March 2021


July 2021

C.V. Elzo Kraemer1,3, A.X. Elzo Kraemer [1], J.A. Janson [1,3], M.E. Haaksma [2,3], E. Lust [2], M.L.A. Heldeweg [2,3], J.M. Smit [2,3], P.R. Tuinman [2,3], D.J. van Westerloo1,3, J.E. López Matta [1,3]

1, Department of Intensive Care, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands
2 ,Department of Intensive Care, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
3, Amsterdam Leiden Intensive care Focused Echography (ALIFE,


C.V. Elzo Kraemer -

POCUS series: right ventricular assessment with emphasis on TAPSE, apical and subcostal variants



In the last decade, ultrasound has found its place in the intensive care unit (ICU). Initially, ultrasound was used primarily to increase the safety and efficacy of line insertion, but currently many intensivists use point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) to aid in making the diagnosis, monitoring therapy, and supporting therapeutic interventions. In this series, we aim to highlight one specific POCUS technique at a time, which we believe will prove to be useful in your clinical practice. This specific article will focus on assessment of right ventricular (RV) size and function, and the application of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE). RV assessment during focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) depends, currently, on visual evaluation – ‘eyeballing’ – of the RV size and function and left and right ventricular interaction. However, ‘eyeballing’ is subjective, depends on experience and may be misleading if done by unexperienced sonographers. Objective measurements of RV size and function are necessary and provide an additional understanding of RV performance. There are different ways to assess the RV objectively. Many of these measurements, however, require a lot of training and are not yet available in portable devices. Evaluation of TAPSE is a validated and reproducible way of evaluating RV function and only requires the utilisation of M-mode or a 2D measurement. TAPSE, assessed in the apical four-chamber view, is sometimes difficult to measure, especially in mechanically ventilated patients. In recent years subcostal variants have been introduced: the subcostal echocardiographic assessment of tricuspid annular kick (SEATAK) and the subcostal-TAPSE (S-TAPSE). These measurements are alternatives when the ‘classical’ TAPSE cannot reliably be evaluated.


This article is part of the POCUS series in the Netherlands Journal of Critical Care, in which we want to highlight POCUS techniques that will improve decision-making in daily clinical practice in the intensive care unit (ICU). We aim to provide intensivists with an overview of easy, quick, and reliable methods which may be useful in their practice.

Focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) allows a quick evaluation of both the left (LV) and right ventricular (RV) size and function; it has revolutionised the evaluation of haemodynamically compromised critically ill patients. The strength of FoCUS is that it can be applied in a timely fashion, providing an ‘early’ or ‘preliminary’ assessment and management of these patients.[1] Another strength is that it does not require big complex and expensive ultrasound machines. And more importantly, FoCUS assessment of both the left and right ventricle only requires visual assessment: ‘eyeballing’ or simple measurements.

A subjective assessment of both ventricles has, unfortunately, its limitations.[1] In recent issues we have focused on the application of simple and reliable measurements, such as the E-point septal separation and the velocity time integral, to better characterise LV function and performance.[2,3] In this issue, we will focus on the right ventricle and dive deeper in the application of the tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) and recently introduced subcostal variants such as the subcostal echocardiographic assessment of tricuspid annular kick (SEATAK) and the subcostal TAPSE (S-TAPSE).[4,5]

Figure 1. Diagram of the right atrium (1) and ventricle with its three major components: inflow tract (2), body (i.e., apex, 3) and outlet tract (i.e., infundibulum, 4). Adapted from: SVC = superior vena cava; Ao = aorta; PA = pulmonary artery; IVC = inferior vena cava
Figure 1. Diagram of the right atrium (1) and ventricle with its three major components: inflow tract (2), body (i.e., apex, 3) and outlet tract (i.e., infundibulum, 4). Adapted from: SVC = superior vena cava; Ao = aorta; PA = pulmonary artery; IVC = inferior vena cava

RV anatomy and contraction pattern

The right ventricle, once the ‘forgotten’ ventricle, has regained new attention, both in cardiology and in critical care.[6,7] In the ICU, RV function can indirectly be assessed using a pulmonary artery catheter (RV haemodynamics, pulmonary vascular resistance calculation), or importantly, directly by chocardiography.[8] The echocardiographic assessment of the right ventricle is, however, difficult, because of a complex geometrical structure. The right ventricle can be divided into three parts (figure 1): [9]

A. The inflow containing the tricuspid valve and valvular apparatus
B. The trabeculated immobile apical region
C. The funnel-shaped outflow (i.e., infundibulum)

The right ventricle’s myocytal organisation and its resulting contractional pattern is very different from that of the left ventricle. In comparison to the three-layered myocytal arrangement of the left ventricle only two different layers can be identified. In the superficial – epicardial – layer (20-25% of the wall thickness), the myocytes are organised in a circumferential fashion. In the subendocardial layer the organisation is longitudinal, extending from the apex to the tricuspid annulus.[10]

The right ventricle contracts in a peristaltic-like fashion: starting at the inlet and ending at the infundibulum (figure 2). After tricuspid valve closure, RV systole begins by activation and subsequent contraction of the myocytes in the subepicardial layer of the inflow. During this isovolumetric face (figure 2B), the right ventricle is circumferentially – radially – deformed, creating a ‘bellow effect’ by inward movement of the RV free wall. During the ejection phase (figure 2A), the longitudinal myocardial fibres in the subendocardial layer (75% of total RV ejection) shorten, pulling the tricuspid annulus towards the apex (i.e., TAPSE). At the end of systole the infundibulum contracts (figure 2C), contributing to 15-20% of RV ejection. LV contraction also contributes significantly to RV ejection via shared myocardial fibres, intraventricular septum and pericardium (i.e., ventricular interdependence). The interventricular septum plays a crucial role in this regard, through longitudinal shortening during the ejection phase.[11,12]

The predominately longitudinal contraction pattern changes in pathological states: there is a decline in both longitudinal and radial contraction (radial decline is more pronounced) in pressure overload and an increase in longitudinal contraction in volume overload.[12] Interestingly, after pericardiotomy, there is a loss of longitudinal contraction (i.e., TAPSE) with a compensatory increase in the RV free wall and concentric contraction, thereby maintaining the global RV systolic function. This demonstrates the pivotal role an intact pericardium plays in allowing normal longitudinal contraction.[12,13]


Figure 2. Diagram of right ventricular contraction. A. Ejection phase: shortening of the free wall and pulling the tricuspid annulus towards the apex (i.e., TAPSE). B. Isovolumetric face: the right ventricle is circumferentially – radially – deformed, creating a ‘bellow effect’ by inward movement of the RV free wall. C. End of contraction: infundibulum shortens, and blood is ejected into the common pulmonary artery. Adapted from

Echocardiographic assessment

In echocardiography, the right ventricle appears triangular when viewed from the front and has a crescent-like shape in a transverse view. To have a comprehensive FoCUS view of the right ventricle, different views have to be evaluated:[9]

  1. Parasternal long-axis view: proximal right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) diameter, free wall contraction and LV/RV ratio
  2. Parasternal short-axis view at papillary muscle level: RV dimension, septal position and kinetics
  3. Parasternal short-axis view at aortic valve level: proximal RVOT diameter
  4. Apical four-chamber (A4C) view: qualitative assessment of LV and RV function and dimensions, and LV/RV ratio
  5. Subcostal four-chamber view (S4C): qualitative assessment of LV and RV function and dimensions, and LV/RV ratio
  6. Subcostal inferior vena cava (IVC) view: IVC diameter and respiratory variations.

There is an additional view, the ‘focused’ RV view, which can give a better evaluation of the RV free wall. From the A4C view, the transducer is moved more laterally on the patient, and rotated until the maximal diameter of the base can be seen.

Visual versus quantitative assessment

The above-explained ‘comprehensive’ assessment is done mainly by visual inspection — ‘eyeballing’. But how good are we at ‘eyeballing’?

Several studies have investigated the accuracy of ‘eyeballing’ as a way of evaluating the RV size and function.[5,14-17] These studies, conducted in different settings, demonstrated that ‘eyeballing’ has limited accuracy and high interrater variability for detecting RV dysfunction as compared with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) – the ‘gold standard’– or by 3D or speckletracking echocardiography. Accuracy improves and variability decreases when only differentiating normal from abnormal RV function, with the level of experience (experts ‘outperform’ beginners) and more importantly, by adding a quantitative assessment to the evaluation.[5,15-17]

Not surprisingly, current guidelines recommend that RV function should not only be assessed visually but also be evaluated by at least one additional quantitative parameter.[18] There are many objective echocardiographic parameters: TAPSE, tissue Doppler imaging of the RV free wall (RV S’), RV index of myocardial performance (RIMP) or Tei index, and fractional area change (FAC).[19,20] More recent additions encompass RV strain analysis and 3D RV-ejection fraction measurement.[9] Excluding TAPSE and probably FAC, these parameters require additional training and, more importantly, more computational power (i.e., Doppler tissue imaging, speckle tracking, 3D analysis) which are not yet available in portable devices.

Table 1. TAPSE and subcostal variants SEATAK and S-TAPSE

TAPSE = tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, s-TAPSE = subcostal TAPSE, SEATAK = subcostal echocardiographic assessment of tricuspid annular kick, 4AC = apical four chamber view, S4C = subcostal fourchamber view, 2D= two dimensions, MM = M-mode echocardiography, ND = not (yet) defined
TAPSE = tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, s-TAPSE = subcostal TAPSE, SEATAK = subcostal echocardiographic assessment of tricuspid annular kick, 4AC = apical four chamber view, S4C = subcostal fourchamber view, 2D= two dimensions, MM = M-mode echocardiography, ND = not (yet) defined

TAPSE was one of the first quantitative measurements introduced to objectively assess RV function and is, besides eyeballing, still the most widely used method.[21,22] It has been incorporated in many international FoCUS training programs and was recently selected as a core critical care ultrasound competency to assess RV function by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.[23,24]

But is it necessary to include measurements in a FoCUS assessment as ICU physicians seem able to accurately quantify RV size and function (including visual evaluation of tricuspid valve displacement, i.e., TAPSE) visually?[25] A study conducted in the emergency department (ED) shed some light on this discussion: after training and performing at least 20 TAPSE measurements, ED fellows and residents could visually estimate TAPSE with good accuracy.[26] They concluded: ‘… once a practitioner has gained some experience measuring TAPSE, it is reasonable to visually estimate TAPSE and only measure it using M-mode in cases of uncertainty’

Unfortunately, TAPSE cannot always be obtained reliably (e.g., because of mechanical ventilation, wound dressing); then, what often remains is the subcostal view, ‘the rescue window for the intensivist’.[27] In this situation two recently introduced subcostal variants - SEATAK and S-TAPSE - could be useful.[4,5] Taken together, the general intensivist can improve his FoCUS skills by measuring TAPSE and variants. It not only helps to improve his visual assessment but also contributes to the characterisation and prognosis of critically ill patients (see Applications of TAPSE).

TAPSE, SEATAK and subcostal TAPSE


TAPSE, first reported by Kaul and colleagues in 1984, is the distance (in millimetres) the tricuspid annulus travels towards the RV apex, between end-diastole and end-systole.[21] Therefore, it quantifies the longitudinal contraction aspect of the right ventricle.

TAPSE is measured in the A4C view by M-mode (figure 3A) or 2D (figure 3B) echocardiography. M-mode is more commonly used, but both methods yield similar results.[28] We prefer M-mode because it allows a higher temporal resolution. After obtaining the 4AC view, the M-mode is activated, and the M-mode line is aligned parallel to the motion of the tricuspid annulus (figure 3A). According to[29] there are different ways to optimise the measurement: decreasing the gain to avoid ‘noise artefacts’, using a medium-fast M-mode speed (~50 mm/s), looking for a consistent signal throughout systole and diastole, and measuring vertically via a leadingedge to leading-edge method.

An average of three measurements should be used, with a minimum of five when the patient is in atrial fibrillation.[30] The normal TAPSE value in healthy subjects is 24.0±3.5 mm, more or less independent of sex or age.[31] A TAPSE

Whether TAPSE is preload dependent is debatable. Some studies have found a good correlation between end-diastolic volume (preload) and TAPSE.[31,32] However, acute fluid administration in healthy volunteers and in critically ill patients did not affect TAPSE, and fluid withdrawal in haemodialysis patients revealed contradictory results.[33-36]

TAPSE correlates well (r~0.90) with the global RV function, measured by radionuclide angiography, 3D echocardiography or cMRI.[21,37,38] In critically ill patients it correlates with thermodilution-derived RV ejection fraction (r=0.78).[39] TAPSE can therefore serve as a surrogate marker for the RV systolic function. This relationship is unsurprising since longitudinal contraction determines 75-80% of RV ejection.[11] In some pathological situations, this coupling is, however, lost: in patients with LV dysfunction (especially with reduced longitudinal septal motion), regional wall motion abnormalities (TAPSE measures only a small RV segment), severe tricuspid regurgitation (overestimation of global function due to malalignment between transducer and tricuspid annulus),[40-42] and after pericardiotomy (loss op pericardial integrity).[13]

Figure 3. Measurement of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), subcostal echocardiographic assessment of tricuspid annular kick (SEATAK) and the subcostal-TAPSE (S-TAPSE) A: Apical-4-chamber view (A4C): M-mode TAPSE measurement. In the A4C view, a M-mode line is aligned parallel to the motion of the tricuspid annulus: TAPSE is the distance in millimetres (mm) between minimum tot maximal excursion B: A4C view: 2D TAPSE measurement. In the A4C view a cursor is positioned over the TA in end-diastole, the image is then progressed to end-systole, where a second cursor is placed over the TA. TAPSE is the distance (in mm) between these two points C: Subcostal short-axis view: SEATAK (M-mode) measurement. In the subcostal-4-chamber (S4C) view the probe is turned counter-clockwise and a M-mode line is aligned with the TA: SEATAK is distance in mm between the minimum and maximal excursion D: S4C view: 2D S-TAPSE measurement. In the S4C view, a cursor is positioned at the TA in end-diastole, the image is then progressed to end-systole, and a second cursor is placed at the TA. S-TAPSE is the distance between these two points (in mm) RA = right atrium view; RV = right ventricle; LA = left atrium; LV = left ventricle. IVC = inferior vena cava

Subcostal echocardiographic assessment of tricuspid annular kick

SEATAK is measured by first obtaining the S4C view. The probe is subsequently rotated counter-clockwise to obtain a subcostal short-axis view. This allows visualisation of the right atrium and ventricle, tricuspid annulus, and inferior vena cava (figure 3C). After activating the M-mode, the M-mode line is aligned with the tricuspid annulus to obtain a linear measurement in millimetres from end-diastole to end-systole (tricuspid annular klick). Díaz-Gómez et al. were the first to study SEATAK in critically ill patients. SEATAK and TAPSE were highly correlated (r=0.86) with a mean difference of -2.6 mm (95% CI -1.9 to -3.5 mm).[4] Similar results were recently found in cardiology patients (mean difference of 0.15 mm, r=0.82; p< 0.0001). A SEATAK of ≥16 mm predicted normal RV function (FAC ≥35%) with a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 67% (table 1). [43] In children, SEATAK is also highly correlated to TAPSE, and the value increases with increasing age, body weight, body length, and body surface area in a nonlinear fashion.[44] Older adolescents have similar values as reported in adults by Díaz-Gómez et al.[4]

Subcostal TAPSE (S-TAPSE)

In the S4C view, the tricuspid annulus is first identified in diastole, and a cursor is positioned over it (figure 3D). The image is then progressed to systole, where a second cursor is placed over the tricuspid annulus. The distance between these two points is the S-TAPSE.

In a retrospective study of 56 critical care patients, S-TAPSE and TAPSE were well correlated, with a mean difference of 1.2 mm (95% CI 0.04-2.36).[45] However, the Bland–Altman plot analysis demonstrated that the majority of measurements fell outside the confidence interval, limiting its applicability. S-TAPSE performed well when discriminating ‘normal’ from ‘abnormal’ TAPSE (sensitivity 97.8%, specificity 87.5%), so this may be used to quickly screen for abnormal RV function.

Applications of TAPSE

TAPSE has been evaluated in different critical care scenarios, such as mechanical ventilation, acute reparatory distress syndrome (ARDS), pulmonary embolism (PE), sepsis and recently in Covid-19 pneumonia.

TAPSE in ICU patients

The complex effect of mechanical ventilation on RV and LV function has been studied extensively. These studies demonstrated that mechanical ventilation, PEEP, and recruitment manoeuvres can have a detrimental effect, particularly in the already compromised right ventricle.[46]

TAPSE can decrease significantly after the start of positive mechanical ventilation, as was recently described in elective cardiac surgery patients (-1.6 mm, 95% CI -2.6 to -0.7 mm; p=0.0013).[47] However, 3D echocardiography derived RV-ejection fraction and stroke volume were not reduced, so the clinical implication of this finding is not fully understood. There is an inverse relationship between central venous pressure (CVD) and TAPSE nonetheless, especially in patients with a low LV ejection fraction (<55%). A high CVD and low TAPSE are both associated with the development of acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery and in a general ICU population.[48-50] A low TAPSE in combination with high LV filling pressures is a strong predictor of weaning failure.[51] Moreover, a low TAPSE is associated with an increased ICU length of stay, and even increased mortality.[52]

TAPSE in acute reparatory distress syndrome

Many studies have looked at the RV function, including measurement of TAPSE, in ARDS patients.[53] ARDS and mechanical ventilation affect RV function (i.e., TAPSE) through various mutually influencing mechanisms. Increased pulmonary vascular resistance (microcirculatory changes, low PO2 /FiO2 18 cmH2 O and high PEEP >10 cmH2 O) negatively affect RV function and TAPSE.[53-56] On the other hand, prone position, lung protective mechanical ventilation and CO2 removal and, interestingly, a patent foramen ovale (unloading right ventricle), have a positive influence on TAPSE.[57,58]

In a meta-analysis of 16 studies (1661 patients) on lung-protective ventilation, the pooled incidence of acute cor pulmonale was 23% (95% CI 18-28%). About 27-48% of the patients (studied in five of the 16 studies) had a TAPSE < 17 mm is correlated with the severity of ARDS, reflected by a low PO2 /FiO2 ratio and high pCO2 , and is independently associated with increased mortality.[60,61] A sequential FoCUS RV evaluation (including TAPSE) could enable a timely selection of a more 'RVprotective ventilation' strategy, thereby reducing the incidence of cor pulmonale and positively impacting mortality.[53]

TAPSE and pulmonary embolism

Pulmonary embolism is a common diagnosis in the ICU and is associated with high ICU and in-hospital mortality.[62] In the setting of acute PE, pulmonary vascular resistance and RV afterload increase abruptly due to mechanical obstruction and release of vasoconstrictive mediators. An obstruction of >25-30% of the pulmonary vasculature is associated with an increase in pulmonary pressures and a 30% reduction in RV stroke volume; whilst an obstruction of 50-75% leads to RV failure.[63] This increased strain on the right ventricle results in RV dilatation and high wall stress, and later systolic dysfunction and septal deviation. Echocardiography plays a pivotal role in the diagnosis, risk stratification, and prognosis estimation.[64] Low TAPSE is strongly and independently associated with risk of death and decompensation in multiple studies, though the cut-off value varies between 15 and 18 mm.[63] It also predicts acute decompensation in patients undergoing acute pulmonary artery embolectomy.[65] According to Paczynska et al., patients with a TAPSE ≤15 mm should be admitted to the ICU and closely monitored; on the other hand, a TAPSE ≥18 mm identifies a very low-risk population.[63,66] TAPSE was recently successfully incorporated in a modified pulmonary embolism severity index (PESI) score, the PESI echo (PESI echo = PESI + pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) -TAPSE). PESI echo was superior to PESI for predicting in-hospital mortality.[67]

TAPSE in sepsis

Sepsis-induced ‘reversible’ LV dysfunction, first described by Parker et al. in 1984, is well documented.[68] RV dysfunction, in up to 50% of cases, can also be found in sepsis and septic shock. However, its negative effect on mortality has been controversial. [69] Newer studies, with a total of 1569 patients, found a strong correlation between RV dysfunction (including TAPSE < 16 mm) and 28-day mortality.[70-72] In three recent papers, a low TAPSE (optimal cut-off between 18-21 mm) or a high TAPSE/PASP ratio were independent factors of increased duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU mortality and one-year all-cause mortality.[73-75]

TAPSE in Covid-19 pneumonia

Recent studies have evaluated the impact of RV dysfunction in Covid-19 patients.[76-78] In a multicentre retrospective study of 164 Covid-19 patients, RV dilatation (38% of patients) and impaired RV systolic function (reduced FAC or TAPSE) were the main echocardiographic findings. LV function was usually preserved or hyperdynamic. Interestingly, a reduced TAPSE function was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality.[76] In a recent meta-analysis, every 1 mm decrease in TAPSE was associated with an increase in mortality of approximately 20%.[78]


An important point to emphasise is that TAPSE only measures longitudinal RV function. However, since longitudinal contraction accounts for 75% of RV ejection, TAPSE has proven to be a good alternative for overall RV function in many situations. There are important exceptions to this rule: regional wall motion abnormalities (TAPSE measures only a small RV segment), severe tricuspid regurgitation (overestimation of RV function), and postcardiac surgery (loss of pericardial integrity). Furthermore, in case of severe pressure overload, TAPSE does not reflect global RV function properly, since in these circumstances the longitudinal shortening is less important than the radial shortening.

Another limitation is that TAPSE, like any other M-mode measurement, is angle-dependent. Thus, a lot of effort has to be made to find the right alignment between the tricuspid annulus movement and the M-mode cursor.

Sometimes, proper alignment is not possible, then SEATAK or S-TAPSE appear to be adequate replacements. However, because both are measured in the subcostal view, this angle issue is even more pronounced. Furthermore, the influence of loading conditions, use of inotropic agents, and arrhythmia on SEATAK or S-TAPSE are currently unknown.


The right ventricle can visually be inspected or objectively evaluated using FoCUS. However, ‘eyeballing’ is, at best, a semi-accurate and highly experience-based way of assessing RV function. Many objective echocardiographic measurements are available to better characterise the right ventricle. TAPSE and, to a lesser extent, its subcostal counterparts - SEATAK and S-TAPSE - are easy and reliable ways to objectively assess RV function. Nevertheless, further research is needed prior to wide implementation of these TAPSE variants. In many critical care scenarios, TAPSE (and variants) are independent predictors of an increased duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, and mortality. In addition, sequential TAPSE measurements can be used to monitor the effect of protective ventilation settings on the right ventricle. In our opinion, TAPSE should be a mandatory FoCUS assessment.


We would like to thank Mogumash ( mogumash) for the excellent illustrations.


All authors declare no conflict of interest. No funding or financial support was received.


  1. Spencer KT, Kimura BJ, Korcarz CE, Pellikka PA, Rahko PS, Siegel RJ. Focused cardiac
    ultrasound: recommendations from the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am
    Soc Echocardiogr. 2013;26(6):567-81.
  2. Boon SC, López Matta JE, Elzo Kraemer CV, Tuinman PR, van Westerloo DJ. E-point
    septal separation, a quick assessment of reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in a
    POCUS setting. Netherlands Journal of Critical Care. 2020;28(5):139-41.
  3. López Matta JE, Elzo Kraemer CV, Tuinman PR, van Westerloo DJ. POCUS series: The
    use of velocity time integral in assessing cardiac output and fluid responsiveness.
    Netherlands Journal of Critical Care. 2019;27(5):196-8.
  4. Díaz-Gómez JL, Alvarez AB, Danaraj JJ, Freeman ML, Lee AS, Mookadam F, et al. A novel
    semiquantitative assessment of right ventricular systolic function with a modified
    subcostal echocardiographic view. Echocardiography. 2017;34(1):44-52.
  5. Orde S, Slama M, Yastrebov K, McLean A, Huang S, Nyikovics A, et al. Subjective right
    ventricle assessment by echo qualified intensive care specialists: assessing agreement
    with objective measures. Critical Care. 2019;23(1):70.
  6. Amsallem M, Mercier O, Kobayashi Y, Moneghetti K, Haddad F. Forgotten No More: A
    Focused Update on the Right Ventricle in Cardiovascular Disease. JACC: Heart Failure.
  7. Hermens JA, Donker DW. Right ventricular failure in the ICU : a practical approach.
    Netherlands Journal of Critical Care. 2018;26(3):111-7.
  8. King C, May CW, Williams J, Shlobin OA. Management of Right Heart Failure in the
    Critically Ill. Critical Care Clinics. 2014;30(3):475-98.
  9. Jones N, Burns AT, Prior DL. Echocardiographic Assessment of the Right Ventricle-State
    of the Art. Heart Lung Circ. 2019;28(9):1339-50.
  10. Sanz J, Sánchez-Quintana D, Bossone E, Bogaard HJ, Naeije R. Anatomy, Function,
    and Dysfunction of the Right Ventricle: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. Journal of the
    American College of Cardiology. 2019;73(12):1463-82.
  11. Buckberg G, Hoffman JIE. Right ventricular architecture responsible for mechanical
    performance: Unifying role of ventricular septum. The Journal of Thoracic and
    Cardiovascular Surgery. 2014;148(6):3166-71.e4.
  12. Kovács A, Lakatos B, Tokodi M, Merkely B. Right ventricular mechanical pattern in
    health and disease: beyond longitudinal shortening. Heart Fail Rev. 2019;24(4):511-20.
  13. Maus TM. TAPSE: A Red Herring After Cardiac Surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth.
  14. Magunia H, Schmid E, Hilberath JN, Häberle L, Grasshoff C, Schlensak C, et al. 2D
    Echocardiographic Evaluation of Right Ventricular Function Correlates With 3D
    Volumetric Models in Cardiac Surgery Patients. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular
    Anesthesia. 2017;31(2):595-601.
  15. Bellsham-Revell HR, Simpson JM, Miller OI, Bell AJ. Subjective evaluation of right
    ventricular systolic function in hypoplastic left heart syndrome: how accurate is it?
    Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography : official publication of the
    American Society of Echocardiography. 2013;26(1):52-6.
  16. Ling LF, Obuchowski NA, Rodriguez L, Popovic Z, Kwon D, Marwick TH. Accuracy and
    interobserver concordance of echocardiographic assessment of right ventricular size
    and systolic function: a quality control exercise. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2012;25(7):709-
  17. Schneider M, Ran H, Aschauer S, Binder C, Mascherbauer J, Lang I, et al. Visual
    assessment of right ventricular function by echocardiography: how good are we? The
    International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging. 2019;35(11):2001-8.
  18. Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V, Afilalo J, Armstrong A, Ernande L, et al.
    Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in
    adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European
    Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015;28(1):1-39.e14.
  19. Dutta T, Aronow WS. Echocardiographic evaluation of the right ventricle: Clinical
    implications. Clin Cardiol. 2017;40(8):542-8.
  20. 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; quiz 86-8.
  21. Kaul S, Tei C, Hopkins JM, Shah PM. Assessment of right ventricular function using twodimensional echocardiography. Am Heart J. 1984;107(3):526-31.
  22. Schneider M, Aschauer S, Mascherbauer J, Ran H, Binder C, Lang I, et al.
    Echocardiographic assessment of right ventricular function: current clinical practice.
    The international journal of cardiovascular imaging. 2019;35(1):49-56.
  23. Wong A, Galarza L, Duska F. Critical Care Ultrasound: A Systematic Review of
    International Training Competencies and Program. Critical Care Medicine. 2019;47(3).
  24. Wong A, Galarza L, Forni L, De Backer D, Slama M, Cholley B, et al. Recommendations
    for core critical care ultrasound competencies as a part of specialist training in
    multidisciplinary intensive care: a framework proposed by the European Society of
    Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). Critical Care. 2020;24(1):393.
  25. Filopei J, Acquah SO, Bondarsky EE, Steiger DJ, Ramesh N, Ehrlich M, et al. Diagnostic
    Accuracy of Point-of-Care Ultrasound Performed by Pulmonary Critical Care Physicians
    for Right Ventricle Assessment in Patients With Acute Pulmonary Embolism*. Critical
    Care Medicine. 2017;45(12).
  26. Daley J, Grotberg J, Pare J, Medoro A, Liu R, Hall MK, et al. Emergency physician
    performed tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion in the evaluation of suspected
    pulmonnary embolism. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2017;35(1):106-11.
  27. Flower L, Madhivathanan PR, Andorka M, Olusanya O, Roshdy A, Sanfilippo F. Getting
    the most from the subcostal view: The rescue window for intensivists. J Crit Care. 2020.
  28. Qureshi MY, Eidem BW, Reece CL, O’Leary PW. Two-dimensional measurement of
    tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion in children: can it substitute for an m-mode
    assessment? Echocardiography. 2015;32(3):528-34.
  29. Fields A. 8 Tips to Correct RV Function Assessment with TAPSE & S’ Wave 2017
    [Available from:
  30. Jozwiak M, Mercado P, Teboul J-L, Benmalek A, Gimenez J, Dépret F, et al. What is the
    lowest change in cardiac output that transthoracic echocardiography can detect?
    Critical Care. 2019;23(1):116.
  31. Ferrara F, Rudski LG, Vriz O, Gargani L, Afilalo J, D’Andrea A, et al. Physiologic correlates
    of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion in 1168 healthy subjects. International
    Journal of Cardiology. 2016;223:736-43.
  32. Zhao H, Kang Y, Pickle J, Wang J, Han Y. Tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion is
    dependent on right ventricular volume in addition to function. Echocardiography.
  33. Nafati C, Gardette M, Leone M, Reydellet L, Blasco V, Lannelongue A, et al. Use
    of speckle-tracking strain in preload-dependent patients, need for cautious
    interpretation! Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8(1):29.
  34. Kjaergaard J, Snyder EM, Hassager C, Oh JK, Johnson BD. Impact of Preload
    and Afterload on Global and Regional Right Ventricular Function and Pressure:
    A Quantitative Echocardiography Study. Journal of the American Society of
    Echocardiography. 2006;19(5):515-21.
  35. Kwon A, Ahn HS, Kim GH, Cho JS, Park CS, Youn HJ. Right Ventricular Analysis Using
    Real-time Three-dimensional Echocardiography for Preload Dependency. J Cardiovasc
    Imaging. 2020;28(1):36-47.
  36. Najafian J, Taheri S, Mahaki B, Molavi S, Alami S, Khalesi S, et al. Comparing right
    ventricular function and pulmonary artery pressure before and shortly after
    hemodialysis in patients with end-stage renal disease. Advanced Biomedical Research.
  37. Smith JL, Bolson EL, Wong SP, Hubka M, Sheehan FH. Three-dimensional assessment
    of two-dimensional technique for evaluation of right ventricular function by tricuspid
    annulus motion. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2003;19(3):189-97.
  38. Hamilton-Craig CR, Stedman K, Maxwell R, Anderson B, Stanton T, Chan J, et al.
    Accuracy of quantitative echocardiographic measures of right ventricular function as
    compared to cardiovascular magnetic resonance. IJC Heart & Vasculature. 2016;12:38-
  39. Barthélémy R, Roy X, Javanainen T, Mebazaa A, Chousterman BG. Comparison
    of echocardiographic indices of right ventricular systolic function and ejection
    fraction obtained with continuous thermodilution in critically ill patients. Crit Care.
  40. Kjaergaard J, Iversen KK, Akkan D, Møller JE, Køber LV, Torp-Pedersen C, et al. Predictors
    of right ventricular function as measured by tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion
    in heart failure. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2009;7:51.
  41. Hsiao SH, Lin SK, Wang WC, Yang SH, Gin PL, Liu CP. Severe tricuspid regurgitation
    shows significant impact in the relationship among peak systolic tricuspid annular
    velocity, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, and right ventricular ejection
    fraction. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2006;19(7):902-10.
  42. Heggemann F, Hamm K, Brade J, Streitner F, Doesch C, Papavassiliu T, et al. Right
    ventricular function quantification in Takotsubo cardiomyopathy using twodimensional strain echocardiography. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e103717.
  43. Sadek DE-DMd, Al-Deftar MI, Attia WM, Abo-El-Magd A-HM. Value of Semiquantitative
    Assessment of Right Ventricular Systolic Function with A Modified Subcostal
    Echocardiographic View. The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2019;75(4):2601-5.
  44. Kurath-Koller S, Avian A, Cantinotti M, Burmas A, Grangl G, Schweintzger S, et al.
    Normal Pediatric Values of the Subcostal Tricuspid Annular Plane Systolic Excursion
    (S-TAPSE) and Its Value in Pediatric Pulmonary Hypertension. Canadian Journal of
    Cardiology. 2019;35(7):899-906.
  45. Main AB, Braham R, Campbell D, Inglis AJ, McLean A, Orde S. Subcostal TAPSE: a
    retrospective analysis of a novel right ventricle function assessment method from the
    subcostal position in patients with sepsis. Ultrasound J. 2019;11(1):19.
  46. Mahmood SS, Pinsky MR. Heart-lung interactions during mechanical ventilation: the
    basics. Ann Transl Med. 2018;6(18):349-.
  47. Tousignant C, Bowry R, Cruz JD, Mazer CD. Induction of anesthesia does not alter
    tricuspid annular velocities: a tissue Doppler assessment. Canadian Journal of
    Anesthesia/Journal canadien d’anesthésie. 2009;56(10):757-62.
  48. Zhang H, Wang X, Chen X, Zhang Q, Liu D. Tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion
    and central venous pressure in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Cardiovasc
    Ultrasound. 2018;16(1):11.
  49. Guinot PG, Arab OA, Longrois D, Dupont H. Right ventricular systolic dysfunction and
    vena cava dilatation precede alteration of renal function in adult patients undergoing
    cardiac surgery: An observational study. European Journal of Anaesthesiology | EJA.
  50. Wiersema R, Koeze J, Hiemstra B, Pettilä V, Perner A, Keus F, et al. Associations between
    tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion to reflect right ventricular function and
    acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: a SICS-I sub-study. Ann Intensive Care.
  51. Papaioannou VE, Stakos DA, Dragoumanis CK, Pneumatikos IA. Relation of tricuspid
    annular displacement and tissue Doppler imaging velocities with duration of weaning
    in mechanically ventilated patients with acute pulmonary edema. BMC Cardiovasc
    Disord. 2010;10:20.
  52. Gajanana D, Seetha Rammohan H, Alli O, Romero-Corral A, Purushottam B, Ponamgi
    S, et al. Tricuspid Annular Plane Systolic Excursion and Its Association with Mortality in
    Critically Ill Patients. Echocardiography. 2015;32(8):1222-7.
  53. Repessé X, Vieillard-Baron A. Right heart function during acute respiratory distress
    syndrome. Ann Transl Med. 2017;5(14):14.
  54. Lazzeri C, Bonizzoli M, Cianchi G, Batacchi S, Chiostri M, Peris A. Severity of acute
    respiratory distress syndrome and echocardiographic findings in clinical practice–an
    echocardiographic pilot study. Heart & Lung. 2020;49(5):622-5.
  55. Tavazzi G, Bergsland N, Alcada J, Price S. Early signs of right ventricular systolic and
    diastolic dysfunction in acute severe respiratory failure: the importance of diastolic
    restrictive pattern. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2020;9(6):649-56.
  56. Zhao Y, Zhang H, Zhang D. Effect of positive end-expiratory pressure on right heart
    function in mechanically ventilated patients: An ultrasonography based study. Kuweit
    Medical Journal. 2020;52(2):198 – 203.
  57. Goursaud S, Valette X, Dupeyrat J, Daubin C, du Cheyron D. Ultraprotective ventilation
    allowed by extracorporeal CO(2) removal improves the right ventricular function in
    acute respiratory distress syndrome patients: a quasi-experimental pilot study. Ann
    Intensive Care. 2021;11(1):3.
  58. Legras A, Caille A, Begot E, Lhéritier G, Lherm T, Mathonnet A, et al. Acute respiratory
    distress syndrome (ARDS)-associated acute cor pulmonale and patent foramen ovale:
    a multicenter noninvasive hemodynamic study. Crit Care. 2015;19(1):174.
  59. Das SK, Choupoo NS, Saikia P, Lahkar A. Incidence Proportion of Acute Cor Pulmonale
    in Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Subjected to Lung Protective
    Ventilation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Indian J Crit Care Med.
  60. Shah TG, Wadia SK, Kovach J, Fogg L, Tandon R. Echocardiographic parameters of right
    ventricular function predict mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a pilot
    study. Pulm Circ. 2016;6(2):155-60.
  61. Wadia SK, Shah TG, Hedstrom G, Kovach JA, Tandon R. Early detection of right
    ventricular dysfunction using transthoracic echocardiography in ARDS: a more
    objective approach. Echocardiography. 2016;33(12):1874-9.
  62. Bahloul M, Chaari A, Kallel H, Abid L, Hamida CB, Dammak H, et al. Pulmonary embolism
    in intensive care unit: Predictive factors, clinical manifestations and outcome. Ann
    Thorac Med. 2010;5(2):97-103.
  63. Alerhand S, Hickey SM. Tricuspid Annular Plane Systolic Excursion (TAPSE) for Risk
    Stratification and Prognostication of Patients with Pulmonary Embolism. J Emerg Med.
  64. Dabbouseh NM, Patel JJ, Bergl PA. Role of echocardiography in managing acute
    pulmonary embolism. Heart. 2019;105(23):1785-92.
  65. Schmid E, Hilberath JN, Blumenstock G, Shekar PS, Kling S, Shernan SK, et al.
    Tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) predicts poor outcome in patients
    undergoing acute pulmonary embolectomy. Heart Lung Vessel. 2015;7(2):151-8.
  66. Paczyńska M, Sobieraj P, Burzyński Ł, Kostrubiec M, Wiśniewska M, Bienias P, et al.
    Tricuspid annulus plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) has superior predictive value
    compared to right ventricular to left ventricular ratio in normotensive patients with
    acute pulmonary embolism. Arch Med Sci. 2016;12(5):1008-14.
  67. Burgos LM, Scatularo CE, Cigalini IM, Jauregui JC, Bernal MI, Bonorino JM, et al. The
    addition of echocardiographic parameters to PESI risk score improves mortality
    prediction in patients with acute pulmonary embolism: PESI-Echo score. Eur Heart J
    Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2020.
  68. Parker MM, Shelhamer JH, Bacharach SL, Green MV, Natanson C, Frederick TM, et al.
    Profound but reversible myocardial depression in patients with septic shock. Ann
    Intern Med. 1984;100(4):483-90.
  69. Palmieri V, Innocenti F, Pini R. The prognostic importance of the heart function in sepsis
    and septic shock: a Dedalus or a window of opportunities? Journal of Emergency and
    Critical Care Medicine. 2017;1(12).
  70. Kim J-s, Kim Y-J, Kim M, Ryoo SM, Kim WY. Association between right ventricle
    dysfunction and poor outcome in patients with septic shock. Heart. 2020;106(21):1665-
  71. Lanspa MJ, Cirulis MM, Wiley BM, Olsen TD, Wilson EL, Beesley SM, et al. Right
    Ventricular Dysfunction in Early Sepsis and Septic Shock. CHEST. 2020.
  72. Vallabhajosyula S, Kumar M, Pandompatam G, Sakhuja A, Kashyap R, Kashani K, et al.
    Prognostic impact of isolated right ventricular dysfunction in sepsis and septic shock:
    an 8-year historical cohort study. Ann Intensive Care. 2017;7(1):94.
  73. Dong J, White S, Nielsen K, Banchs J, Wang J, Botz GH, et al. Tricuspid Annular
    Plane Systolic Excursion is a Predictor of Mortality for Septic Shock. Intern Med J.
  74. Zhang H, Chen X, Lian H, Zhang Q, Wang X, Zheng M, et al. Prognostic Value of Tricuspid
    Annular Plane Systolic Excursion and Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Fractional
    Shortening in Mechanically Ventilated Septic Patients. Journal of Cardiothoracic and
    Vascular Anesthesia. 2020.
  75. Zhang H, Lian H, Zhang Q, Chen X, Wang X, Liu D. Prognostic implications of tricuspid
    annular plane systolic excursion/pulmonary arterial systolic pressure ratio in septic
    shock patients. Cardiovascular Ultrasound. 2020;18(1):20.
  76. Moody WE, Mahmoud-Elsayed HM, Senior J, Gul U, Khan-Kheil AM, Horne S, et al.
    Impact of Right Ventricular Dysfunction on Mortality in Patients Hospitalized with
    COVID-19 according to Race. CJC Open. 2020.
  77. Liu Y, Xie J, Gao P, Tian R, Qian H, Guo F, et al. Swollen heart in COVID-19 patients who
    progress to critical illness: a perspective from echo-cardiologists. ESC Heart Fail. 2020.
  78. Martha JW, Pranata R, Wibowo A, Lim MA. Tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion
    (TAPSE) measured by echocardiography and mortality in COVID-19: A systematic
    review and meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;105:351-6.