Outcome
Type |
Measure |
Description |
Time frame |
Safety issue |
Primary |
Image Quality Assessment Method#1: Difference in Likert Scale Before/After Suctioning |
Difference in image quality assessment by Likert scale before/after suctioning, by assessing quality of images stored before/after suctioning. Investigators categorized the quality of all acquired images on a numeric scale (the higher number means higher image quality) based on each investigator's impression (1: very poor, 2: poor, 3: acceptable, 4: good, and 5: very good). Image quality improvement was determined by increased number. Three investigators (A, B, C) assessed the quality of all TEE image sets (i.e. before and after suctioning) post hoc. The acquired numeric scales were combined, and compared before and after suctioning, and calculated how much percentage of patients had improved image quality (i.e. increase in numeric scale), same quality (i.e. same numeric scale), and worsened image quality (i.e. decrease in numeric scale) |
TEE image sets were acquired after general anesthesia induction (before suctioning) and after 10minutes (after suctioning), and the outcome was the difference in image quality. In 6-8 months, investigator C did the same analysis on the same images. |
|
Secondary |
Reproducibility of the LV FAC (Inter-observer) |
The reproducibility of the LV FAC was assessed, assuming that better image quality would yield better LV FAC reproducibility. Three investigators (A, B, and C) assessed the quality of all TEE image sets (i.e. before and after suctioning) post hoc. These image sets are combined and assessment was done for each group (i.e. before and after suctioning) |
Images were acquired after general anesthesia induction (before suctioning) and after 10minutes (after suctioning images). |
|
Secondary |
Reproducibility of the LV FAC (Intra-observer) |
Investigator C analyzed all image sets again in 6-8 months to determine if there was intra-observer variability with the initial assessment of image quality. All investigators were blinded to which images were obtained before or after suctioning. |
6-8 months after initial images obtained during surgery. |
|
Secondary |
Reproducibility of the RV FAC (Inter-observer) |
The reproducibility of the RV FAC was assessed, assuming that better image quality would yield better RV FAC reproducibility. Three investigators (A, B, and C) assessed the quality of all TEE image sets (i.e. before and after suctioning) post hoc. |
Images were acquired after general anesthesia induction (before suctioning) and after 10minutes (after suctioning). |
|
Secondary |
Reproducibility of the RV FAC (Intra-observer) |
Investigator C analyzed all image sets again in 6-8 months to determine if there was intra-observer variability with the initial assessment of image quality. All investigators were blinded to which images were obtained before or after suctioning. |
6-8 months after initial images obtained during surgery. |
|