﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.1 20151215//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.1/JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" dtd-version="1.1" specific-use="sps-1.9" article-type="research-article" xml:lang="en">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">abcimg</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>ABC Imagem Cardiovascular</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">Arq Bras Cardiol: Imagem cardiovasc.</abbrev-journal-title></journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">2675-312X</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name>Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia</publisher-name></publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.36660/abcimg.20250022i</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">abcimg.20250022i</article-id>
<article-categories>
<subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
<subject>Original Article</subject>
</subj-group>
</article-categories>
<title-group>
<article-title>Assessment of Interrater Reliability in Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Assessing Congestion in Cardiovascular Intensive Care</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0001-6409-2109</contrib-id>
<name><surname>Saadi</surname><given-names>Marina Petersen</given-names></name>
<role>Conception and design of the research</role>
<role>acquisition of data</role>
<role>analysis and interpretation of the data</role>
<role>statistical analysis</role>
<role>writing of the manuscript</role>
<role>critical revision of the manuscript for intellectual content</role>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref>
<xref ref-type="corresp" rid="c1"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0002-5514-2562</contrib-id>
<name><surname>Machado</surname><given-names>Guilherme Pinheiro</given-names></name>
<role>Conception and design of the research</role>
<role>analysis and interpretation of the data</role>
<role>statistical analysis</role>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0001-7264-8277</contrib-id>
<name><surname>Silvano</surname><given-names>Gustavo Paes</given-names></name>
<role>Conception and design of the research</role>
<role>acquisition of data</role>
<role>analysis and interpretation of the data</role>
<role>statistical analysis</role>
<role>writing of the manuscript</role>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0002-1568-5124</contrib-id>
<name><surname>Barbato</surname><given-names>João Pedro da Rosa</given-names></name>
<role>acquisition of data</role>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0009-0003-5918-0739</contrib-id>
<name><surname>Almeida</surname><given-names>Renato Ferraz</given-names></name>
<role>acquisition of data</role>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0003-2150-6337</contrib-id>
<name><surname>Scolari</surname><given-names>Fernando Luis</given-names></name>
<role>critical revision of the manuscript for intellectual content</role>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0009-0005-2414-9453</contrib-id>
<name><surname>Telo</surname><given-names>Guilherme Heiden</given-names></name>
<role>Conception and design of the research</role>
<role>analysis and interpretation of the data</role>
<role>critical revision of the manuscript for intellectual content</role>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0002-0327-3392</contrib-id>
<name><surname>Silveira</surname><given-names>Anderson Donelli da</given-names></name>
<role>Conception and design of the research</role>
<role>critical revision of the manuscript for intellectual content</role>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref>
</contrib>
<aff id="aff1">
<label>1</label>
<institution content-type="orgname">Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre</institution>
<addr-line>
<named-content content-type="city">Porto Alegre</named-content>
<named-content content-type="state">RS</named-content>
</addr-line>
<country country="BR">Brazil</country>
<institution content-type="original">Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, RS – Brazil</institution>
</aff>
<aff id="aff2">
<label>2</label>
<institution content-type="orgname">Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul</institution>
<addr-line>
<named-content content-type="city">Porto Alegre</named-content>
<named-content content-type="state">RS</named-content>
</addr-line>
<country country="BR">Brazil</country>
<institution content-type="original">Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS – Brazil</institution>
</aff>
</contrib-group>
<author-notes>
<corresp id="c1"><label>Mailing Address:</label> <bold>Marina Petersen Saadi</bold> • Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre. Rua Ramiro Barcelos, 2350. Postal code: <postal-code>90410-000</postal-code>. Porto Alegre, RS – Brazil E-mail: <email>marinapsaadi@gmail.com</email></corresp>
<fn fn-type="edited-by"><label>Editor responsible for the review:</label> <p>Marcelo Tavares</p></fn>
<fn fn-type="conflict"><label>Potential Conflict of Interest</label>
<p>No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.</p></fn>
</author-notes>
<pub-date publication-format="electronic" date-type="pub">
<day>27</day>
<month>06</month>
<year>2025</year></pub-date>
<pub-date publication-format="electronic" date-type="collection">
<year>2025</year></pub-date>
<volume>38</volume>
<issue>2</issue>
<elocation-id>e20250022</elocation-id>
<history>
<date date-type="received">
<day>17</day>
<month>04</month>
<year>2025</year>
</date>
<date date-type="rev-recd">
<day>17</day>
<month>04</month>
<year>2025</year>
</date>
<date date-type="accepted">
<day>18</day>
<month>04</month>
<year>2025</year>
</date>
</history>
<permissions>
<license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xml:lang="en">
<license-p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License</license-p>
</license>
</permissions>
<abstract>
<title>Abstract</title>
<sec>
<title>Background:</title>
<p>The assessment of congestion is critical for managing patients with cardiovascular conditions, including heart failure (HF). Traditional methods often lack sensitivity, whereas point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) provides an objective bedside alternative.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Objective:</title>
<p>To evaluate the interrater reliability (IRR) of key POCUS variables used to assess hemodynamic, pulmonary, and venous congestion.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Methods:</title>
<p>This single-center, prospective study was conducted from January to June 2023 in a cardiovascular intensive care unit (CICU) in Brazil. Adult patients underwent standardized POCUS examinations. Three trained investigators independently assessed lung ultrasound (LUS) (B-lines), left ventricular filling pressures (LVFP) (E/A and E/e′ ratios), inferior vena cava (IVC) measurements, hepatic and portal vein Doppler flow, and modified Venous Excess Ultrasound (mVExUS) Score. IRR was analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Results:</title>
<p>A total of 23 patients were included, with a median age of 65 years, each undergoing three independent POCUS examinations (69 total assessments). LUS and IVC measurements showed excellent IRR (ICC 0.903). Hepatic and portal vein flows demonstrated good IRR (ICCs 0.808 and 0.796, respectively). mVExUS grading achieved the highest IRR (ICC 0.957). The E wave showed excellent IRR (ICC 0.934), while the A wave and e′ velocity had lower IRRs (0.512 and 0.399, respectively). E/e′ and E/A ratios demonstrated moderate-to-good IRR (ICCs 0.662 and 0.852, respectively). The median exam duration was 10 minutes.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Conclusion:</title>
<p>POCUS variables demonstrated high reproducibility, particularly for LUS and mVExUS. The reproducibility of LUS and mVExUS was higher than that of LVFP parameters, suggesting they may be more reliable than traditional measures such as E/e′. These findings support the use of POCUS for standardized assessment of congestion. Further studies are needed to validate its prognostic value.</p>
</sec>
</abstract>
<kwd-group xml:lang="en">
<title>Keywords:</title>
<kwd>Ultrasonics</kwd>
<kwd>Intensive Care Units</kwd>
<kwd>Heart Failure</kwd>
<kwd>VExUs, modified VExUS</kwd>
</kwd-group>
<counts>
<fig-count count="8"/>
<table-count count="4"/>
<equation-count count="0"/>
<ref-count count="30"/>
</counts>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<sec sec-type="intro">
<title>Introduction</title>
<p>Accurate assessment of hemodynamic and fluid status is critical in critically ill patients, particularly those with cardiovascular diseases such as heart failure (HF).<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">1</xref></sup> Traditional approaches, including clinical examination and radiological imaging, often fail to provide precise information due to their subjective nature and limited sensitivity,<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">2</xref></sup> highlighting the need for more objective bedside tools. Lung ultrasound (LUS), echocardiography (TTE), and derived parameters have been developed to enhance the evaluation of these patients.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">3</xref></sup></p>
<p>LUS has been widely used for over a decade and has demonstrated utility in detecting pulmonary congestion, particularly in HF.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">4</xref>–<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">6</xref></sup> However, the appearance of B-lines is not exclusive to pulmonary edema and can sometimes be misleading. Therefore, combining LUS findings with other congestion parameters is recommended.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">7</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">8</xref></sup> TTE enables the assessment of hemodynamic congestion through parameters such as the transmitral flow (E/A ratio) and the E/e′ ratio. These relatively simple TTE measures are easy to learn and can be applied at the bedside.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">8</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">9</xref></sup> Venous Excess Ultrasound (VExUS) Score is used to assess systemic venous congestion by evaluating the size and flow patterns of the inferior vena cava (IVC), hepatic vein, and renal vein. Evaluation of systemic congestion through VExUS has also proven useful in predicting cardiorenal syndrome (CRS).<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">10</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">11</xref></sup> Integrating pulmonary and hemodynamic congestion parameters, particularly the E/e′ ratio, has been shown to be more accurate than LUS alone for diagnosing HF in emergency settings.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">12</xref></sup> Adding systemic congestion parameters would likely further enhance diagnostic accuracy.</p>
<fig id="f4">
<caption>
<title>Key POCUS parameters assessed in this study included LVFP, LUS, IVC measurements, and venous congestion evaluation using the mVExUS Score.</title>
<p>The variables analyzed were E/A and E/e’ ratios for LVFP, B-lines for LUS, IVC diameter and collapsibility, and hepatic vein (HV) and portal vein (PV) Doppler assessments for mVExUS. Created with BioRender.com.</p></caption>
<graphic xlink:href="2675-312X-abcimg-38-02-e20250022-gf04.tif"/>
</fig>
<p>Despite its growing use, the reproducibility of individual point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) components remains a concern. Interrater reliability (IRR) is essential to ensure consistency across different operators and clinical settings. Most previous studies have evaluated pulmonary, hemodynamic, and systemic congestion parameters individually, aiming to correlate them with congestion severity or clinical outcomes. However, it is important to determine whether the POCUS variables commonly used for congestion assessment demonstrate good IRR and whether the combined evaluation of these selected parameters is feasible in clinical practice.</p>
<p>This study aims to evaluate the IRR of key POCUS variables — specifically LUS, left ventricular filling pressure (LVFP) parameters (E/A and E/e′ ratios), IVC measurements, hepatic and portal venous Doppler assessments, and modified VExUS grading (mVExUS) — in patients admitted to a cardiovascular intensive care unit (CICU), assessing their potential for standardized bedside application (Central Illustration).</p>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="methods">
<title>Methods</title>
<sec>
<title>Study design</title>
<p>This was a single-center, prospective study conducted in the CICU at a tertiary hospital in Brazil. The study period spanned from January to June 2023 and included adult patients (≥18 years) admitted with various cardiovascular conditions, including HF, acute coronary syndromes, and arrhythmias. The only exclusion criterion was lack of consent to participate.</p>
<p>The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA) under approval no. 6.468.353 and conducted in accordance with the Brazilian National Health Council Resolution no. 466/12.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Ultrasound assessment</title>
<p>US examinations were performed using a portable US machine (Mindray ME Series; Shenzhen, China) equipped with a 2.5-MHz phased-array sector transducer. Patients were positioned supine with a 30-degree head elevation to standardize imaging conditions. Vital signs were recorded immediately before each evaluation to ensure consistency in hemodynamic status during the examinations. All assessments were conducted with concurrent ECG monitoring. Investigators were blinded to each other&apos;s results to minimize bias.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Ultrasound parameters</title>
<p>The following key parameters commonly used to assess pulmonary, hemodynamic, and systemic venous congestion were assessed:</p>
<list list-type="bullet">
<list-item><p>LUS: assessment of B-lines in eight lung zones.</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>LVFP: measurement of E/A and E/e′ ratios from the apical four-chamber view.</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>IVC: measurement of diameter and collapsibility index.</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>Venous Doppler: assessment of hepatic and portal venous flow patterns using pulsed-wave Doppler (PWD).</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>mVExUS: grading modified VExUS score based on findings from hepatic and portal venous Doppler flow.</p></list-item>
</list>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Assessment of hemodynamic congestion</title>
<p>The objective of the hemodynamic evaluation was to detect an increased LVFP. From the apical four-chamber view, the mitral inflow pattern was assessed using PWD at the tips of the mitral valve leaflets. The E/A ratio was categorized into three grades: grade 1 (E/A ≤0.8 and E velocity ≤50 cm/s), considered normal; grade 3 (E/A ≥2), indicating elevated LVFP; and grade 2 (E/A ≤0.8 with E velocity &gt;50 cm/s, or E/A between 0.8 and 2), classified as indeterminate. In cases with a grade 2 E/A ratio, the septal E/e′ ratio was used to further differentiate between normal and elevated LVFP.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">13</xref></sup></p>
<p>In the same apical four-chamber view, with angulation to align with the interventricular septum, the medial e′ velocity was measured at the mitral annulus using PWD after tissue Doppler imaging (TDI).<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">14</xref></sup> Medial e′ was selected for its feasibility and because most published data on the E/e′ ratio are based on this measurement. It is considered the most reliable parameter for estimating LVFP.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">15</xref></sup> Increased LVFP was defined as medial E/e′ &gt;15 in sinus rhythm or &gt;11 in atrial fibrillation (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f1">Figure 1</xref>).<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">16</xref></sup></p>
<fig id="f1">
<label>Figure 1</label>
<caption>
<title>The aim of the hemodynamic evaluation is to identify elevated LVFP.</title>
<p>The E/A ratio is categorized into three grades, reflecting different levels of LVFP. Patients with a grade 1 E/A ratio are assumed to have normal LVFP, while those with a grade 3 E/A ratio (restrictive pattern) are associated with elevated LVFP. For patients with a grade 2 E/A ratio, the septal E/e’ ratio is used to differentiate between normal and elevated LVFP. RV: right ventricle; RA: right atrium; LV: left ventricle; LA: left atrium; FP: LVFP: left ventricular filling pressures; SR: sinus rhythm; AF:atrial fibrillation.</p></caption>
<graphic xlink:href="2675-312X-abcimg-38-02-e20250022-gf01.tif"/>
		     </fig>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Assessment of lung congestion</title>
<p>The chest wall was divided into eight zones, with one scan obtained for each zone. The cardiac transducer was positioned perpendicularly to the ribs along the intercostal spaces, at a depth of approximately 12-18 cm depending on body habitus.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">17</xref></sup> Each zone (two anterior and two lateral per hemithorax) was evaluated independently. A zone was considered positive if three or more B-lines were present, and pulmonary congestion was assumed when two or more zones were positive (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f2">Figure 2</xref>).<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">6</xref></sup></p>
<fig id="f2">
<label>Figure 2</label>
<caption>
<title>For assessing lung congestion, the chest wall is divided into eight zones, with one scan obtained for each zone.</title>
<p>Each zone (two anterior and two lateral per hemithorax) is evaluated independently. A zone is considered positive if three or more B-lines are present, and pulmonary congestion is assumed when two or more zones are positive.</p></caption>
<graphic xlink:href="2675-312X-abcimg-38-02-e20250022-gf02.tif"/>
</fig>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Assessment of peripheral venous congestion</title>
<p>The final step included the evaluation of IVC for diameter and collapsibility, along with hepatic and portal venous flows assessed using PWD.</p>
<p>The IVC was evaluated through the subcostal window, approximately 1 cm caudal to its junction with the hepatic vein, to estimate central venous pressure (CVP). CVP was inferred based on IVC diameter and inspiratory variability: a normal CVP of approximately 3 mmHg was suggested when both an IVC diameter ≤2.1 cm and collapsibility ≥50% were present; conversely, an IVC diameter &gt;2.1 cm with &lt;50% collapsibility corresponded to a CVP of approximately 15 mmHg. An intermediate CVP of around 8 mmHg was assigned when only one of these two criteria was met.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">18</xref></sup></p>
<p>If the IVC diameter was ≥2 cm, a modified VExUS assessment was performed using hepatic and portal vein Doppler evaluations. PWD was used in the hepatic vein to assess flow patterns, graded as follows: grade 1 (normal) when the systolic (S) wave was higher than the diastolic (D) wave; grade 2 (mild congestion) when the S wave was lower than the D wave; and grade 3 (severe congestion) when S-wave reversal was present. Portal vein flow was also assessed with PWD and classified into three grades: grade 1 (normal) if nonpulsatile with a maximum-minimum velocity variability &lt;30%; grade 2 (mild congestion) if the pulsatility index was between 30-50%; and grade 3 (severe congestion) if the pulsatility index was ≥50%.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">11</xref></sup></p>
<p>Venous congestion severity by mVExUS was classified into four grades based on IVC diameter and PWD findings. A non-dilated IVC (&lt;2 cm) indicated no significant venous congestion (grade 0). An IVC diameter ≥2 cm with normal or mildly abnormal hepatic or portal vein flow corresponded to mild congestion (grade 1). A plethoric IVC associated with one severely abnormal venous flow pattern (either S-wave reversal in the hepatic vein or ≥50% pulsatility index in the portal vein) defined moderate congestion (grade 2). Severe congestion (grade 3) was diagnosed when severely abnormal flow patterns were present in both the hepatic and portal veins (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f3">Figure 3</xref>).<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">19</xref></sup></p>
<fig id="f3">
<label>Figure 3</label>
<caption>
<title>Venous congestion by mVExUS is classified into four grades based on IVC assessment and PWD findings.</title>
<p>A nondilated IVC (&lt;2 cm) indicates no significant venous congestion (grade 0). When the IVC is ≥2 cm with normal or mildly abnormal findings on hepatic or portal vein Doppler, congestion is considered mild (grade 1). A plethoric IVC associated with one severely abnormal pattern (S-wave reversal in the hepatic vein or ≥50% pulsatility index in the portal vein) defines moderate congestion (grade 2). Severe congestion (grade 3) is indicated by severely abnormal flow patterns in both hepatic and portal veins. IVC: inferior vena cava; RAP: mVExUS: modified Venous Excess Ultrasound; HV: hepatic vein; PV: portal vein.</p></caption>
<graphic xlink:href="2675-312X-abcimg-38-02-e20250022-gf03.tif"/>
</fig>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Assessment of IRR</title>
<p>Three trained investigators, blinded to each other&apos;s evaluations, independently performed real-time POCUS assessments to evaluate IRR. All investigators had received standardized training, consisting of a 4-hour theoretical-practical session followed by a one-month supervised period in the CICU. During this time, each cardiology resident completed at least 50 ultrasound examinations. Exams were not recorded, thereby eliminating retrospective bias and ensuring that IRR reflected real-world clinical practice.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Difficulty scoring</title>
<p>To further characterize the practical applicability of the US protocol, each investigator rated the difficulty of each patient&apos;s assessment as easy, average, or hard. An &quot;easy&quot; assessment was defined by clear imaging and straightforward interpretation; an &quot;average&quot; assessment required moderate effort and interpretation; and a &quot;hard&quot; assessment involved significant challenges related to imaging acquisition or interpretation. This subjective evaluation provided additional insight into the feasibility of protocol implementation across varying patient anatomies and clinical conditions.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Statistical analysis</title>
<p>Sample size was calculated assuming a minimum acceptable intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.65 and an expected ICC of 0.90. With three raters per subject, a sample of 23 patients provided 90% power at a 0.01 significance level. Continuous variables were reported as mean (standard deviation [SD]) or median (interquartile range [IQR]), according to distribution symmetry assessed by the Shapiro-Wilk test. Categorical variables were presented as absolute and relative frequencies. ICCs were calculated using a two-way mixed-effects model to assess agreement among the three raters for both continuous and ordinal variables. IRR was classified as poor (&lt;0.50), moderate (0.50-0.75), good (0.75-0.90), or excellent (&gt;0.90). Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics for macOS, version 29.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), with significance set at 0.05 (two-tailed).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="results">
<title>Results</title>
<p>Between January and June 2023, 23 patients were enrolled in the study. Each patient underwent three independent POCUS assessments, resulting in a total of 69 ultrasound examinations evaluated for IRR. The median age was 65 years (IQR, 53-70), and 60.9% were male. Most admissions to the CICU were due to decompensated HF (65%), followed by ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (17%). Parenteral vasodilators were used in 43.5% of patients, inotropes in 21.7%, and vasopressors in 13%.</p>
<p>Regarding cardiac function, 17.4% of patients had preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), while 82.6% exhibited reduced LVEF (≤50%). HF etiology was classified as ischemic in 39.1%, nonischemic in 30.4%, and valvular due to severe aortic stenosis in 8.7%. The median LVEF was 33.5% (IQR, 21.7-46.2). During the ultrasound examinations, atrial fibrillation was present in 9% of patients, left bundle branch block in 13%, and 17.4% had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Severe or moderate mitral regurgitation was observed in 43.5% of patients, and severe or moderate tricuspid regurgitation in 39.1%.</p>
<p>A detailed description of the demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population is provided in <xref ref-type="table" rid="t1">Table 1</xref>, while <xref ref-type="app" rid="app1">Appendix Table 1</xref> and <xref ref-type="app" rid="app1">Appendix Table 2</xref> summarize POCUS measurements.</p>
<table-wrap id="t1">
<label>Table 1</label>
<caption>
<title>Clinical characteristics of the sample</title></caption>
<table frame="hsides" rules="groups">
<colgroup width="33%">
<col width="1%"/>
<col/>
<col/>
</colgroup>
<thead style="border-top: thin solid; border-bottom: thin solid; border-color: #000000">
<tr style="background-color:#BE8873;">
<th align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2">Variable</th>
<th align="center" valign="middle">Total (n = 23)</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody style="border-bottom: thin solid; border-color: #000000">
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Age, years</bold></td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">65 (53-70)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Male sex (n, %)</bold></td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">14 (60.9%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Smoking status</bold></td>
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Active smoker (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">2 (8.7%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Former smoker (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">7 (30.4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>HF etiology</bold></td>
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Preserved ejection fraction (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">4 (17.4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Ischemic (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">9 (39.1%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Nonischemic (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">7 (30.4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Aortic stenosis (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">2 (8.7%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Previous myocardial infarction (n, %)</bold></td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">13 (56.5%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (n, %)</bold></td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">4 (17.4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Atrial fibrillation (n, %)</bold></td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">2 (8.7%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Left bundle branch block (n, %)</bold></td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">3 (13%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>LVEF, %</bold></td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">33.5 (21.7-46.2)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Severe or moderate mitral regurgitation (n, %)</bold></td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">10 (43.5%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Severe or moderate tricuspid regurgitation (n, %)</bold></td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">9 (39.1%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Diagnosis at admission</bold></td>
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Decompensated HF (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">15 (65.3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Acute STEMI (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">4 (17.4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Unstable angina (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">1 (4.3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Cardiogenic shock (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">1 (4.3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Complete atrioventricular block (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">1 (4.3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Post-percutaneous coronary intervention (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">1 (4.3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Parenteral drugs</bold></td>
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Vasopressor (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">3 (13%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Venodilator (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">10 (43.5%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Inotropic (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">5 (21.7%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Creatinine, mg/dL</bold></td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">2 (1.2-2.6%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Brain natriuretic peptide, pg/mL</bold></td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">1375 (218.5-2668.5)</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table-wrap-foot>
<fn id="TFN1">
<p>Results are expressed as n (%) or median (interquartile range). HF: heart failure; STEMI: ST-elevation myocardial infarction; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction.</p></fn>
</table-wrap-foot>
</table-wrap>
<sec>
<title>IRR</title>
<p>Regarding the IRR of US measurements, excellent agreement was observed for lung positive zone assessments (ICC, 0.903; 95% CI, 0.818-0.954; p&lt;0.001) and IVC measurements (ICC, 0.903; 95% CI, 0.820-0.954; p&lt;0.001), indicating consistent evaluations for pulmonary congestion assessment and CVP estimation.</p>
<p>Subsequent analyses of venous congestion components, including hepatic vein flow, portal vein flow, and mVExUS grading, also demonstrated substantial IRR. Hepatic vein assessment yielded an ICC of 0.808 (95% CI, 0.662-0.906; p&lt;0.001), while portal vein assessment showed an ICC of 0.796 (95% CI, 0.641-0.899; p&lt;0.001). mVExUS grading, reflecting an integrated evaluation of venous congestion, exhibited the highest IRR with an ICC of 0.957 (95% CI, 0.914-0.981; p&lt;0.001) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t2">Table 2</xref>).</p>
<table-wrap id="t2">
<label>Table 2</label>
<caption>
<title>IRR for each POCUS parameter</title></caption>
<table frame="hsides" rules="groups">
<colgroup width="25%">
<col/>
<col/>
<col/>
<col/>
</colgroup>
<thead style="border-top: thin solid; border-bottom: thin solid; border-color: #000000">
<tr style="background-color:#BE8873;">
<th align="left" valign="middle">Variable</th>
<th align="center" valign="middle">ICC</th>
<th align="center" valign="middle">95% CI</th>
<th align="center" valign="middle">p-value</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody style="border-bottom: thin solid; border-color: #000000">
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Lung positive zones</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.903</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.818-0.954</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0.001</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle">IVC</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.903</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.820-0.954</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0.001</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle">CVP estimation</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.955</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.817-0.954</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0.001</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle">E wave</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.934</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.873-0.969</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0.001</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle">A wave</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.512</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.176-0.799</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0.001</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle">Septal e’ wave</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.399</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.146-0.650</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0.001</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle">E/A ratio</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.852</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.731-0.928</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0.001</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle">E/e’ ratio</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.662</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.449-0.824</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0.001</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Hepatic vein Doppler</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.808</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.662-0.906</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0.001</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle">Portal vein Doppler</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.796</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.641-0.899</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0.001</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle">mVExUS grading</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.957</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.914-0.981</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0.001</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle">LVOT-VTI</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.820</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.680- 0.912</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0.001</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Difficulty rating</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.298</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.030-0.584</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0.014</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table-wrap-foot>
<fn id="TFN2">
<p>CI: confidence interval; CVP: central venous pressure; ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient; mVExUS: modified Venous Excess Ultrasound Score; LVOT-VTI: left ventricular outflow tract velocity-time integral; IVC: inferior vena cava.</p></fn>
</table-wrap-foot>
</table-wrap>
<p>Further assessments of hemodynamic congestion parameters revealed varying levels of IRR. The E wave demonstrated excellent consistency, with an ICC of 0.934 (95% CI, 0.873-0.969; p&lt;0.001). In contrast, the A wave and septal e′ velocity showed lower IRR, with ICCs of 0.512 (95% CI, 0.176-0.799; p&lt;0.001) and 0.399 (95% CI, 0.146-0.650; p&lt;0.001), respectively. Despite the lower IRR of isolated e′ measurements, the E/e′ ratio demonstrated moderate IRR (ICC, 0.662; 95% CI, 0.449-0.824; p&lt;0.001). The overall classification of the E/A ratio demonstrated good IRR, with an ICC of 0.852 (95% CI, 0.731-0.928; p&lt;0.001) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t2">Table 2</xref>). We additionally evaluated the interobserver agreement for the velocity-time integral (VTI) of the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT), which, although not part of the standard congestion assessment, has been widely used in ICU settings as a surrogate for cardiac output. Its reproducibility was considered good, with an ICC of 0.820 (95% CI: 0.680–0.912; p&lt;0.001).</p>
<p>The overall examination duration was 10.0 minutes (IQR, 8.0-12.0), reflecting the protocol&apos;s efficiency and highlighting its practicality for clinical settings where timely assessments are critical. The concise duration supports the feasibility of integrating the protocol into routine clinical workflows without significant disruption.</p>
<p>Overall, the ICC values for most parameters indicated good to excellent reproducibility among investigators, confirming the protocol&apos;s IRR for clinical application. A comprehensive summary of the ICC values for all assessed parameters is provided in <xref ref-type="app" rid="app1">Appendix Table 2</xref>.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Assessment difficulty</title>
<p>The difficulty ratings assigned by investigators varied, with most assessments classified as easy (50.7%), indicating that the protocol is generally manageable. An additional 36.2% of assessments were rated as average, suggesting the protocol is straightforward in many cases. Only 10.1% were rated as hard, indicating that the protocol remains a reliable tool even under suboptimal imaging conditions. These findings support its practical applicability and suggest it can be effectively implemented across diverse clinical settings, even when ideal acoustic windows are not available.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="discussion">
<title>Discussion</title>
<p>The results of this study underscore the high IRR of the proposed US protocol across its various components, with most ICC values ranging from good to excellent. Furthermore, the findings confirm the feasibility of implementing a novel protocol for hemodynamic assessment at the bedside within a CICU. The high ICC values for lung positive zone assessments indicate excellent IRR in evaluating pulmonary congestion, consistent with previous studies that have demonstrated substantial agreement among observers following short-term training.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">20</xref>–<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B22">22</xref></sup></p>
<p>The IVC diameter and collapsibility also demonstrated excellent IRR, reflecting consistent agreement in estimating CVP as low, normal, or high. However, it is well known that the accuracy of IVC measurements for CVP estimation is greater at the extremes of volume status and less reliable at intermediate values. Additionally, accuracy can be compromised in patients with comorbid conditions such as pulmonary or hepatic disease, obesity, or in those receiving positive pressure ventilation, leading to reduced clinical utility in these scenarios.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B23">23</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B24">24</xref></sup></p>
<p>Evaluating peripheral venous congestion using VExUS is valuable because, in addition to identifying systemic congestion and predicting CRS, it appears to correlate well with CVP.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B24">24</xref></sup> While the isolated assessment of hepatic and portal vein flows showed good IRR, mVExUS grading demonstrated even better agreement. Our results indicate that although observers did not always agree on the classification of specific hepatic or portal flow patterns, the mVExUS grading still exhibited excellent IRR. This suggests that, for mVExUS grading, the most critical factor is the identification of severely abnormal patterns that shift the congestion category.</p>
<p>Comparing our findings with those from previous studies evaluating IRR in VExUS, it is evident that available data are relatively scarce. One study reported an ICC of 0.83 (p&lt;0.001) for the overall VExUS grade, indicating substantial agreement among interpreters. For individual VExUS components, ICCs were 0.71 (p&lt;0.001) for the hepatic vein, 0.74 (p&lt;0.001) for the portal vein, and 0.48 (p&lt;0.001) for the renal vein, reflecting a range from poor to moderate IRR.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">25</xref></sup> Additionally, another study reported good IRR for portal pulsatility fraction assessment by transthoracic ECG, with a mean difference of 5.6% between repeated measurements and an ICC of 0.824 (p&lt;0.001).<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">26</xref></sup> This finding aligns with our results and highlights the robustness of portal vein assessments. In our study, similar patterns were observed, with even higher IRR for the hepatic and portal veins. This improvement may be attributed to the consistent use of ECG tracing during all examinations, a practice previously associated with increased concordance.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">25</xref></sup> Due to the previously reported poor concordance and time-consuming nature of renal vein assessment,<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">25</xref></sup> it was excluded from our protocol to streamline the process and improve IRR. This decision is further supported by evidence that a mVExUS score excluding renal venous Doppler has already been validated in patients with CRS admitted to the intensive care unit in a single-center prospective study.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">27</xref></sup></p>
<p>In the evaluation of hemodynamic congestion, the lower ICC values for the A wave and e′ measurements may be attributed to challenges such as patient tachycardia and the prevalence of arrhythmias during the study, both of which can affect the consistency of measurements related to atrial contraction and early diastolic velocities at the septal mitral annulus. Although TDI e′ velocity is generally more robust than transmitral flow assessment, it still presents challenges, particularly in patients with regional myocardial dysfunction.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">13</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B28">28</xref></sup> Measurement inconsistencies could also result from the US probe not being perfectly aligned parallel to the interventricular septum in the supine position. Including only patients with HF and reduced LVEF could potentially improve the performance and reproducibility of e′ measurements.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B29">29</xref></sup></p>
<p>The overall classification of the E/A ratio demonstrated good IRR, with an ICC of 0.852 (95% CI, 0.731-0.928; p&lt;0.001), while the evaluation of the E/e′ ratio showed moderate IRR (ICC, 0.662; 95% CI, 0.449-0.824; p&lt;0.001). Although the E/A and E/e′ ratios are widely used for the assessment of diastolic function in ECG and have been proposed for bedside application, their use by non-echocardiographers in clinical practice has not been extensively studied.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">15</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B30">30</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">14</xref></sup></p>
<sec>
<title>Strengths and limitations</title>
<p>This single-center study with a relatively small sample size may limit generalizability and sensitivity to detect subtle variations. Operator dependence could affect reproducibility in less experienced settings; however, the high ICCs observed suggest that adequate training mitigates this concern. Methodological rigor was maintained through real-time, blinded assessments performed by trained investigators, with ECG integration, minimizing biases typically associated with retrospective or video-based analyses. These strengths reinforce the robustness and clinical applicability of the evaluated POCUS variables.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="conclusions">
<title>Conclusion</title>
<p>This study demonstrates POCUS variables used to assess hemodynamic, pulmonary, and peripheral venous congestion exhibit high IRR across their components. High reproducibility was observed for lung positive zones, LVFP parameters, IVC measurements, and mVExUS grading. The reproducibility of LUS and mVExUS was higher than that of LVFP assessment, suggesting these parameters may offer greater consistency than traditional measures such as the E/e′ ratio.</p>
</sec>
</body>
<back>
<fn-group>
<fn fn-type="financial-disclosure" id="fn1">
<label>Sources of Funding</label>
<p>There were no external funding sources for this study.</p></fn>
<fn fn-type="other" id="fn2">
<label>Study Association</label>
<p>This article is part of the thesis of Doctoral submitted by Marina Petersen Saadi, from Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul.</p></fn>
<fn fn-type="other" id="fn3">
<label>Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate</label>
<p>This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre under the protocol number 6.468.353. All the procedures in this study were in accordance with the 1975 Helsinki Declaration, updated in 2013. Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.</p></fn>
<fn fn-type="other" id="fn4">
<label>Use of Artificial Intelligence</label>
<p>The authors did not use any artificial intelligence tools in the development of this work.</p></fn>
</fn-group>
<ack>
<title>Acknowledgements</title>
<p>We would like to thank the staff of the CICU at HCPA for their valuable support in facilitating this study. We also acknowledge the logistical and administrative support provided by the graduate coordination team at the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Finally, we thank all patients and their families who consented to participate and made this study possible.</p>
</ack>
<sec sec-type="data-availability" specific-use="data-available-upon-request">
<label>Research Data</label>
<p>All datasets supporting the results of this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.</p>
</sec>
<ref-list>
<title>References</title>
<ref id="B1">
<label>1</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>McDonagh</surname><given-names>TA</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Metra</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Adamo</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Gardner</surname><given-names>RS</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Baumbach</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Böhm</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name>
<etal/>
</person-group>
<article-title>2021 ESC Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure</article-title>
<source>Eur Heart J</source>
<year>2021</year>
<volume>42</volume>
<issue>36</issue>
<fpage>3599</fpage>
<lpage>3726</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/eurheartj/ehab368</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M, Gardner RS, Baumbach A, Böhm M, et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(36):3599-726. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab368.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B2">
<label>2</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Koratala</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Ronco</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Kazory</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Diagnosis of Fluid Overload: From Conventional to Contemporary Concepts</article-title>
<source>Cardiorenal Med</source>
<year>2022</year>
<volume>12</volume>
<issue>4</issue>
<fpage>141</fpage>
<lpage>154</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1159/000526902</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Koratala A, Ronco C, Kazory A. Diagnosis of Fluid Overload: From Conventional to Contemporary Concepts. Cardiorenal Med. 2022;12(4):141-54. doi: 10.1159/000526902.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B3">
<label>3</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Price</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Platz</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Cullen</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Tavazzi</surname><given-names>G</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Christ</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Cowie</surname><given-names>MR</given-names></name>
<etal/>
</person-group>
<article-title>Expert Consensus Document: Echocardiography and Lung Ultrasonography for the Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure</article-title>
<source>Nat Rev Cardiol</source>
<year>2017</year>
<volume>14</volume>
<issue>7</issue>
<fpage>427</fpage>
<lpage>440</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/nrcardio.2017.56</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Price S, Platz E, Cullen L, Tavazzi G, Christ M, Cowie MR, et al. Expert Consensus Document: Echocardiography and Lung Ultrasonography for the Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2017;14(7):427-40. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2017.56.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B4">
<label>4</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Platz</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Jhund</surname><given-names>PS</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Girerd</surname><given-names>N</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Pivetta</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name>
<name><surname>McMurray</surname><given-names>JJV</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Peacock</surname><given-names>WF</given-names></name>
<etal/>
</person-group>
<article-title>Expert Consensus Document: Reporting Checklist for Quantification of Pulmonary Congestion by Lung Ultrasound in Heart Failure</article-title>
<source>Eur J Heart Fail</source>
<year>2019</year>
<volume>21</volume>
<issue>7</issue>
<fpage>844</fpage>
<lpage>851</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1002/ejhf.1499</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Platz E, Jhund PS, Girerd N, Pivetta E, McMurray JJV, Peacock WF, et al. Expert Consensus Document: Reporting Checklist for Quantification of Pulmonary Congestion by Lung Ultrasound in Heart Failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019;21(7):844-51. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.1499.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B5">
<label>5</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Pivetta</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Goffi</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Nazerian</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Castagno</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Tozzetti</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Tizzani</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name>
<etal/>
</person-group>
<article-title>Lung Ultrasound Integrated with Clinical Assessment for the Diagnosis of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Trial</article-title>
<source>Eur J Heart Fail</source>
<year>2019</year>
<volume>21</volume>
<issue>6</issue>
<fpage>754</fpage>
<lpage>766</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1002/ejhf.1379</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Pivetta E, Goffi A, Nazerian P, Castagno D, Tozzetti C, Tizzani P, et al. Lung Ultrasound Integrated with Clinical Assessment for the Diagnosis of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019;21(6):754-66. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.1379.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B6">
<label>6</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Gargani</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Girerd</surname><given-names>N</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Platz</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Pellicori</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Stankovic</surname><given-names>I</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Palazzuoli</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name>
<etal/>
</person-group>
<article-title>Lung Ultrasound in Acute and Chronic Heart Failure: A Clinical Consensus Statement of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI)</article-title>
<source>Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging</source>
<year>2023</year>
<volume>24</volume>
<issue>12</issue>
<fpage>1569</fpage>
<lpage>1582</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/ehjci/jead169</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Gargani L, Girerd N, Platz E, Pellicori P, Stankovic I, Palazzuoli A, et al. Lung Ultrasound in Acute and Chronic Heart Failure: A Clinical Consensus Statement of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI). Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2023;24(12):1569-82. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jead169.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B7">
<label>7</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Öhman</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Harjola</surname><given-names>VP</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Karjalainen</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Lassus</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Assessment of Early Treatment Response by Rapid Cardiothoracic Ultrasound in Acute Heart Failure: Cardiac Filling Pressures, Pulmonary Congestion and Mortality</article-title>
<source>Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care</source>
<year>2018</year>
<volume>7</volume>
<issue>4</issue>
<fpage>311</fpage>
<lpage>320</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/2048872617708974</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Öhman J, Harjola VP, Karjalainen P, Lassus J. Assessment of Early Treatment Response by Rapid Cardiothoracic Ultrasound in Acute Heart Failure: Cardiac Filling Pressures, Pulmonary Congestion and Mortality. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2018;7(4):311-20. doi: 10.1177/2048872617708974.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B8">
<label>8</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Öhman</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Harjola</surname><given-names>VP</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Karjalainen</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Lassus</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Focused Echocardiography and Lung Ultrasound Protocol for Guiding Treatment in Acute Heart Failure</article-title>
<source>ESC Heart Fail</source>
<year>2018</year>
<volume>5</volume>
<issue>1</issue>
<fpage>120</fpage>
<lpage>128</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1002/ehf2.12208</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Öhman J, Harjola VP, Karjalainen P, Lassus J. Focused Echocardiography and Lung Ultrasound Protocol for Guiding Treatment in Acute Heart Failure. ESC Heart Fail. 2018;5(1):120-8. doi: 10.1002/ehf2.12208.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B9">
<label>9</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Nagueh</surname><given-names>SF</given-names></name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Non-Invasive Assessment of Left Ventricular Filling Pressure</article-title>
<source>Eur J Heart Fail</source>
<year>2018</year>
<volume>20</volume>
<issue>1</issue>
<fpage>38</fpage>
<lpage>48</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1002/ejhf.971</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Nagueh SF. Non-Invasive Assessment of Left Ventricular Filling Pressure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2018;20(1):38-48. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.971.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B10">
<label>10</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Beaubien-Souligny</surname><given-names>W</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Benkreira</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Robillard</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Bouabdallaoui</surname><given-names>N</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Chassé</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Desjardins</surname><given-names>G</given-names></name>
<etal/>
</person-group>
<article-title>Alterations in Portal Vein Flow and Intrarenal Venous Flow are Associated with Acute Kidney Injury after Cardiac Surgery: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study</article-title>
<source>J Am Heart Assoc</source>
<year>2018</year>
<volume>7</volume>
<issue>19</issue>
<elocation-id>e009961</elocation-id>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1161/JAHA.118.009961</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Beaubien-Souligny W, Benkreira A, Robillard P, Bouabdallaoui N, Chassé M, Desjardins G, et al. Alterations in Portal Vein Flow and Intrarenal Venous Flow are Associated with Acute Kidney Injury after Cardiac Surgery: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7(19):e009961. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.009961.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B11">
<label>11</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Beaubien-Souligny</surname><given-names>W</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Rola</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Haycock</surname><given-names>K</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Bouchard</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Lamarche</surname><given-names>Y</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Spiegel</surname><given-names>R</given-names></name>
<etal/>
</person-group>
<article-title>Quantifying Systemic Congestion with Point-Of-Care Ultrasound: Development of the Venous Excess Ultrasound Grading System</article-title>
<source>Ultrasound J</source>
<year>2020</year>
<volume>12</volume>
<issue>1</issue>
<fpage>16</fpage>
<lpage>16</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/s13089-020-00163-w</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Beaubien-Souligny W, Rola P, Haycock K, Bouchard J, Lamarche Y, Spiegel R, et al. Quantifying Systemic Congestion with Point-Of-Care Ultrasound: Development of the Venous Excess Ultrasound Grading System. Ultrasound J. 2020;12(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s13089-020-00163-w.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B12">
<label>12</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Öhman</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Harjola</surname><given-names>VP</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Karjalainen</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Lassus</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Rapid Cardiothoracic Ultrasound Protocol for Diagnosis of Acute Heart Failure in the Emergency Department</article-title>
<source>Eur J Emerg Med</source>
<year>2019</year>
<volume>26</volume>
<issue>2</issue>
<fpage>112</fpage>
<lpage>117</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000499</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Öhman J, Harjola VP, Karjalainen P, Lassus J. Rapid Cardiothoracic Ultrasound Protocol for Diagnosis of Acute Heart Failure in the Emergency Department. Eur J Emerg Med. 2019;26(2):112-7. doi: 10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000499.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B13">
<label>13</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Nagueh</surname><given-names>SF</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Smiseth</surname><given-names>OA</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Appleton</surname><given-names>CP</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Byrd</surname><given-names>BF</given-names><suffix>3rd</suffix></name>
<name><surname>Dokainish</surname><given-names>H</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Edvardsen</surname><given-names>T</given-names></name>
<etal/>
</person-group>
<article-title>Recommendations for the Evaluation of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function by Echocardiography: An Update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging</article-title>
<source>J Am Soc Echocardiogr</source>
<year>2016</year>
<volume>29</volume>
<issue>4</issue>
<fpage>277</fpage>
<lpage>314</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.echo.2016.01.011</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Nagueh SF, Smiseth OA, Appleton CP, Byrd BF 3rd, Dokainish H, Edvardsen T, et al. Recommendations for the Evaluation of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function by Echocardiography: An Update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2016;29(4):277-314. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2016.01.011.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B14">
<label>14</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Popescu</surname><given-names>BA</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Beladan</surname><given-names>CC</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Nagueh</surname><given-names>SF</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Smiseth</surname><given-names>OA</given-names></name>
</person-group>
<article-title>How to Assess Left Ventricular Filling Pressures by Echocardiography in Clinical Practice</article-title>
<source>Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging</source>
<year>2022</year>
<volume>23</volume>
<issue>9</issue>
<fpage>1127</fpage>
<lpage>1129</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/ehjci/jeac123</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Popescu BA, Beladan CC, Nagueh SF, Smiseth OA. How to Assess Left Ventricular Filling Pressures by Echocardiography in Clinical Practice. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2022;23(9):1127-9. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jeac123.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B15">
<label>15</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Ommen</surname><given-names>SR</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Nishimura</surname><given-names>RA</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Appleton</surname><given-names>CP</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Miller</surname><given-names>FA</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Oh</surname><given-names>JK</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Redfield</surname><given-names>MM</given-names></name>
<etal/>
</person-group>
<article-title>Clinical Utility of Doppler Echocardiography and Tissue Doppler Imaging in the Estimation of Left Ventricular Filling Pressures: A Comparative Simultaneous Doppler-Catheterization Study</article-title>
<source>Circulation</source>
<year>2000</year>
<volume>102</volume>
<issue>15</issue>
<fpage>1788</fpage>
<lpage>1794</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1161/01.cir.102.15.1788</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Ommen SR, Nishimura RA, Appleton CP, Miller FA, Oh JK, Redfield MM, et al. Clinical Utility of Doppler Echocardiography and Tissue Doppler Imaging in the Estimation of Left Ventricular Filling Pressures: A Comparative Simultaneous Doppler-Catheterization Study. Circulation. 2000;102(15):1788-94. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.102.15.1788.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B16">
<label>16</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Sohn</surname><given-names>DW</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Song</surname><given-names>JM</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Zo</surname><given-names>JH</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Chai</surname><given-names>IH</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>HS</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Chun</surname><given-names>HG</given-names></name>
<etal/>
</person-group>
<article-title>Mitral Annulus Velocity in the Evaluation of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function in Atrial Fibrillation</article-title>
<source>J Am Soc Echocardiogr</source>
<year>1999</year>
<volume>12</volume>
<issue>11</issue>
<fpage>927</fpage>
<lpage>931</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/s0894-7317(99)70145-8</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Sohn DW, Song JM, Zo JH, Chai IH, Kim HS, Chun HG, et al. Mitral Annulus Velocity in the Evaluation of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function in Atrial Fibrillation. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 1999;12(11):927-31. doi: 10.1016/s0894-7317(99)70145-8.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B17">
<label>17</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Duggan</surname><given-names>NM</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Goldsmith</surname><given-names>AJ</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Saud</surname><given-names>AAA</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Ma</surname><given-names>IWY</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Shokoohi</surname><given-names>H</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Liteplo</surname><given-names>AS</given-names></name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Optimizing Lung Ultrasound: The Effect of Depth, Gain and Focal Position on Sonographic B-Lines</article-title>
<source>Ultrasound Med Biol</source>
<year>2022</year>
<volume>48</volume>
<issue>8</issue>
<fpage>1509</fpage>
<lpage>1517</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2022.03.015</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Duggan NM, Goldsmith AJ, Saud AAA, Ma IWY, Shokoohi H, Liteplo AS. Optimizing Lung Ultrasound: The Effect of Depth, Gain and Focal Position on Sonographic B-Lines. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2022;48(8):1509-17. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2022.03.015.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B18">
<label>18</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Rudski</surname><given-names>LG</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Lai</surname><given-names>WW</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Afilalo</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Hua</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Handschumacher</surname><given-names>MD</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Chandrasekaran</surname><given-names>K</given-names></name>
<etal/>
</person-group>
<article-title>Guidelines for the Echocardiographic Assessment of the Right Heart in Adults: A Report from the American Society of Echocardiography Endorsed by the European Association of Echocardiography, a Registered Branch of the European Society of Cardiology, and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography</article-title>
<source>J Am Soc Echocardiogr</source>
<year>2010</year>
<volume>23</volume>
<issue>7</issue>
<fpage>685</fpage>
<lpage>713</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.echo.2010.05.010</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Rudski LG, Lai WW, Afilalo J, Hua L, Handschumacher MD, Chandrasekaran K, et al. Guidelines for the Echocardiographic Assessment of the Right Heart in Adults: A Report from the American Society of Echocardiography Endorsed by the European Association of Echocardiography, a Registered Branch of the European Society of Cardiology, and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010;23(7):685-713. doi: 10.1016/j.echo.2010.05.010.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B19">
<label>19</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Koratala</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Reisinger</surname><given-names>N</given-names></name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Venous Excess Doppler Ultrasound for the Nephrologist: Pearls and Pitfalls</article-title>
<source>Kidney Med</source>
<year>2022</year>
<volume>4</volume>
<issue>7</issue>
<fpage>100482</fpage>
<lpage>100482</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.xkme.2022.100482</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Koratala A, Reisinger N. Venous Excess Doppler Ultrasound for the Nephrologist: Pearls and Pitfalls. Kidney Med. 2022;4(7):100482. doi: 10.1016/j.xkme.2022.100482.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B20">
<label>20</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Koo</surname><given-names>TK</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>MY</given-names></name>
</person-group>
<article-title>A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research</article-title>
<source>J Chiropr Med</source>
<year>2016</year>
<volume>15</volume>
<issue>2</issue>
<fpage>155</fpage>
<lpage>163</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B21">
<label>21</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Gullett</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Donnelly</surname><given-names>JP</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Sinert</surname><given-names>R</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Hosek</surname><given-names>B</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Fuller</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Hill</surname><given-names>H</given-names></name>
<etal/>
</person-group>
<article-title>Interobserver Agreement in the Evaluation of B-Lines Using Bedside Ultrasound</article-title>
<source>J Crit Care</source>
<year>2015</year>
<volume>30</volume>
<issue>6</issue>
<fpage>1395</fpage>
<lpage>1399</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.jcrc.2015.08.021</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Gullett J, Donnelly JP, Sinert R, Hosek B, Fuller D, Hill H, et al. Interobserver Agreement in the Evaluation of B-Lines Using Bedside Ultrasound. J Crit Care. 2015;30(6):1395-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2015.08.021.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B22">
<label>22</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Imanishi</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Iwasaki</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Ujiro</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Nakano</surname><given-names>T</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Yamashita</surname><given-names>T</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Eto</surname><given-names>H</given-names></name>
<etal/>
</person-group>
<article-title>Accuracy of Lung Ultrasound Examinations of Residual Congestion Performed by Novice Residents in Patients with Acute Heart Failure</article-title>
<source>Int J Cardiol</source>
<year>2024</year>
<volume>395</volume>
<fpage>131446</fpage>
<lpage>131446</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.ijcard.2023.131446</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Imanishi J, Iwasaki M, Ujiro S, Nakano T, Yamashita T, Eto H, et al. Accuracy of Lung Ultrasound Examinations of Residual Congestion Performed by Novice Residents in Patients with Acute Heart Failure. Int J Cardiol. 2024;395:131446. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2023.131446.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B23">
<label>23</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Stassen</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Falter</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Herbots</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Timmermans</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Dendale</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Verwerft</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Assessment of Venous Congestion Using Vascular Ultrasound</article-title>
<source>JACC Cardiovasc Imaging</source>
<year>2023</year>
<volume>16</volume>
<issue>3</issue>
<fpage>426</fpage>
<lpage>431</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.jcmg.2022.12.028</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Stassen J, Falter M, Herbots L, Timmermans P, Dendale P, Verwerft J. Assessment of Venous Congestion Using Vascular Ultrasound. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2023;16(3):426-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2022.12.028.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B24">
<label>24</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Longino</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Martin</surname><given-names>K</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Leyba</surname><given-names>K</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Siegel</surname><given-names>G</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Gill</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Douglas</surname><given-names>IS</given-names></name>
<etal/>
</person-group>
<article-title>Correlation between the VExUS Score and Right Atrial Pressure: A Pilot Prospective Observational Study</article-title>
<source>Crit Care</source>
<year>2023</year>
<volume>27</volume>
<issue>1</issue>
<fpage>205</fpage>
<lpage>205</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/s13054-023-04471-0</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Longino A, Martin K, Leyba K, Siegel G, Gill E, Douglas IS, et al. Correlation between the VExUS Score and Right Atrial Pressure: A Pilot Prospective Observational Study. Crit Care. 2023;27(1):205. doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04471-0.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B25">
<label>25</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Longino</surname><given-names>AA</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Martin</surname><given-names>KC</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Leyba</surname><given-names>KR</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Siegel</surname><given-names>G</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Sharma</surname><given-names>VM</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Riscinti</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name>
<etal/>
</person-group>
<article-title>Reliability and Reproducibility of the Venous Excess Ultrasound (VExUS) Score, a Multi-Site Prospective Study Validating a Novel Ultrasound Technique for Comprehensive Assessment of Volume Status</article-title>
<source>Research Square</source>
<year>2024</year>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.21203/rs.3.rs-3993434/v1</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Longino AA, Martin KC, Leyba KR, Siegel G, Sharma VM, Riscinti M, et al. Reliability and Reproducibility of the Venous Excess Ultrasound (VExUS) Score, a Multi-Site Prospective Study Validating a Novel Ultrasound Technique for Comprehensive Assessment of Volume Status. Research Square. 2024. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3993434/v1.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B26">
<label>26</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Eljaiek</surname><given-names>R</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Cavayas</surname><given-names>YA</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Rodrigue</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Desjardins</surname><given-names>G</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Lamarche</surname><given-names>Y</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Toupin</surname><given-names>F</given-names></name>
<etal/>
</person-group>
<article-title>High Postoperative Portal Venous Flow Pulsatility Indicates Right Ventricular Dysfunction and Predicts Complications in Cardiac Surgery Patients</article-title>
<source>Br J Anaesth</source>
<year>2019</year>
<volume>122</volume>
<issue>2</issue>
<fpage>206</fpage>
<lpage>214</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.bja.2018.09.028</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Eljaiek R, Cavayas YA, Rodrigue E, Desjardins G, Lamarche Y, Toupin F, et al. High Postoperative Portal Venous Flow Pulsatility Indicates Right Ventricular Dysfunction and Predicts Complications in Cardiac Surgery Patients. Br J Anaesth. 2019;122(2):206-14. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2018.09.028.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B27">
<label>27</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Bhardwaj</surname><given-names>V</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Vikneswaran</surname><given-names>G</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Rola</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Raju</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Bhat</surname><given-names>RS</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Jayakumar</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name>
<etal/>
</person-group>
<article-title>Combination of Inferior Vena Cava Diameter, Hepatic Venous Flow, and Portal Vein Pulsatility Index: Venous Excess Ultrasound Score (VEXUS Score) in Predicting Acute Kidney Injury in Patients with Cardiorenal Syndrome: A Prospective Cohort Study</article-title>
<source>Indian J Crit Care Med</source>
<year>2020</year>
<volume>24</volume>
<issue>9</issue>
<fpage>783</fpage>
<lpage>789</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23570</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Bhardwaj V, Vikneswaran G, Rola P, Raju S, Bhat RS, Jayakumar A, et al. Combination of Inferior Vena Cava Diameter, Hepatic Venous Flow, and Portal Vein Pulsatility Index: Venous Excess Ultrasound Score (VEXUS Score) in Predicting Acute Kidney Injury in Patients with Cardiorenal Syndrome: A Prospective Cohort Study. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2020;24(9):783-9. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23570.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B28">
<label>28</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Sunderji</surname><given-names>I</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Singh</surname><given-names>V</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Fraser</surname><given-names>AG</given-names></name>
</person-group>
<article-title>When does the E/e’ Index Not Work? The Pitfalls of Oversimplifying Diastolic Function</article-title>
<source>Echocardiography</source>
<year>2020</year>
<volume>37</volume>
<issue>11</issue>
<fpage>1897</fpage>
<lpage>1907</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/echo.14697</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Sunderji I, Singh V, Fraser AG. When does the E/e’ Index Not Work? The Pitfalls of Oversimplifying Diastolic Function. Echocardiography. 2020;37(11):1897-907. doi: 10.1111/echo.14697.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B29">
<label>29</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Robinson</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Ring</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Oxborough</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Harkness</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Bennett</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Rana</surname><given-names>B</given-names></name>
<etal/>
</person-group>
<article-title>The Assessment of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function: Guidance and Recommendations from the British Society of Echocardiography</article-title>
<source>Echo Res Pract</source>
<year>2024</year>
<volume>11</volume>
<issue>1</issue>
<fpage>16</fpage>
<lpage>16</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/s44156-024-00051-2</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Robinson S, Ring L, Oxborough D, Harkness A, Bennett S, Rana B, et al. The Assessment of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function: Guidance and Recommendations from the British Society of Echocardiography. Echo Res Pract. 2024;11(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s44156-024-00051-2.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B30">
<label>30</label>
<element-citation publication-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name><surname>Koratala</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name>
<name><surname>Kazory</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name>
</person-group>
<article-title>Point of Care Ultrasonography for Objective Assessment of Heart Failure: Integration of Cardiac, Vascular, and Extravascular Determinants of Volume Status</article-title>
<source>Cardiorenal Med</source>
<year>2021</year>
<volume>11</volume>
<issue>1</issue>
<fpage>5</fpage>
<lpage>17</lpage>
<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1159/000510732</pub-id>
</element-citation>
<mixed-citation>Koratala A, Kazory A. Point of Care Ultrasonography for Objective Assessment of Heart Failure: Integration of Cardiac, Vascular, and Extravascular Determinants of Volume Status. Cardiorenal Med. 2021;11(1):5-17. doi: 10.1159/000510732.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
<app-group>
<app id="app1">
<title>*Supplemental Materials</title>
<p>For additional information, please <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://abcimaging.org/supplementary-material/2025/3802/ABCImag-2025-0022_AO_Appendix.pdf">http://abcimaging.org/supplementary-material/2025/3802/ABCImag-2025-0022_AO_Appendix.pdf</ext-link> click here.</p>
</app>
</app-group>
</back>
<sub-article article-type="translation" id="S1" xml:lang="pt">
<front-stub>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.36660/abcimg.20250022</article-id>
<article-categories>
<subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
<subject>Artigo Original</subject>
</subj-group>
</article-categories>
<title-group>
<article-title>Avaliação da Concordância Interobservadores do Ultrassom à Beira do Leito na Análise da Congestão em Unidade de Terapia Intensiva Cardiovascular</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0001-6409-2109</contrib-id>
<name><surname>Saadi</surname><given-names>Marina Petersen</given-names></name>
<role>Concepção e desenho da pesquisa</role>
<role>obtenção de dados</role>
<role>análise e interpretação dos dados</role>
<role>análise estatística</role>
<role>redação do manuscrito</role>
<role>revisão crítica do manuscrito quanto ao conteúdo intelectual importante</role>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>1</sup></xref>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>2</sup></xref>
<xref ref-type="corresp" rid="c2"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0002-5514-2562</contrib-id>
<name><surname>Machado</surname><given-names>Guilherme Pinheiro</given-names></name>
<role>Concepção e desenho da pesquisa</role>
<role>análise e interpretação dos dados</role>
<role>análise estatística</role>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>1</sup></xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0001-7264-8277</contrib-id>
<name><surname>Silvano</surname><given-names>Gustavo Paes</given-names></name>
<role>Concepção e desenho da pesquisa</role>
<role>obtenção de dados</role>
<role>análise e interpretação dos dados</role>
<role>análise estatística</role>
<role>redação do manuscrito</role>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>1</sup></xref>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>2</sup></xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0002-1568-5124</contrib-id>
<name><surname>Barbato</surname><given-names>João Pedro da Rosa</given-names></name>
<role>obtenção de dados</role>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>2</sup></xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0009-0003-5918-0739</contrib-id>
<name><surname>Almeida</surname><given-names>Renato Ferraz</given-names></name>
<role>obtenção de dados</role>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>2</sup></xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0003-2150-6337</contrib-id>
<name><surname>Scolari</surname><given-names>Fernando Luis</given-names></name>
<role>revisão crítica do manuscrito quanto ao conteúdo intelectual importante</role>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>1</sup></xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0009-0005-2414-9453</contrib-id>
<name><surname>Telo</surname><given-names>Guilherme Heiden</given-names></name>
<role>Concepção e desenho da pesquisa</role>
<role>análise e interpretação dos dados</role>
<role>revisão crítica do manuscrito quanto ao conteúdo intelectual importante</role>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>1</sup></xref>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0002-0327-3392</contrib-id>
<name><surname>Silveira</surname><given-names>Anderson Donelli da</given-names></name>
<role>Concepção e desenho da pesquisa</role>
<role>revisão crítica do manuscrito quanto ao conteúdo intelectual importante</role>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>1</sup></xref>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>2</sup></xref>
</contrib>
<aff id="aff3">
<label>1</label>
<addr-line>
<named-content content-type="city">Porto Alegre</named-content>
<named-content content-type="state">RS</named-content>
</addr-line>
<country country="BR">Brasil</country>
<institution content-type="original">Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, RS – Brasil</institution>
</aff>
<aff id="aff4">
<label>2</label>
<addr-line>
<named-content content-type="city">Porto Alegre</named-content>
<named-content content-type="state">RS</named-content>
</addr-line>
<country country="BR">Brasil</country>
<institution content-type="original">Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS – Brasil</institution>
</aff>
</contrib-group>
<author-notes>
<corresp id="c2"><label>Correspondência:</label> <bold>Marina Petersen Saadi</bold> • Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre. Rua Ramiro Barcelos, 2350. CEP: <postal-code>90410-000</postal-code>. Porto Alegre, RS – Brasil E-mail: <email>marinapsaadi@gmail.com</email></corresp>
<fn fn-type="edited-by"><label>Editor responsável pela revisão:</label> <p>Marcelo Tavares</p></fn>
<fn fn-type="conflict"><label>Potencial Conflito de Interesse</label>
<p>Declaro não haver conflito de interesses pertinentes.</p></fn>
</author-notes>
<abstract>
<title>Resumo</title>
<sec>
<title>Fundamento:</title>
<p>A avaliação da congestão é fundamental para o manejo de pacientes com condições cardiovasculares, incluindo insuficiência cardíaca (IC). Métodos tradicionais frequentemente apresentam baixa sensibilidade, enquanto o ultrassom à beira do leito (<italic>point-of-care</italic> [POCUS]) oferece uma alternativa objetiva, imediata e mais acurada.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Objetivo:</title>
<p>Avaliar a concordância interobservador (IRR, do inglês Inter-rater reliability) das principais variáveis do POCUS utilizadas na análise da congestão hemodinâmica, pulmonar e venosa sistêmica.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Métodos:</title>
<p>Estudo prospectivo, de centro único, realizado entre janeiro e junho de 2023 em uma unidade de terapia intensiva cardiovascular (UTIC) no Brasil. Pacientes adultos foram submetidos a exames padronizados de POCUS. Três avaliadores treinados analisaram independentemente os seguintes parâmetros: ultrassonografia pulmonar (UP [linhas B]), pressões de enchimento do ventrículo esquerdo (PEVE [razões E/A e E/e′]), medidas da veia cava inferior (VCI), fluxos venosos hepático e portal por Doppler, e escore Ultrassonográfico de Congestão Venosa modificado (VExUSm). A IRR foi analisada por meio do coeficiente de correlação intraclasse (ICC).</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Resultados:</title>
<p>Foram incluídos 23 pacientes, com idade mediana de 65 anos, submetidos a três exames POCUS independentes (69 avaliações no total). A UP e as medidas da VCI apresentaram excelente concordância interobersador (ICC: 0,903). Os fluxos venosos hepático e portal demonstraram boa concordância (ICC: 0,808 e 0,796, respectivamente). A graduação do VExUSm obteve a mais alta concordância (ICC: 0,957). A onda E apresentou excelente concordância (ICC: 0,934), enquanto a onda A e a velocidade do e′ mostraram concordâncias mais baixas (0,512 e 0,399, respectivamente). As razões E/e′ e E/A apresentaram concordância de moderada a boa (ICC: 0,662 e 0,852, respectivamente). A duração mediana dos exames foi de 10 minutos.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Conclusão:</title>
<p>As variáveis do POCUS apresentaram alta reprodutibilidade, especialmente a UP e o escore VExUSm. A reprodutibilidade da UP e do VExUSm foi superior à dos parâmetros de PEVE, sugerindo que esses métodos podem ser mais confiáveis do que medidas tradicionais como E/e′. Esses achados reforçam o uso do POCUS como ferramenta padronizada para avaliação da congestão. Estudos adicionais são necessários para validar seu valor prognóstico.</p>
</sec>
</abstract>
<kwd-group xml:lang="pt">
<title>Palavras-chave:</title>
<kwd>Ultrassom</kwd>
<kwd>Unidades de Terapia Intensiva</kwd>
<kwd>Insuficiência Cardíaca</kwd>
<kwd>VExUS, VExUS modificado</kwd>
</kwd-group>
</front-stub>
<body>
<fig id="f8">
<caption>
<title>Os principais parâmetros de POCUS avaliados neste estudo incluíram PEVE, UP, medidas da VCI e avaliação da congestão venosa por meio do escore de VExUSm.</title>
<p>As variáveis analisadas foram as razões E/A e E/e’ para PEVE, linhas B para UP, diâmetro e colapsibilidade da VCI, e avaliação por Doppler das VH e VP para o VExUS. Criada com BioRender.com.</p></caption>
<graphic xlink:href="2675-312X-abcimg-38-02-e20250022-gf04-pt.tif"/>
</fig>
<sec sec-type="intro">
<title>Introdução</title>
<p>A avaliação precisa do estado hemodinâmico e volêmico é fundamental em pacientes gravemente enfermos, especialmente aqueles com doenças cardiovasculares, como a insuficiência cardíaca (IC).<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">1</xref></sup> Abordagens tradicionais, como o exame clínico e a imagem radiológica, frequentemente não fornecem informações precisas devido à sua natureza subjetiva e à sensibilidade limitada,<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">2</xref></sup> o que evidencia a necessidade de ferramentas objetivas à beira do leito. A ultrassonografia pulmonar <italic>(UP)</italic>, o POCUS cardíaco e parâmetros derivados foram desenvolvidos para aprimorar a avaliação desses pacientes.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">3</xref></sup></p>
<p>A UP tem sido amplamente utilizada há mais de uma década e demonstrou utilidade na detecção de congestão pulmonar, especialmente em casos de IC.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">4</xref>–<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">6</xref></sup> No entanto, o aparecimento de linhas B não é exclusivo do edema pulmonar e pode, por vezes, ser interpretado de forma equivocada. Por esse motivo, recomenda-se a combinação dos achados da UP com outros parâmetros de congestão.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">7</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">8</xref></sup> O POCUS cardíaco permite a avaliação da congestão hemodinâmica por meio de parâmetros como o fluxo transmitral (razão E/A) e a razão E/e′. Essas medidas, relativamente simples, são de fácil aprendizado e podem ser aplicadas à beira do leito.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">8</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">9</xref></sup> O escore Ultrassonográfico de congestão venosa - <italic>Venous Excess Ultrasound</italic> (VExUS) é utilizado para avaliar a congestão venosa sistêmica por meio da análise do diâmetro da veia cava inferior (VCI) e dos padrões de fluxo da veia hepática (VH), veia porta (VP) e veia renal. A avaliação da congestão sistêmica pelo VExUS também se mostrou útil na predição da síndrome cardiorrenal (SRC).<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">10</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">11</xref></sup> A integração de parâmetros de congestão pulmonar e hemodinâmica, especialmente a razão E/e′, demonstrou ser mais precisa do que a UP isoladamente para o diagnóstico de IC em contextos de emergência.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">12</xref></sup> A inclusão de parâmetros de congestão sistêmica provavelmente ampliaria ainda mais a acurácia diagnóstica.</p>
<p>Apesar do uso crescente, a reprodutibilidade dos componentes individuais do ultrassom à beira do leito ainda é motivo de preocupação. A concordância interobservadores (IRR) é fundamental para garantir consistência entre diferentes operadores e contextos clínicos. A maioria dos estudos anteriores avaliou isoladamente os parâmetros de congestão pulmonar, hemodinâmica e sistêmica, buscando correlacioná-los com a gravidade da congestão ou com desfechos clínicos. No entanto, é importante verificar se as variáveis do POCUS comumente utilizadas na avaliação da congestão apresentam boa IRR e se a avaliação combinada desses parâmetros selecionados é viável na prática clínica.</p>
<p>Este estudo tem como objetivo avaliar a IRR das principais variáveis do POCUS — especificamente a UP, os parâmetros de pressão de enchimento do ventrículo esquerdo (PEVE) (razões E/A e E/e′), as medidas da VCI, as avaliações Doppler das VHs e veias porta (VP), e a graduação pelo escore Ultrassonográfico de Congestão Venosa modificado (VExUSm) em pacientes internados em unidade de terapia intensiva cardiovascular (UTIC), investigando seu potencial para aplicação padronizada à beira do leito (Figura Central).</p>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="methods">
<title>Métodos</title>
<sec>
<title>Desenho do estudo</title>
<p>Trata-se de um estudo prospectivo, de centro único, realizado na UTIC de um hospital terciário no Brasil. O período do estudo compreendeu os meses de janeiro a junho de 2023 e incluiu pacientes adultos (≥18 anos) internados com diversas condições cardiovasculares, incluindo IC descompensada (ICD), síndromes coronarianas agudas e arritmias. O único critério de exclusão foi a ausência de consentimento para participação.</p>
<p>O protocolo do estudo foi aprovado pelo Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa do Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA), sob o parecer n° 6.468.353, e conduzido em conformidade com a Resolução n° 466/12 do Conselho Nacional de Saúde.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Avaliação por ultrassonografia</title>
<p>Os exames ultrassonográficos foram realizados com um aparelho de ultrassom (Mindray ME Series; Shenzhen, China), equipado com transdutor setorial <italic>phased-array</italic> de 2,5 MHz. Os pacientes foram posicionados em decúbito dorsal, com elevação da cabeceira a 30 graus, para padronização das condições de imagem. Sinais vitais foram registrados imediatamente antes de cada avaliação, a fim de garantir a consistência do estado hemodinâmico durante os exames. Todas as avaliações foram realizadas com monitorização de ECG simultânea. Os avaliadores foram cegados quanto aos resultados dos outros para minimizar vieses.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Parâmetros ultrassonográficos</title>
<p>Foram avaliados os seguintes parâmetros-chave, comumente utilizados na análise da congestão pulmonar, hemodinâmica e venosa sistêmica:</p>
<list list-type="bullet">
<list-item><p>UP: avaliação de linhas B em oito zonas pulmonares.</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>PEVE: mensuração das razões E/A e E/e′ na janela apical de quatro câmaras.</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>VCI: mensuração do diâmetro e do índice de colapsibilidade.</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>Doppler venoso portal e hepático: análise dos padrões de fluxo venoso hepático e portal por meio do Doppler pulsado (PWD).</p></list-item>
<list-item><p>VExUSm: graduação do escore VExUS através dos achados dos fluxos venosos hepático e portal.</p></list-item>
</list>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Avaliação da congestão hemodinâmica</title>
<p>O objetivo da avaliação hemodinâmica foi detectar o aumento da PEVE. A partir da janela apical de quatro câmaras, o padrão de fluxo mitral foi avaliado utilizando PWD na ponta dos folhetos da valva mitral. A razão E/A foi categorizada em três graus: grau 1 (E/A ≤0,8 e velocidade da onda E ≤50 cm/s), considerado normal; grau 3 (E/A ≥2), indicativo de PEVE elevada; e grau 2 (E/A ≤0,8 com velocidade da onda E &gt;50 cm/s, ou E/A entre 0,8 e 2), classificado como indeterminado. Nos casos com razão E/A de grau 2, a razão E/e′ septal foi utilizada para diferenciar entre PEVE normal e elevada.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">13</xref></sup></p>
<p>Na mesma janela apical de quatro câmaras, com angulação para alinhar-se ao septo interventricular, a velocidade da onda e′ medial foi medida no anel mitral utilizando PWD após a aplicação do Doppler tecidual (TDI).<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">14</xref></sup> A e′ medial foi escolhida por sua viabilidade técnica e pelo fato de a maior parte dos dados publicados sobre a razão E/e′ basearem-se nessa medida. Ela é considerada o parâmetro mais confiável para estimar a PEVE.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">15</xref></sup> A PEVE elevada foi definida como E/e′ medial &gt;15 em ritmo sinusal ou &gt;11 em fibrilação atrial (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f5">Figura 1</xref>).<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">16</xref></sup></p>
<fig id="f5">
<label>Figura 1</label>
<caption>
<title>O objetivo da avaliação hemodinâmica é identificar o aumento da PEVE.</title>
<p>A razão E/A é categorizada em três graus, refletindo diferentes níveis de PEVE. Pacientes com razão E/A de grau 1 são considerados com PEVE normal, enquanto aqueles com razão E/A de grau 3 (padrão restritivo) apresentam PEVE elevada. Para pacientes com razão E/A de grau 2, utiliza-se a razão E/e’ septal para diferenciar entre PEVE normal e elevada. PE: pressões de enchimento; PEVE: pressões de enchimento ventricular esquerdo; AE: átrio esquerdo; AD: átrio direito; FA: fibrilação atrial; RS: ritmo sinusal; VE: ventrículo esquerdo; VD: ventrículo direito.</p></caption>
<graphic xlink:href="2675-312X-abcimg-38-02-e20250022-gf01-pt.tif"/>
</fig>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Avaliação da congestão pulmonar</title>
<p>A parede torácica foi dividida em oito zonas, sendo realizado um escaneamento para cada zona. O transdutor cardíaco foi posicionado perpendicularmente aos arcos costais, ao longo dos espaços intercostais, com profundidade ajustada entre aproximadamente 12 e 18 cm, conforme o biótipo do paciente.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">17</xref></sup> Cada zona (duas anteriores e duas laterais por hemitórax) foi avaliada de forma independente. Uma zona foi considerada positiva quando três ou mais linhas B estavam presentes, e a congestão pulmonar foi assumida quando duas ou mais zonas apresentaram resultado positivo (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f6">Figura 2</xref>).<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">6</xref></sup></p>
<fig id="f6">
<label>Figura 2</label>
<caption>
<title>Para a avaliação da congestão pulmonar, a parede torácica é dividida em oito zonas, sendo obtido um escaneamento para cada zona.</title>
<p>Cada zona (duas anteriores e duas laterais por hemitórax) é avaliada de forma independente. A zona é considerada positiva se houver três ou mais linhas B, e a congestão pulmonar é assumida quando duas ou mais zonas forem positivas.</p></caption>
<graphic xlink:href="2675-312X-abcimg-38-02-e20250022-gf02-pt.tif"/>
</fig>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Avaliação da congestão venosa periférica</title>
<p>A etapa final incluiu a avaliação da VCI quanto ao diâmetro e colapsibilidade, juntamente com a análise dos fluxos venosos hepático e portal por meio do PWD.</p>
<p>A VCI foi avaliada pela janela subcostal, aproximadamente 1 cm caudal à sua junção com a VH, com o objetivo de estimar a pressão venosa central (PVC). A PVC foi inferida com base no diâmetro da VCI e na sua variabilidade inspiratória: uma PVC normal, de aproximadamente 3 mmHg, foi sugerida quando o diâmetro da VCI era ≤2,1 cm e a colapsibilidade era ≥50%; por outro lado, um diâmetro da VCI &gt;2,1 cm com colapsibilidade &lt;50% correspondeu a uma PVC de aproximadamente 15 mmHg. Uma PVC intermediária, em torno de 8 mmHg, foi atribuída quando apenas um dos dois critérios estava presente.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">18</xref></sup></p>
<p>Quando o diâmetro da VCI era ≥2 cm, foi realizada uma avaliação modificada do escore VExUS, utilizando o Doppler nas VH e VP. O PWD foi utilizado na VH para avaliar os padrões de fluxo, classificados da seguinte forma: grau 1 (normal), quando a onda sistólica (S) era maior que a onda diastólica (D); grau 2 (congestão leve), quando a onda S era menor que a onda D; e grau 3 (congestão grave), quando havia inversão da onda S. O fluxo da VP também foi avaliado por PWD e classificado em três graus: grau 1 (normal), se não pulsátil e com variabilidade entre as velocidades máxima e mínima &lt;30%; grau 2 (congestão leve), se o índice de pulsatilidade estivesse entre 30–50%; e grau 3 (congestão grave), se o índice de pulsatilidade fosse ≥50%.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">11</xref></sup></p>
<p>A gravidade da congestão venosa pelo escore VExUSm foi classificada em quatro graus, com base no diâmetro da VCI e nos achados do PWD. Uma VCI não dilatada (&lt;2 cm) indicava ausência de congestão venosa significativa (grau 0). Um diâmetro da VCI ≥2 cm com fluxo venoso hepático ou portal normal ou levemente alterado correspondia a congestão leve (grau 1). Uma VCI pletórica associada a um padrão de fluxo venoso gravemente alterado (inversão da onda S na VH ou índice de pulsatilidade ≥50% na VP) definia congestão moderada (grau 2). A congestão grave (grau 3) era diagnosticada quando padrões de fluxo gravemente alterados estavam presentes simultaneamente nas VH e VP (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f7">Figura 3</xref>).<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">19</xref></sup></p>
<fig id="f7">
<label>Figura 3</label>
<caption>
<title>A congestão venosa pelo escore VExUSm é classificada em quatro graus com base na avaliação da VCI e nos achados do Doppler pulsado.</title>
<p>Uma VCI não dilatada (&lt;2 cm) indica ausência de congestão venosa significativa (grau 0). Quando a VCI é ≥2 cm com achados normais ou levemente alterados no Doppler da VH ou da VP, considera-se congestão leve (grau 1). Uma VCI pletórica associada a um padrão gravemente alterado (reversão da onda S na VH ou índice de pulsatilidade ≥50% na VP) define congestão moderada (grau 2). A congestão grave (grau 3) é indicada pela presença de padrões de fluxo gravemente alterados em ambas as veias — hepática e porta. VExUSm: Escore Ultrassonográfico de congestão venosa modificado; VH: veia hepática; VP: veia porta; VCI: veia cava inferior; PAD: pressão atrial direita.</p></caption>
<graphic xlink:href="2675-312X-abcimg-38-02-e20250022-gf03-pt.tif"/>
</fig>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Avaliação da IRR</title>
<p>Três avaliadores treinados, cegados quanto às avaliações uns dos outros, realizaram independentemente os exames de POCUS em tempo real para avaliar a IRR. Todos os avaliadores haviam recebido treinamento padronizado, composto por uma sessão teórico-prática de 4 horas, seguida por um período supervisionado de um mês na UTIC. Durante esse período, cada residente de cardiologia realizou pelo menos 50 exames de ultrassonografia. Os exames não foram gravados, eliminando assim viés retrospectivo e garantindo que a IRR refletisse a prática clínica real.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Classificação da dificuldade</title>
<p>Para caracterizar melhor a aplicabilidade prática do protocolo de ultrassonografia, cada avaliador classificou a dificuldade da avaliação de cada paciente como fácil, moderada ou difícil. Uma avaliação &quot;fácil&quot; foi definida pela obtenção de imagens claras e interpretação direta; uma avaliação &quot;moderada&quot; exigiu esforço e interpretação intermediários; e uma avaliação &quot;difícil&quot; envolveu desafios significativos na aquisição ou interpretação das imagens. Essa avaliação subjetiva forneceu informações adicionais sobre a viabilidade da implementação do protocolo em diferentes anatomias e condições clínicas dos pacientes.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Análise estatística</title>
<p>O cálculo do tamanho amostral foi realizado considerando um coeficiente de correlação intraclasse (ICC) mínimo aceitável de 0,65 e um ICC esperado de 0,90. Com três avaliadores por paciente, uma amostra de 23 pacientes forneceu um poder estatístico de 90% com nível de significância de 0,01. Variáveis contínuas foram expressas como média (desvio-padrão [DP]) ou mediana (intervalo interquartil [IIQ]), de acordo com a normalidade da distribuição avaliada pelo teste de Shapiro-Wilk. Variáveis categóricas foram apresentadas em frequências absolutas e relativas. Os ICCs foram calculados utilizando um modelo de efeitos mistos bidirecional para avaliar o grau de concordância entre os três avaliadores, tanto para variáveis contínuas quanto ordinais. A IRR foi classificada como fraca (&lt;0,50), moderada (0,50-0,75), boa (0,75-0,90) ou excelente (&gt;0,90). As análises estatísticas foram realizadas utilizando o software SPSS Statistics para macOS, versão 29.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, EUA), com nível de significância estabelecido em 0,05 (bicaudal).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="results">
<title>Resultados</title>
<p>Entre janeiro e junho de 2023, 23 pacientes foram incluídos no estudo. Cada paciente foi submetido a três avaliações independentes por POCUS, totalizando 69 exames ultrassonográficos avaliados quanto à IRR. A idade mediana foi de 65 anos (IIQ: 53-70), e 60,9% dos participantes eram do sexo masculino. A maioria das internações na UTIC ocorreu por ICD (65%), seguida por infarto agudo do miocárdio com supradesnivelamento do segmento ST (IAMCSST) (17%). Vasodilatadores parenterais foram utilizados em 43,5% dos pacientes, inotrópicos em 21,7% e vasopressores em 13%.</p>
<p>Quanto à função cardíaca, 17,4% dos pacientes apresentavam fração de ejeção do ventrículo esquerdo (FEVE) preservada, enquanto 82,6% apresentavam FEVE reduzida (≤50%). A etiologia da IC foi classificada como isquêmica em 39,1%, não isquêmica em 30,4% e valvar devido à estenose aórtica grave em 8,7%. A mediana da FEVE foi de 33,5% (IIQ: 21,7-46,2). Durante os exames de ultrassom, 9% dos pacientes estavam em fibrilação atrial, 13% apresentavam bloqueio de ramo esquerdo, e 17,4% possuíam cardiodesfibrilador implantável. Regurgitação mitral grave ou moderada foi observada em 43,5% dos pacientes, e regurgitação tricúspide grave ou moderada em 39,1%.</p>
<p>Uma descrição detalhada das características demográficas e clínicas da população do estudo está apresentada na <xref ref-type="table" rid="t3">Tabela 1</xref>, enquanto a <xref ref-type="app" rid="app2">Tabela 1 do apêndice</xref> e a <xref ref-type="app" rid="app2">Tabela 2 do apêndice</xref> resumem as medidas obtidas por POCUS.</p>
<table-wrap id="t3">
<label>Tabela 1</label>
<caption>
<title>Características clínicas da amostra</title></caption>
<table frame="hsides" rules="groups">
<colgroup width="33%">
<col width="1%"/>
<col/>
<col/>
</colgroup>
<thead style="border-top: thin solid; border-bottom: thin solid; border-color: #000000">
<tr style="background-color:#BE8873;">
<th align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2">Variável</th>
<th align="center" valign="middle">Total (n = 23)</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody style="border-bottom: thin solid; border-color: #000000">
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Idade, anos</bold></td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">65 (53-70)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Sexo masculino (n, %)</bold></td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">14 (60,9%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Tabagismo</bold></td>
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Tabagista ativo (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">2 (8,7%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Ex-tabagista (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">7 (30,4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Etiologia da IC</bold></td>
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Fração de ejeção preservada (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">4 (17,4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Isquêmica (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">9 (39,1%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Não isquêmica (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">7 (30,4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Estenose aórtica (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">2 (8,7%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Infarto agudo do miocárdio prévio (n, %)</bold></td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">13 (56,5%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Cardiodesfibrilador implantável (n, %)</bold></td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">4 (17,4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Fibrilação atrial (n, %)</bold></td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">2 (8,7%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Bloqueio de ramo esquerdo (n, %)</bold></td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">3 (13%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>FEVE, %</bold></td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">33,5 (21,7-46,2)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Insuficiência mitral grave ou moderada (n, %)</bold></td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">10 (43,5%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Insuficiência tricúspide grave ou moderada (n, %)</bold></td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">9 (39,1%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Diagnóstico na admissão</bold></td>
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">ICD (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">15 (65,3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">IAMCSST (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">4 (17,4%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Angina instável (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">1 (4,3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Choque cardiogênico (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">1 (4,3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Bloqueio atrioventricular completo (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">1 (4,3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Pós-angioplastia coronariana percutânea (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">1 (4,3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Medicamentos parenterais</bold></td>
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Vasopressor (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">3 (13%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Venodilatador (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">10 (43,5%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle"/>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Inotrópico (n, %)</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">5 (21,7%)</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Creatinina, mg/dl</bold></td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">2 (1,2-2,6%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle" colspan="2"><bold>Peptídeo natriurético tipo B, pg/ml</bold></td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">1375 (218,5-2668,5)</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table-wrap-foot>
<fn id="TFN3">
<p>Os resultados estão expressos como n (%) ou mediana (intervalo interquartílico). IC: insuficiência cardíaca; ICD: IC descompensada; IAMCSST: infarto agudo do miocárdio com supradesnivelamento do segmento ST; FEVE: fração de ejeção do ventrículo esquerdo.</p></fn>
</table-wrap-foot>
</table-wrap>
<sec>
<title>IRR</title>
<p>Em relação à IRR das medidas ultrassonográficas, foi observada concordância excelente para a avaliação das zonas pulmonares positivas (ICC: 0,903; IC 95%: 0,818-0,954; p&lt;0,001) e para as mensurações da VCI (ICC: 0,903; IC 95%: 0,820-0,954; p&lt;0,001), indicando avaliações consistentes para a análise da congestão pulmonar e estimativa da PVC.</p>
<p>Análises subsequentes dos componentes da congestão venosa — incluindo fluxo na VH, fluxo na VP e graduação pelo escore VExUSm — também demonstraram concordância substancial. A avaliação do fluxo na VH apresentou um ICC de 0,808 (IC 95%: 0,662-0,906; p&lt;0,001), enquanto a avaliação do fluxo na VP apresentou ICC de 0,796 (IC 95%: 0,641-0,899; p&lt;0,001). A graduação pelo escore VExUSm, que reflete uma avaliação integrada da congestão venosa, demonstrou a mais alta IRR, com ICC de 0,957 (IC 95%: 0,914-0,981; p&lt;0,001) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t4">Tabela 2</xref>).</p>
<table-wrap id="t4">
<label>Tabela 2</label>
<caption>
<title>Confiabilidade interavaliadores para cada parâmetro de ultrassonografia à beira do leito</title></caption>
<table frame="hsides" rules="groups">
<colgroup width="25%">
<col/>
<col/>
<col/>
<col/>
</colgroup>
<thead style="border-top: thin solid; border-bottom: thin solid; border-color: #000000">
<tr style="background-color:#BE8873;">
<th align="left" valign="middle">Variável</th>
<th align="center" valign="middle">ICC</th>
<th align="center" valign="middle">IC 95%</th>
<th align="center" valign="middle">Valor p</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody style="border-bottom: thin solid; border-color: #000000">
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Zonas pulmonares positivas</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,903</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,818-0,954</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0,001</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle">VCI</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,903</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,820-0,954</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0,001</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Estimativa da PVC</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,955</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,817-0,954</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0,001</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle">Onda E</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,934</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,873-0,969</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0,001</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Onda A</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,512</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,176-0,799</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0,001</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle">Onda e’ septal</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,399</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,146-0,650</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0,001</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Razão E/A</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,852</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,731-0,928</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0,001</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle">Razão E/e’</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,662</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,449-0,824</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0,001</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Doppler da VH</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,808</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,662-0,906</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0,001</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle">Doppler da VP</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,796</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,641-0,899</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0,001</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Graduação pelo escore VExUSm</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,957</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,914-0,981</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0,001</td>
</tr>
<tr style="background-color:#E3CABE">
<td align="left" valign="middle">VTI VSVE</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,820</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,680- 0,912</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">&lt;0,001</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="middle">Classificação da dificuldade</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,298</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,030-0,584</td>
<td align="center" valign="middle">0,014</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table-wrap-foot>
<fn id="TFN4">
<p>ICC: coeficiente de correlação intraclasse; IC: intervalo de confiança; PVC: pressão venosa central; VExUSm: escore de Venous Excess Ultrasound modificado; VTI VSVE: integral de velocidade da via de saída do ventrículo esquerdo; VCI: veia cava inferior; VH: veia hepática; VP: veia porta.</p></fn>
</table-wrap-foot>
</table-wrap>
<p>Avaliações adicionais dos parâmetros de congestão hemodinâmica revelaram níveis variados de concordância. A onda E apresentou consistência excelente, com ICC de 0,934 (IC 95%: 0,873-0,969; p&lt;0,001). Em contraste, a onda A e a velocidade da onda e′ septal demonstraram concordâncias mais baixas, com ICCs de 0,512 (IC 95%: 0,176-0,799; p&lt;0,001) e 0,399 (IC 95%: 0,146-0,650; p&lt;0,001), respectivamente. Apesar da menor reprodutibilidade das medidas isoladas da e′, a razão E/e′ apresentou concordância moderada (ICC: 0,662; IC 95%: 0,449-0,824; p&lt;0,001). A classificação global da razão E/A apresentou boa concordância, com ICC de 0,852 (IC 95%: 0,731-0,928; p&lt;0,001) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t4">Tabela 2</xref>). Avaliamos adicionalmente a IRR da integral de velocidade da via de saída do ventrículo esquerdo (VTI VSVE), que apesar de não fazer parte da avaliação de congestão, tem sido muito utilizada em ambiente de UTI como análogo ao débito cardíaco e sua reprodutibilidade foi considerada boa, com ICC de 0,820 (IC 95%: 0,680–0,912; p&lt;0,001).</p>
<p>A duração mediana dos exames foi de 10,0 minutos (IIQ: 8,0-12,0), refletindo a eficiência do protocolo e destacando sua aplicabilidade prática em contextos clínicos nos quais avaliações oportunas são essenciais. Essa duração concisa reforça a viabilidade de integrar o protocolo à rotina assistencial sem causar impacto significativo no fluxo de trabalho.</p>
<p>De modo geral, os valores de ICC para a maioria dos parâmetros indicaram boa a excelente concordância entre os avaliadores, confirmando a reprodutibilidade do protocolo para aplicação clínica. Um resumo completo dos valores de ICC para todos os parâmetros avaliados encontra-se na <xref ref-type="app" rid="app2">Tabela 2 do apêndice</xref>.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Avaliação da dificuldade</title>
<p>As classificações de dificuldade atribuídas pelos avaliadores foram variadas, sendo a maioria das avaliações considerada fácil (50,7%), o que indica que o protocolo é, em geral, de fácil execução. Adicionalmente, 36,2% das avaliações foram classificadas como de dificuldade moderada, sugerindo que o protocolo é manejável na maior parte dos casos. Apenas 10,1% foram classificadas como difíceis, o que demonstra que o protocolo de ultrassonografia hemodinâmica, pulmonar e periférica se mantém como uma ferramenta confiável mesmo em condições subótimas de imagem. Esses achados reforçam sua aplicabilidade prática e sugerem que o protocolo pode ser implementado de forma eficaz em diferentes contextos clínicos, mesmo na ausência de janelas acústicas ideais.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="discussion">
<title>Discussão</title>
<p>Os resultados deste estudo destacam a alta IRR do protocolo de ultrassonografia proposto em seus diferentes componentes, com a maioria dos ICCs variando entre bons e excelentes. Além disso, os achados confirmam a viabilidade da implementação de um protocolo inovador para avaliação hemodinâmica à beira do leito, em UTIC. Os altos valores de ICC nas avaliações das zonas pulmonares positivas indicam excelente reprodutibilidade na análise da congestão pulmonar, em concordância com estudos prévios que demonstraram concordância substancial entre avaliadores após treinamentos de curta duração.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">20</xref>–<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B22">22</xref></sup></p>
<p>O diâmetro e a colapsibilidade da VCI também apresentaram excelente reprodutibilidade, refletindo concordância consistente na estimativa da PVC como baixa, normal ou elevada. No entanto, é amplamente reconhecido que a acurácia das medidas da VCI para estimativa da PVC é maior nos extremos do estado volêmico e menos confiável em valores intermediários. Além disso, a precisão pode ser comprometida em pacientes com comorbidades, como doenças pulmonares ou hepáticas, obesidade ou em uso de ventilação com pressão positiva, o que reduz sua utilidade clínica nesses cenários.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B23">23</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B24">24</xref></sup></p>
<p>A avaliação da congestão venosa periférica por meio do escore VExUS é valiosa porque, além de identificar congestão sistêmica e predizer SRC, tem excelente acurácica para predizer PVC &gt; 12 mmHg.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B24">24</xref></sup> Embora a avaliação isolada dos fluxos nas VH e VP tenha apresentado boa concordância, a graduação pelo escore VExUSm demonstrou concordância ainda melhor. Nossos resultados indicam que, embora os avaliadores nem sempre tenham concordado quanto à classificação de padrões específicos de fluxo hepático ou portal, a graduação final do VExUSm apresentou excelente concordância. Isso sugere que, para a graduação pelo VExUSm, o fator mais crítico é a identificação de padrões gravemente alterados que mudam a categoria de congestão.</p>
<p>Ao comparar nossos achados com os de estudos anteriores que avaliaram a concordância do escore VExUS, observa-se que os dados disponíveis ainda são relativamente escassos. Um estudo relatou um ICC de 0,83 (p&lt;0,001) para a graduação global do VExUS, indicando concordância substancial entre os avaliadores. Para os componentes individuais do VExUS, os ICCs foram de 0,71 (p&lt;0,001) para a VH, 0,74 (p&lt;0,001) para a VP e 0,48 (p&lt;0,001) para a veia renal, refletindo uma variação de concordância de fraca a moderada.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">25</xref></sup> Além disso, outro estudo relatou boa reprodutibilidade para a avaliação da fração de pulsatilidade portal por ECG transtorácico, com uma diferença média de 5,6% entre medidas repetidas e um ICC de 0,824 (p&lt;0,001).<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">26</xref></sup> Esse achado está de acordo com nossos resultados e reforça a robustez da avaliação da VP. Em nosso estudo, observou-se padrão semelhante, com concordância ainda mais elevada para as VH e porta. Essa melhora pode ser atribuída ao uso sistemático do traçado de ECG durante todos os exames, prática previamente associada a maior concordância.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">25</xref></sup> Devido à baixa concordância previamente relatada e ao tempo prolongado exigido para a avaliação da veia renal,<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">25</xref></sup> esse componente foi excluído de nosso protocolo, com o objetivo de torná-lo mais ágil e de melhorar a reprodutibilidade. Essa decisão é reforçada por evidências de que um escore VExUSm sem o Doppler da veia renal já foi validado em pacientes com SRC internados em unidade de terapia intensiva, em estudo prospectivo de centro único.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">27</xref></sup></p>
<p>Na avaliação da congestão hemodinâmica, os menores valores de ICC observados para a onda A e para as medidas da e′ podem ser atribuídos a desafios como taquicardia e à prevalência de arritmias durante o estudo, fatores que afetam a consistência das medidas relacionadas à contração atrial e às velocidades diastólicas iniciais no anel mitral septal. Embora a velocidade da onda e′ obtida por TDI seja geralmente mais robusta do que a avaliação do fluxo transmitral, ela ainda apresenta limitações, especialmente em pacientes com disfunção miocárdica regional.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">13</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B28">28</xref></sup> Inconsistências nas medições também podem decorrer do posicionamento do transdutor de ultrassom, caso este não esteja perfeitamente alinhado de forma paralela ao septo interventricular na posição supina. A inclusão exclusiva de pacientes com IC e FEVE reduzida poderia, potencialmente, melhorar o desempenho e a reprodutibilidade das medidas da e′.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B29">29</xref></sup></p>
<p>A classificação global da razão E/A demonstrou boa concordância, com ICC de 0,852 (IC 95%: 0,731-0,928; p&lt;0,001), enquanto a avaliação da razão E/e′ apresentou concordância moderada (ICC: 0,662; IC 95%: 0,449-0,824; p&lt;0,001). Embora as razões E/A e E/e′ sejam amplamente utilizadas na avaliação da função diastólica em exames de ecocardiograma e tenham sido propostas para aplicação à beira do leito, seu uso por não ecocardiografistas na prática clínica ainda não foi amplamente investigado.<sup><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">15</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B30">30</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">14</xref></sup></p>
<sec>
<title>Pontos fortes e limitações</title>
<p>Este estudo de centro único, com tamanho amostral relativamente pequeno, pode limitar a generalização dos resultados e a sensibilidade para detectar variações sutis. A dependência do operador pode afetar a reprodutibilidade em cenários com menor experiência; no entanto, os altos valores de ICC observados sugerem que o treinamento adequado mitiga essa limitação. O rigor metodológico foi mantido por meio de avaliações em tempo real, cegadas e realizadas por investigadores treinados, com integração do traçado de ECG, o que minimizou os vieses comumente associados a análises retrospectivas ou baseadas em gravações. Esses pontos fortes reforçam a robustez e a aplicabilidade clínica das variáveis de POCUS avaliadas.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="conclusions">
<title>Conclusão</title>
<p>Este estudo demonstra que as variáveis de POCUS utilizadas na avaliação da congestão hemodinâmica, pulmonar e venosa periférica apresentam alta IRR entre seus diferentes componentes. Observou-se elevada reprodutibilidade para as zonas pulmonares positivas, parâmetros de PEVE, medidas da VCI e graduação pelo escore VExUSm. A reprodutibilidade da UP e do escore VExUSm foi superior à dos parâmetros de PEVE, sugerindo que esses métodos podem oferecer maior consistência do que medidas tradicionais, como a razão E/e′.</p>
</sec>
</body>
<back>
<fn-group>
<fn fn-type="financial-disclosure" id="fn5">
<label>Fontes de Financiamento</label>
<p>O presente estudo não teve fontes de financiamento externas.</p></fn>
<fn fn-type="other" id="fn6">
<label>Vinculação Acadêmica</label>
<p>Este artigo é parte de tese de Doutorado de Marina Petersen Saadi pela Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul.</p></fn>
<fn fn-type="other" id="fn7">
<label>Aprovação Ética e Consentimento Informado</label>
<p>Este estudo foi aprovado pelo Comitê de Ética do Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre sob o número de protocolo 6.468.353. Todos os procedimentos envolvidos nesse estudo estão de acordo com a Declaração de Helsinki de 1975, atualizada em 2013. O consentimento informado foi obtido de todos os participantes incluídos no estudo.</p></fn>
<fn fn-type="other" id="fn8">
<label>Uso de Inteligência Artificial</label>
<p>Os autores não utilizaram ferramentas de inteligência artificial no desenvolvimento deste trabalho.</p></fn>
</fn-group>
<ack>
<title>Agradecimentos</title>
<p>Agradecemos à equipe da UTIC do HCPA pelo valioso apoio na viabilização deste estudo. Reconhecemos também o suporte logístico e administrativo fornecido pela coordenação da pós-graduação da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Por fim, agradecemos a todos os pacientes e seus familiares que consentiram em participar e tornaram este estudo viável.</p>
</ack>
<sec sec-type="data-availability" specific-use="data-available-upon-request">
<label>Disponibilidade de Dados</label>
<p>Todo o conjunto de dados que dá suporte aos resultados deste estudo está disponível mediante solicitação ao autor correspondente.</p>
</sec>
<app-group>
<app id="app2">
<title>*Material suplementar</title>
<p>Para informação adicional, por favor, <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://abcimaging.org/supplementary-material/2025/3802/ABCImag-2025-0022_AO_Appendix.pdf">http://abcimaging.org/supplementary-material/2025/3802/ABCImag-2025-0022_AO_Appendix.pdf</ext-link> clique aqui.</p>
</app>
</app-group>
</back>
</sub-article>
</article>