We gebruiken cookies om ervoor te zorgen dat onze site zo soepel mogelijk draait. Als je doorgaat met het gebruiken van deze site, gaan we er vanuit dat je ermee instemt.
We read with interest the systematic review and meta-analysis by Papazisi and colleagues on vasoplegia in cardiac surgery 1. We believe that the authors’ most consequential message is that the literature often combines several conditions into the same syndrome. Across the included studies, diagnostic thresholds span mean arterial pressure (MAP) <50–80 mmHg and cardiac index 2.0–3.5 L·min?¹·m?², with reported incidence ranging widely from 2.5% to 66.3% 1. This definitional drift has a predictable consequence: when we collapse fundamentally different phenotypes after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) into one label, every “rescue” therapy is destined to be both overused and undertested.
Automation software has improved accuracy, efficiency, and reproducibility in transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), but its role in transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is less well established. Given rapid technological advances and heterogeneity among available tools, a comprehensive overview of current evidence is warranted. This scoping review aimed to map the literature on automation software for TEE in cardiac patients compared with manual measurements, summarize validation outcomes, and identify evidence gaps.
Automation software has improved accuracy, efficiency, and reproducibility in transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), but its role in transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is less well established. Given rapid technological advances and heterogeneity among available tools, a comprehensive overview of current evidence is warranted. This scoping review aimed to map the literature on automation software for TEE in cardiac patients compared with manual measurements, summarize validation outcomes, and identify evidence gaps.