Background: Sedation is an essential component of the transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) procedure for patient comfort. Utilization and the clinical implications of cardiologist-supervised (CARD-Sed) versus anesthesiologist-supervised sedation (ANES-Sed) are unknown. Methods: We reviewed non-operative TEE records from a single academic center over a five-year time period and identified CARD-Sed and ANES-Sed cases. We evaluated the impact of patient comorbidities, cardiac abnormalities on transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE), and the indication for TEE on sedation practice. We analyzed the use of CARD-Sed versus ANES-Sed in light of institutional guidelines, the consistency in the documentation of pre-procedural risk stratification, and the incidence of cardiopulmonary events including hypotension, hypoxia and hypercarbia. Results: A total of 914 patients underwent TEE, with 475 (52%) receiving CARD-Sed and 439 (48%) ANES-Sed. The presence of obstructive sleep apnea (p=0.008), a BMI greater than 45kg/m 2 (p<0.001), an EF of less than 30% (p<0.001) and pulmonary artery systolic pressure of more than 40 mm Hg (p=0.015) were all associated with the use of ANES-Sed. Of the 178 (19.5%) patients with at least one caution to non-anesthesiologist-supervised sedation by the institutional screening guideline, 65 (36.5%) underwent CARD-Sed. In the ANES-Sed group, where intraprocedural vital signs and medications were documented in all cases, hypotension (n = 91, 20.7%), vasoactive medication use (n=121, 27.6%), hypoxia (n= 35, 8.0%), and hypercarbia (n= 50, 11.4%) were noted. Conclusions: This single-center study revealed that 56% of the non-operative TEE utilized ANES-Sed over five years. Sedation-related hemodynamic changes and respiratory events were not infrequently encountered during ANES-Sed.

Introduction: Cardiac point-of-care ultrasound (c-POCUS) is an increasingly implemented diagnostic tool with the potential to guide clinical management. We sought to characterize and analyze the existing c-POCUS literature with a focus on the temporal trends and differences across specialties. Methods: A literature search for c-POCUS and related terms was conducted using Ovid (MEDLINE and Embase) and Web of Science databases through 2020. Eligible publications were classified by publication type and topic, author specialty, geographical region of senior author, and journal specialty. Results: The initial search produced 1761 potential publications. A strict definition of c-POCUS yielded a final total of 574 cardiac POCUS manuscripts. A yearly increase in c-POCUS publications was observed. Nearly half of publications were original research (48.8%) followed by case report or series (22.8%). Most publications had an emergency medicine senior author (37.5%), followed by cardiology (20.2%), anesthesiology (12.2%), and critical care (12.2%). The proportion authored by emergency medicine and cardiologists has decreased over time while those by anesthesiology and critical care has generally increased, particularly over the last decade. First authorship demonstrated a similar trend. Articles were published at similar numbers in emergency medicine journals (23.0%) and cardiology journals (19.9%). Conclusion: The annual number of c-POCUS publications has steadily increased over time reflecting the increased recognition and utilization of c-POCUS. This study can help inform clinicians of the current state of c-POCUS and augment the discussion surrounding barriers to continued adoption across all specialties.