Organization and Activity of Italian Echocardiographic Laboratories: A Survey of the Italian Society of Echocardiography and Cardiovascular Imaging.

Background: The Italian Society of Echocardiography and Cardiovascular Imaging (SIECVI) conducted a national survey to understand better how different echocardiographic modalities are used and accessed in Italy. Methods: We analyzed echocardiography laboratory activities over a month (November 2022). Data were retrieved via an electronic survey based on a structured questionnaire, uploaded on the SIECVI website. Results: Data were obtained from 228 echocardiographic laboratories: 112 centers (49%) in the northern, 43 centers (19%) in the central, and 73 (32%) in the southern regions. During the month of observation, we collected 101,050 transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) examinations performed in all centers. As concern other modalities there were performed 5497 transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) examinations in 161/228 centers (71%); 4057 stress echocardiography (SE) examinations in 179/228 centers (79%); and examinations with ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs) in 151/228 centers (66%). We did not find significant regional variations between the different modalities. The usage of picture archiving and communication system (PACS) was significantly higher in the northern (84%) versus central (49%) and southern (45%) centers (P < 0.001). Lung ultrasound (LUS) was performed in 154 centers (66%), without difference between cardiology and noncardiology centers. The evaluation of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction was evaluated mainly using the qualitative method in 223 centers (94%), occasionally with the Simpson method in 193 centers (85%), and with selective use of the three-dimensional (3D) method in only 23 centers (10%). 3D TTE was present in 137 centers (70%), and 3D TEE in all centers where TEE was done (71%). The assessment of LV diastolic function was done routinely in 80% of the centers. Right ventricular function was evaluated using tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion in all centers, using tricuspid valve annular systolic velocity by tissue Doppler imaging in 53% of the centers, and using fractional area change in 33% of the centers. When we divided into cardiology (179, 78%) and noncardiology (49, 22%) centers, we found significant differences in the SE (93% vs. 26%, P < 0.001), TEE (85% vs. 18%), UCA (67% vs. 43%, P < 0001), and STE (87% vs. 20%, P < 0.001). The incidence of LUS evaluation was similar between the cardiology and noncardiology centers (69% vs. 61%, P = NS). Conclusions: This nationwide survey demonstrated that digital infrastructures and advanced echocardiography modalities, such as 3D and STE, are widely available in Italy with a notable diffuse uptake of LUS in the core TTE examination, a suboptimal diffusion of PACS recording, and conservative use of UCA, 3D, and strain. There are significant differences between northern and central-southern regions and echocardiographic laboratories that pertain to the cardiac unit. This inhomogeneous distribution of technology represents one of the main issues that must be solved to standardize the practice of echocardiography.

Stress Echocardiography in Italian Echocardiographic Laboratories: A Survey of the Italian Society of Echocardiography and Cardiovascular Imaging.

Background: The Italian Society of Echography and Cardiovascular Imaging (SIECVI) conducted a national survey to understand the volumes of activity, modalities and stressors used during stress echocardiography (SE) in Italy. Methods: We analyzed echocardiography laboratory activities over a month (November 2022). Data were retrieved through an electronic survey based on a structured questionnaire, uploaded on the SIECVI website. Results: Data were obtained from 228 echocardiographic laboratories, and SE examinations were performed in 179 centers (80.6%): 87 centers (47.5%) were in the northern regions of Italy, 33 centers (18.4%) were in the central regions, and 61 (34.1%) in the southern regions. We annotated a total of 4057 SE. We divided the SE centers into three groups, according to the numbers of SE performed: <10 SE (low-volume activity, 40 centers), between 10 and 39 SE (moderate volume activity, 102 centers) and ≥40 SE (high volume activity, 37 centers). Dipyridamole was used in 139 centers (77.6%); exercise in 120 centers (67.0%); dobutamine in 153 centers (85.4%); pacing in 37 centers (21.1%); and adenosine in 7 centers (4.0%). We found a significant difference between the stressors used and volume of activity of the centers, with a progressive increase in the prevalence of number of stressors from low to high volume activity (P = 0.033). The traditional evaluation of regional wall motion of the left ventricle was performed in all centers, with combined assessment of coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) in 90 centers (50.3%): there was a significant difference in the centers with different volume of SE activity: the incidence of analysis of CFVR was significantly higher in high volume centers compared to low - moderate - volume (32.5%, 41.0% and 73.0%, respectively, P < 0.001). The lung ultrasound (LUS) was assessed in 67 centers (37.4%). Furthermore for LUS, we found a significant difference in the centers with different volume of SE activity: significantly higher in high volume centers compared to low - moderate - volume (25.0%, 35.3% and 56.8%, respectively, P < 0.001). Conclusions: This nationwide survey demonstrated that SE was significantly widespread and practiced throughout Italy. In addition to the traditional indication to coronary artery disease based on regional wall motion analysis, other indications are emerging with an increase in the use of LUS and CFVR, especially in high-volume centers.

Reshaping of Italian Echocardiographic Laboratories Activities during the Second Wave of COVID-19 Pandemic and Expectations for the Post-Pandemic Era.

BACKGROUND: Cardiology divisions reshaped their activities during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study aimed to analyze the organization of echocardiographic laboratories and echocardiography practice during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy, and the expectations for the post-COVID era. METHODS: We analyzed two different time periods: the month of November during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020) and the identical month during 2019 (November 2019). RESULTS: During the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the hospital activity was partially reduced in 42 (60%) and wholly interrupted in 3 (4%) echocardiographic laboratories, whereas outpatient echocardiographic activity was partially reduced in 41 (59%) and completely interrupted in 7 (10%) laboratories. We observed an important change in the organization of activities in the echocardiography laboratory which reduced the operator-risk and improved self-protection of operators by using appropriate personal protection equipment. Operators wore FFP2 in 58 centers (83%) during trans-thoracic echocardiography (TTE), in 65 centers (93%) during transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and 63 centers (90%) during stress echocardiography. The second wave caused a significant reduction in number of echocardiographic exams, compared to November 2019 (from 513 ± 539 to 341 ± 299 exams per center, -34%, p < 0.001). On average, there was a significant increase in the outpatient waiting list for elective echocardiographic exams (from 32.0 ± 28.1 to 45.5 ± 44.9 days, +41%, p < 0.001), with a reduction of in-hospital waiting list (2.9 ± 2.4 to 2.4 ± 2.0 days, -17%, p < 0.001). We observed a large diffusion of point-of-care cardiac ultrasound (88%), with a significant increase of lung ultrasound usage in 30 centers (43%) during 2019, extended to all centers in 2020. Carbon dioxide production by examination is an indicator of the environmental impact of technology (100-fold less with echocardiography compared to other cardiac imaging techniques). It was ignored in 2019 by 100% of centers, and currently it is considered potentially crucial for decision-making in cardiac imaging by 65 centers (93%). CONCLUSIONS: In one year, major changes occurred in echocardiography practice and culture. The examination structure changed with extensive usage of point-of-care cardiac ultrasound and with lung ultrasound embedded by default in the TTE examination, as well as the COVID-19 testing.

Heart valve calcification and cardiac hemodynamics.

PURPOSE: Heart valve calcification (VC) is associated with increased cardiovascular risk, but the hemodynamic and functional profile of patients affected by VC has not been fully explored. METHODS: The study population was formed by consecutive unselected patients included in seven echocardiographic laboratories in a 2-week period. A comprehensive echocardiographic examination was performed. VC was defined by the presence of calcification on at least one valve. RESULTS: Population was formed of 1098 patients (mean age 65 ± 15 years; 47% female). VC was present in 31% of the overall population. Compared with subjects without VC, VC patients were older (60 ± 14 vs 75 ± 9; P < .0001), had more hypertension (40% vs 57%; P = .0005), diabetes (11% vs 18%; P = .002), coronary artery disease (22% vs 38%; P = .04), and chronic kidney disease (4% vs 8%; P = .007). Furthermore, VC patients had lower ejection fraction (55 ± 14 vs 53 ± 25; P < .0001), worse diastolic function (E/e' 8.5 ± 4.6 vs 13.0 ± 7.1; P < .0001) and higher pulmonary artery pressure (29 ± 9 vs 37 ± 12; P < .0001). The association between VC and EF was not independent of etiology (p for VC 0.13), whereas the association with E/e' and PASP was independent in a full multivariate model (P < .0001 and P = .0002, respectively). CONCLUSION: Heart valve calcification patients were characterized by a worse functional and hemodynamic profile compared to patients with normal valve. The association between VC and diastolic function and PASP were independent in comprehensive multivariate models.

Refined 4-group classification of left ventricular hypertrophy based on ventricular concentricity and volume dilatation outlines distinct noninvasive hemodynamic profiles in a large contemporary echocardiographic population.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) may reflect a wide variety of physiologic and pathologic conditions. Thus, it can be misleading to consider all LVH to be homogenous or similar. Refined 4-group classification of LVH based on ventricular concentricity and dilatation may be identified. To determine whether the 4-group classification of LVH identified distinct phenotypes, we compared their association with various noninvasive markers of cardiac stress. METHODS: Cohort of unselected adult outpatients referred to a seven tertiary care echocardiographic laboratory for any indication in a 2-week period. We evaluated the LV geometric patterns using validated echocardiographic indexation methods and partition values. RESULTS: Standard echocardiography was performed in 1137 consecutive subjects, and LVH was found in 42%. The newly proposed 4-group classification of LVH was applicable in 88% of patients. The most common pattern resulted in concentric LVH (19%). The worst functional and hemodynamic profile was associated with eccentric LVH and those with mixed LVH had a higher prevalence of reduced EF than those with concentric LVH (P < .001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: The new 4-group classification of LVH system showed distinct differences in cardiac function and noninvasive hemodynamics allowing clinicians to distinguish different LV hemodynamic stress adaptations in patients with LVH.