First authors (publication year)
|
The definition of RV injury
|
Modality of RV assessment/Timing
|
Treatment of RV injury
|
Response to intervention (RV function/dimensions)
|
Banga
(2017) [9]
|
Not mentioned
|
---
|
Not mentioned
|
Not mentioned
|
Bleakley
(2021) [10]
|
TAPSE: < 17mm, RV FAC <35%, RV VTI <19cm, RV S’ <9.5cm/sec, RVFWLS >-22%
RV-PA coupling was also reported without specific cut-off (defined as FAC/RVSP). When defined as <1.0, 85.9% of patients with uncoupling while 46.9% had uncoupling with ≤ 0.6.
|
Echocardiography (not specified whether TTE or TEE)/within 24 hours
|
Not mentioned
|
Not mentioned
|
Cain
(2021) [11]
|
TAPSE was reported but RV dysfunction or dilatation were reported separately, and RV injury was not defined.
|
Echocardiography (not specified whether TTE or TEE)/Timing not specified.
|
VP ECMO
|
RV function and/or dimensions pre- and post- application of VP ECMO was not reported as VP ECMO was initiated from the outset.
VP ECMO: RV dysfunction 1/14, RV dilatation 0/14
IMV only: RV dysfunction 2/7, RV dilatation 1/7.
|
Cain
(2022) [12]
|
Defined by the discretion of providers certified in adult echocardiography at each participating institution; however, RV dysfunction was broadly defined as a composite of size ratio and elevated RV pressure or presence of septal dyskinesia on TTE or TEE.
|
TTE and TEE/during the hospitalization
|
Not mentioned
|
Not reported
|
El Banayosy
(2022) [13]
|
Not mentioned
|
---
|
VP ECMO
|
Not mentioned
|
Estoos
(2023) [14]
|
TAPSE < 17mm requiring positive inotropic support
|
Echocardiography (not specified whether TTE or TEE)/post-ECMO application.
|
An optimal PEEP strategy wherein PEEP was titrated daily using esophageal manometry to an end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure of 0–3 cm H2O throughout the ECMO run
|
Optimal PEEP group had significantly lower incidence of RV injury compared to standard PEEP group (4.6% vs. 44.0%).
|
Falk
(2021) [15]
|
RV failure was defined as end-diastolic dilatation of the right ventricle, or a TAPSE < 16 mm
|
Echocardiography (not specified whether TTE or TEE)/Timing not specified.
|
VA ECMO
|
No follow-up data on response to intervention
|
Ivins-O’keefe
(2022) [16]
|
RV dysfunction (RV dilatation, decreased RV FAC, decreased TAPSE, or interventricular septal shift) in the presence of normal or hyperdynamic LV systolic function with signs of hepatic congestion and or renal failure. (Cutoffs for RV FAC and TAPSE not provided)
|
Echocardiography (not specified whether TTE or TEE)/Timing not specified.
|
VP ECMO
|
Reduction in vasoactive drug requirements following mode conversion from VV to VP ECMO
|
Kelava
(2019) [17]
|
Not mentioned
|
---
|
Inotropes (+ inhaled epoprostenol or inhaled nitric oxide)
VA ECMO was not used as a RV specific intervention.
|
No available follow-up data on response to intervention
|
Khorsandi
(2022) [18]
|
TAPSE < 17mm or RV FAC < 35%
|
TTE/during the hospitalization.
|
Appropriate management of volume status, , positive inotropic agents, pulmonary vasodilators.
|
No available follow-up data on response to intervention
|
Kopanczyk
(2022) [19]
|
TAPSE: < 17mm, RV FAC <35%, RV S’ <9.5cm/sec, RVFWLS >-20%, RVEDD basal >4.2cm, RVEDD mid-cavity >3.5cm
|
Echocardiography (not specified whether TTE or TEE)/Timing not specified.
|
Not mentioned
|
Not mentioned
|
Kukreja
(2020) [20]
|
Not mentioned
|
---
|
VA ECMO for patients with RV dysfunction and/or PASP ≥ 50mm Hg.
|
No follow-up data on RV after an intervention
|
Lazzeri
(2017) [21]
|
TAPSE < 16mm
RV dilatation defined as RVEDA/LVEDA > 0.6
|
Echocardiography (not specified whether TTE or TEE)/Timing not specified/pre- and post- ECMO application
|
Not mentioned
|
Not mentioned
|
Lazzeri
(2016) [22]
|
TAPSE < 16mm
RV dilatation defined as RVEDA/LVEDA > 0.6
|
Echocardiography (not specified whether TTE or TEE)/Timing not specified/pre- and post- ECMO application
|
Not mentioned
|
Not mentioned
|
Lazzeri
(2018) [23]
|
TAPSE < 16mm
RV dilatation defined as RVEDA/LVEDA > 0.6
|
Echocardiography (not specified whether TTE or TEE)/Timing not specified/pre- and post- ECMO
|
Not mentioned
|
Not mentioned
|
Lazzeri
(2023) [24]
|
TAPSE < 15mm
RV dilatation defined as RVEDA/LVEDA > 0.6
|
Echocardiography (not specified whether TTE or TEE)/within 12 hours, 7 days and at discharge.
|
Not mentioned
|
Not mentioned
|
Lazzeri
(2023) [25]
|
TAPSE < 15mm
RV dilatation defined as RVEDA/LVEDA > 0.6
|
Echocardiography (not specified whether TTE or TEE)/ Immediately prior to ECMO application.
|
Not mentioned
|
Not mentioned
|
Lazzeri
(2023) [26]
|
TAPSE < 15mm
RV dilatation defined as RVEDA/LVEDA > 0.6
|
Echocardiography (not specified whether TTE or TEE)/ Immediately prior to ECMO application.
|
Not mentioned
|
Not mentioned
|
Lazzeri
(2022) [27]
|
TAPSE < 15mm
RV dilatation defined as RVEDA/LVEDA > 0.6
|
Echocardiography (TTE, TEE, or both)/During application of ECMO (53%).
|
Not mentioned
|
Not mentioned
|
Lazzeri
(2020) [28]
|
TAPSE < 16mm
RV hypertrophy defined as RV end-diastolic wall thickness of > 5mm
|
Echocardiography (TTE, TEE, or both)/Prior to application of ECMO.
|
Not mentioned
|
Not mentioned
|
Lazzeri
(2016) [29]
|
TAPSE < 15mm
RV dilatation defined as RVEDA/LVEDA > 0.6
|
Echocardiography (TTE, TEE, or both)/Prior to application of ECMO.
|
Not mentioned
|
Not mentioned
|
Lee
(2022) [30]
|
Not mentioned
|
---
|
VP ECMO
|
VP ECMO improved pulmonary hemodynamics compared to VV ECMO.
|
Lee
(2021) [31]
|
Not mentioned
|
Echocardiography (not specified whether TTE or TEE)/After ECMO application.
|
VP ECMO
|
The mean PAP was not different before and after application of VP ECMO, but the peak TR velocity significantly decreased (3.9 vs. 2.9 m/s; P=0.027). MAP significantly increased after application of VP ECMO (70.5 vs. 83 mmHg; P=0.001). HR significantly decreased after application of VP ECMO (113 vs. 79 bpm; P=0.001). Lactic acid levels and norepinephrine dose before and after application of VP ECMO also decreased (Lactate level: 2.3 vs. 1.4 mmol/L; P=0.001; Norepinephrine dose: 0.1 vs. 0 µg/kg/min; P=0.002). T-bilirubin was also significantly decreased after application of VP ECMO (2.1 vs. 1.0mg/dL; P=0.005).
|
Maharaj
(2022) [32]
|
RV FAC < 35%
Median RV FAC (30.1% vs. 11.3% in survivors vs. non-survivors)
|
Echocardiography (not specified whether TTE or TEE /within 24 hours from ECMO application (mean 16 hours and 58 minutes)
|
Not mentioned (VA ECMO was mentioned but not as a RV- specific intervention)
|
No available follow-up data on response to intervention
|
Nam
(2019) [33]
|
Not mentioned
|
---
|
Central VA ECMO
|
No available follow-up data on response to intervention
|
Ortiz
(2020) [34]
|
Defined by the echocardiographic presence of both a dilated RV (visual assessment) and abnormal septal motion.
|
Echocardiography (TTE and TEE)/post-cannulation (if multiple echocardiograms performed, the earliest post-cannulation echocardiogram was used)
|
Not mentioned
|
No follow-up data on RV after an intervention
|
Pettenuzzo
(2020) [35]
|
Defined as TAPSE < 17 mm, RV S’ < 9.5 cm/sec, or RVFAC < 35%
|
Echocardiography (not specified whether TTE or TEE)/58% after ECMO application;
31% before ECMO application;
11%: after ECMO application
|
Not mentioned
|
Not mentioned
|
Pettenuzzo
(2021) [36]
|
Defined as TAPSE < 17 mm, RV S’ < 9.5 cm/sec, or RVFAC < 35%
|
Echocardiography (not specified whether TTE or TEE)/After ECMO application.
|
Ultra-lung-protective ventilation
|
No change in RV diameter and RV systolic function (TAPSE, RV TDI S’, RVFAC)
|
Smith
(2022) [37]
|
RV systolic or diastolic wall motion abnormalities, new or worsening TR, elevated CVP or PAP, and RA dilatation (no specific cutoffs provided).
|
Echocardiography (not specified whether TTE or TEE)/Timing not specified.
|
VP ECMO
|
No follow-up data on RV after an intervention
|
Vogel
(2021) [38]
|
TAPSE <17mm or RV S’ < 9.5 cm/sec
|
Echocardiography (TTE)/After ECMO application
|
Not mentioned
|
Not mentioned
|