Comprehensive Echocardiographic Assessment of Right Ventricular Afterload and Right Ventricular–Pulmonary Arterial Coupling in the Intensive Care Unit
CCR Journal Watch
https://t.co/Sp06oA6IDG
Your patient's RV is dilating while the MAP sags. Do you give fluids, pressors/inotropes, an inhaled pulmonary vasodilator, or reach for a device? This long, thorough review sorts it out by phenotype. 🎩 tip to the authors.
https://t.co/sSr8PFAqru
Temporary mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock: A clinical consensus statement of the (#EAPCI) and the (#ACVC) of the ESC
https://t.co/N14Z31rizh
@ESC_Journals#MCS
🎯 Less is more in mitral regurgitation assessment
In 177 patients undergoing near-simultaneous Echo & CMR, just 2 ASE criteria identified significant MR with 91–95% specificity.
🫀 Smarter integration, less quantification, greater diagnostic confidence
https://t.co/iFv3BRTsQJ
🫀My Approach to Echocardiographic Assessment of Left Ventricular Filling Pressures: From Ambiguity to Precision With New Guidelines @DICSBC#echofirst#cardiology#diastolic
🔗 https://t.co/KeDGr0XG9u
The 2026 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Management of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction is here! What’s new in #HFpEF management? Read here: https://t.co/HEg6SDfzVo
#JACC#CardioX
Antiplatelet therapy is foundational for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and chronic coronary disease (CCD), but medication selection, dose, and duration should be individualized by thrombotic and bleeding risk.
Guideline-based therapy remains the foundation of antiplatelet management, with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration and P2Y12 inhibitor selection tailored to the clinical scenario.
This scientific statement reviews contemporary antiplatelet management in ACS and chronic coronary disease, emphasizing individualized thrombotic and bleeding risk assessment, multidisciplinary care, and antithrombotic stewardship across the care continuum.
📷 Multidisciplinary care in antithrombotic management of acute coronary syndrome and CCD.
Link in replies.
Its not about more or less fluids. Its about giving patients the right hemodynamic support based on their physiology!
Some patients in early septic shock are:
1. Fluid responsive with low SV --> fluids
2. Fluid unresponsive with low SV --> pressors, inotropes
3. Fluid responsive with high SV --> pressors
4. Fluid unresponsive with high SV --> pressors
5. Congested --> inotropes + diuresis
6. Impaired microcirculation with hemodynamic coherence --> fix macrohemodynamics
7. Impaired microcirculation with hemodynamic incoherence --> MAP target, avoid edema, other? (anticoagulation)
We need to stop treating "septic shock" as hemodynamic paradigm.
The most likely pattern is S < D. The antegrade wave with the higher velocity is also the longer one, which is typical of diastole. Moreover, this wave precedes the retrograde wave with the highest velocity and longest duration, which usually corresponds to the A wave (atrial contraction). In addition, during the second cardiac cycle, both the S and D waves increase in velocity, and the retrograde wave increases concomitantly. This suggests elevated right-sided filling pressures, which would explain both the S < D pattern and the larger inspiratory A-wave reversal, as the right ventricle cannot accommodate the inspiratory increase in venous return
🫀 Are we measuring pericardial effusions the wrong way?
We routinely classify pericardial effusions as small, moderate, or large based on linear measurements.
But does a single measurement in millimeters accurately represent the actual volume of pericardial fluid?
Study in @JournalASEcho challenges this
https://t.co/rRPvXe1xMI
🔬 245 patients undergoing pericardiocentesis
Median drained volume: 500 mL (range 50–4,300 mL)
76.7% had cardiac tamponade
Actual drained volume served as the reference standard.
📊 How did different echo methods perform?
Between end diastolic thickness, plax and PSAx area- apical 4 chamber Simpson’s volumetric estimation performed the best
✅ Accuracy: 80.4% vs 49.4%
Perhaps it is time to rethink how we quantify pericardial effusions!
💡 if volumetric assessment is substantially more accurate, should we move from millimeters to milliliters in routine echocardiography?
And more importantly, would this change clinical decision-making—or simply improve the precision of our reports?
#EchoFirst #CardioTwitter #CVImaging
Historically we compute PVR in HF by ignoring the V wave, but this makes little sense since it is an important component of downstream LA pressure. @CircAHA we show how accounting for this dramatically decreases prevalence of cpc PH HFpEF - much rarer than prior estimates