Fillipon Nicole M.,
Eder Maxwell D.,
Bonomo Jason A.,
Kim Yekaterina,
McNamara Robert L.,
Malinis Maricar,
Sugeng Lissa
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
echocardiography
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.404
H-Index - 62
eISSN - 1540-8175
pISSN - 0742-2822
DOI - 10.1111/echo.14525
Subject(s) - infective endocarditis , medicine , retrospective cohort study , endocarditis , bacteremia , immunosuppression , medical record , demographics , medical history , heart disease , cohort , appropriate use criteria , transesophageal echocardiogram , pediatrics , surgery , antibiotics , demography , sociology , microbiology and biotechnology , biology
Abstract Purpose Endocardial involvement documented by echocardiography is a major criterion of the modified Duke criteria (MDC) for infective endocarditis (IE). Though transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is sensitive in the diagnosis of IE, it can be inappropriately used. Methods This retrospective study included all patients who underwent TEE due to bacteremia, fever, and/or endocarditis in a single, tertiary academic medical center in 2013. Data collected from electronic medical charts were as follows: demographics, history, physical examination, blood cultures, and transthoracic (TTE) and TEE findings. Cases were categorized based on appropriate use criteria (AUC) and MDC. An infectious disease (ID) specialist reviewed cases with rarely appropriate TEE use. Results In the 194 patients included, 147 (75.8%) were rated as appropriate, 36 (18.6%) rarely appropriate, and 11 (5.6%) uncertain. Of the 36 with rarely appropriate TEEs, using MDC 31 (86%) were rejected and 5 (14%) were possible for IE. Retrospective chart review by an ID specialist determined that 10 of these patients warranted TEE due to compelling issues, including immunosuppression or complicated infection. Conclusions In this retrospective cohort, almost one fifth of cases were rated as rarely appropriate. However, a review of these cases showed that TEE was often pursued when the clinical situation involved immunosuppression or complex infectious process. There remains room for improvement to our screening process for TEE and a need to implement a nuanced educational plan to better precisely identify appropriate cases for TEE usage.