What am I Looking at?

 

Each cardiac view offers a different perspective of the LV, displaying various walls and myocardial segments. The LV is typically divided into three levels: basal, mid, and apical. The basal segments are located closest to the atrioventricular valves and represent the upper portion of the LV; the mid segments are situated in the middle, at or around the level of the papillary muscles, and the apical segments are near the apex of the ventricle. Understanding which walls are visualized in each view is key to assessing LVfx.

Figure 1ab: LV levels in the PLAX view (a) and A4C (b) in cardiology convention

 


At a Glance: Normal VS Not Normal

The findings below outline the broad features of what is considered normal and not normal for pediatric LVfx; the specifics for each individual view will be described in the following sections.

 

What is Normal

Contractility:

The contraction of the LV occurs in a complex but coordinated manner, combining longitudinal shortening, radial thickening, and circumferential constriction [20]. The base of the heart moves toward the apex as the ventricle shortens, while the cavity simultaneously decreases in diameter due to inward wall motion. This multidirectional contraction pattern efficiently ejects blood into the aorta and gives the ventricle its characteristic torsional motion, where the apex rotates slightly counterclockwise and the base clockwise during systole [20].

In normal systolic function, the LV walls should thicken visibly and move inward symmetrically, coming close to one another during systole. All walls should demonstrate coordinated inward motion and uniform thickening (radial contraction). You should also see the base move toward the apex (longitudinal shortening). Although circumferential shortening contributes to the overall narrowing of the cavity, this is not directly distinguishable on standard PoCUS imaging.

 

Size and Shape:

The LV should be ellipsoid or bullet-shape. It is typically larger than the right ventricle, assuming the RV is normal, usually about one and a half times the size of the RV.

 

What is NOT normal

Decreased global function:

LVfx is considered reduced if the LV walls fail to contract effectively toward the center of the cavity during systole. Wall motion will appear sluggish or diminished, and the overall inward movement and thickening will be reduced.

 

Size and Shape:

Decreased LV systolic function is often accompanied by dilation, such as in dilated cardiomyopathy. The LV loses its normal ellipsoid or bullet shape, appearing globular or rounded, and is much larger than the right ventricle.

 

RWMAs:

Segmental dysfunction may be observed when one or more LV wall segments move less than expected (hypokinesis), move opposite direction as normal (dyskinetic), or do not move at all (akinesis), while other segments contract normally. These findings often suggest ischemia or myocardial injury. Akinetic segments will also often appear thinner and more hyperechoic than normal myocardium reflecting myocardial fibrosis or scarring that reduce contractility and alter tissue characteristics.

 

Hyperdynamic function:

In cases of increased contractility, the LV walls may nearly or completely touch during systole, leading to near obliteration of the ventricular cavity. This is often most pronounced at the apex, while the basal segments may not completely obliterate. Hyperdynamic function can occur in states of low preload, hypovolemia, or compensatory hypercontractility. Of note, tachycardia can create the illusion of hyperdynamic function, therefore it is important to look at the wall motion and cavity itself and not just the rate at which the heart is contracting. Saving and slowing down a clip can be helpful in cases of significant tachycardia

 

 

Figure 2a. Normal function seen in the A4C view

 

 

Figure 2b. Severely decreased function, globally seen in the A4C view

 

Stepwise Technique

** For detailed instructions on obtaining the cardiac windows, please revisit the prerequisite KidSONO Introduction to Cardiac Windows Module

Stepwise Technique

1.  Parasternal long axis: Visual assessment of LVfx

i. Assess the overall movement of the LV walls

ii. Observe the anterior mitral valve leaflet (AMVL) and evaluate if it approaches the interventricular septum during diastole

iii. M-Mode: Activate M-mode and place the cursor line through the tip of the AMVL and the septum. Measure EPSS

 

2.  Parasternal Short Axis: Visual assessment of global LVfx & regional wall motion abnormalities 

i. From the MV level sweep the probe all the way to the apex, assessing LVFx and wall motion at each level

– Obtain a representative clip at the mid-papillary level and/or where contractility changes are observed

ii. M-Mode: At the mid-papillary level, place the M-mode curser perpendicularly through the centre of the LV cavity, between the papillary muscles. Calculate fractional shortening

 

3. Apical 4 Chamber: Visual assessment of global LVfx & size

i. Assess the overall movement of the LV walls

ii. Assess which ventricle is making up the apex of the heart (as should be the LV) and compare general size of RV to LV

 

4. Subxiphoid 4 Chamber: Visual assessment of global LVfx & size

i. Assess the overall movement of the LV walls

 

5. Documentation: Store representative clips for each standard view

 

Indications

Indications

Cardiopulmonary Symptoms
  • Chest pain
  • Dyspnea or unexplained shortness of breath
  • Tachycardia or new arrhythmia or palpitations
  • Pre-syncope or syncope
  • Hypotension

 

Signs of Shock or Poor Perfusion
  • Altered mental status
  • Delayed capillary refill, cool extremities, or weak pulses
  • Unexplained lactic acidosis or elevated lactate
  • Hypotension or narrow pulse pressure
  • Signs of hypoxia or cyanosis

 

Critical Illness / Resuscitation Scenarios
  • Unexplained hemodynamic instability or acute respiratory distress
  • Cardiac arrest or peri-arrest evaluation
  • Sepsis or septic shock (to differentiate distributive vs cardiogenic components)
  • Trauma patients with suspected cardiac dysfunction (e.g., contusion, or tamponade physiology)

 

Therapy Response and Monitoring
  • Assessment of cardiac function before and after fluid resuscitation or inotropic support
  • Ongoing monitoring of LV function in PICU or ED settings

 

Risk or Treatment-Related
  • Patients exposed to cardiotoxic medications (e.g. overdose)

 


Equipment

  • Ultrasound machine
  • Phased array ultrasound probe
  • Gel

Patient Position

Supine or left lateral decubitus position

 


Emergency Medicine VS Cardiology/ICU Probe Convention

While cardiac function can be assessed in either the Emergency Medicine or Cardiology/IUC probe conventions, this module will present images and guidance using the Cardiology/ICU convention to align with standard echocardiography practices.

Introduction

 

A wide range of etiologies can lead to reduced left ventricular function (LVfx) in children, including cardiomyopathies, myocarditis, congenital heart defects (CHDs), sepsis, tachyarrhythmias, and chemotherapy-related toxicity, among others.  These wide-ranging and clinically significant conditions highlight the importance of assessing cardiac function in pediatric patients.

Physical exam findings of cardiac dysfunction are often subtle or non-specific. The standard of care typically involves physical exam combined with the ordering of indirect tests such as EKG, CXR and troponins in the case of suspected LV dysfunction. A formal cardiology echocardiogram, interpreted by a cardiologist, is recommended if the index of suspicion is high. The reliance on formal echo is expensive and can delay diagnosis and compromise patient care, particularly during overnight or weekend hours when cardiology services may be limited.

Point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) has emerged as an important tool in the assessment of cardiac function, offering more timely and focused clinical insights than physical exam alone. Additionally, PoCUS findings can provide cardiologists with relevant preliminary information that helps streamline decision-making and enhance patient care.

This module focuses on guiding learners through a preliminary assessment of LVfx using PoCUS. While the evaluation of CHDs and valvular abnormalities is common in pediatric cardiology, these are beyond the scope of of this module. By course completion, learners should feel confident assessing global LVFx using the five standard PoCUS cardiac views.

 

Why Ultrasound?

Ultrasound’s advantages include being low cost, portable, and free from ionizing radiation. This, in addition to its ability to visualize the heart and its function in real time, makes it the diagnostic modality of choice for cardiac evaluation [1]. PoCUS is now widely available in most emergency departments (EDs), intensive care units (PICUs) and hospital wards, providing rapid, real-time evaluation of cardiac function in critically ill patients.

When managing patients with respiratory or circulatory compromise, prompt and accurate diagnosis is crucial. Adult studies have demonstrated that PoCUS enables clinicians to diagnose more quickly and accurately than clinical assessment alone, facilitating more targeted and timely interventions [2,3] and in some cases, improving mortality outcomes [4,5].

Several studies have shown that pediatric physicians without cardiology specialization can reliably assess left ventricular (LV) systolic function using cardiac PoCUS following appropriate training [6-10], including hypotensive patients [11]. Reported diagnostic performance has been high, with studies demonstrating excellent agreement with formal echocardiography (κ = 0.87–0.89) [6,9].

 

Table 1: Diagnostic Accuracy of POCUS for LVfx assessment in pediatric populations

 

Cardiac function PoCUS generally utilizes an impression-based, qualitative approach, whereas formal echocardiography relies more on quantitative measures. That said, PoCUS is supported by one or two key semi-quantitative measures, such as the E-Point Septal Separation (EPSS), which has demonstrated high negative predictive value in ruling out systolic dysfunction in pediatric patients [12], highlighting its utility as a screening tool.

PoCUS is also repeatable, allowing practitioners to monitor the effectiveness of interventions and changes in LVfx over time. PoCUS is a skill that can be learned and acquired through training, including both didactic and hands-on practice. Research supports that once undergoing short training, PoCUS can safely and accurately be used by practitioners at the bedside in both adult and pediatric populations [2, 13-17]. Given these benefits, PoCUS use for cardiac assessments is now endorsed by multiple professional societies [18,19].

KidSONO: Left Ventricular Function

 

Author: Julia Stiz, MSc, RDCS
Secondary Author: Melanie Willimann, MD, FRCPC
Reviewer(s): Jackie Harrison, M.D., FRCPC; Mark Bromley, M.D., FRCPC; Nicholas Packer, M.D., FRCPC; Kim Myers, M.D., FRCPC

 

*To continue through to the course, make sure to select the “Mark as Completed” button below.

References

**To unlock access to the first quiz, make sure to select the “Mark as Completed” button below

References

  1. Patel, G et al. Point-of-Care Cardiac Ultrasound (POCCUS) in the Pediatric Emergency Department. Clinical Pediatric Emergency Medicine. 2018. 19: 323-327. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpem.2018.12.009
  2. Guevarra K, Greenstein Y. Ultrasonography in the Critical Care Unit. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2020;22(11):145. doi:10.1007/s11886-020-01393-z
  3. Volpicelli G, Lamorte A, Tullio M, et al. Point-of-care multiorgan ultrasonography for the evaluation of undifferentiated hypotension in the emergency department. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(7):1290-1298. doi:10.1007/s00134-013-2919-7
  4. Potter SK, Griksaitis MJ. The role of point-of-care ultrasound in pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome: emerging evidence for its use. Ann Transl Med. 2019;7(19):507-507. doi:10.21037/atm.2019.07.76
  5. Mojoli F, Bouhemad B, Mongodi S, Lichtenstein D. Lung Ultrasound for Critically Ill Patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199(6):701-714. doi:10.1164/rccm.201802-0236CI
  6. Daley JI, Dwyer KH, Grunwald Z, et al. Increased Sensitivity of Focused Cardiac Ultrasound for Pulmonary Embolism in Emergency Department Patients With Abnormal Vital Signs. Runyon MS, ed. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2019;26(11):1211-1220. doi:10.1111/acem.13774
  7. Taylor RA, Moore CL. Accuracy of emergency physician-performed limited echocardiography for right ventricular strain. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2014;32(4):371-374. doi:1016/j.ajem.2013.12.043
  8. Popat A, Yadav S, Pethe G, Rehman A, Sharma P, Rezkalla S. The role of POCUS in diagnosing acute heart failure in the emergency department: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cardiology. Published online June 2025. doi:1016/j.jjcc.2025.06.012
  9. Dresden S, Mitchell P, Rahimi L, et al. Right Ventricular Dilatation on Bedside Echocardiography Performed by Emergency Physicians Aids in the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2014;63(1):16-24. doi:1016/j.annemergmed.2013.08.016
  10. Chico S, Connolly S, Hossain J, Levenbrown Y. Accuracy of Point‐Of‐Care Cardiac Ultrasound Performed on Patients Admitted to a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit in Shock. J of Clinical Ultrasound. 2025;53(3):445-451. doi:1002/jcu.23883
  11. Griffee MJ, Merkel MJ, Wei KS. The role of echocardiography in hemodynamic assessment of septic shock. Crit Care Clin. 2010;26(2):365-382, table of contents. doi:10.1016/j.ccc.2010.01.001
  12. Watkins LA, Dial SP, Koenig SJ, Kurepa DN, Mayo PH. The Utility of Point-of-Care Ultrasound in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit. J Intensive Care Med. Published online October 9, 2021:088506662110478. doi:10.1177/08850666211047824
  13. Gaspar HA, Morhy SS. The Role of Focused Echocardiography in Pediatric Intensive Care: A Critical Appraisal. BioMed Research International. 2015;2015:1-7. doi:10.1155/2015/596451 de Boode WP, van der Lee R, et al. The role of Neonatologist Performed Echocardiography in the assessment and management of neonatal shock. Pediatr Res. 2018;84(S1):57-67. doi:10.1038/s41390-018-0081-1
  14. Arnoldi S, Glau CL, Walker SB, et al. Integrating Focused Cardiac Ultrasound Into Pediatric Septic Shock Assessment*. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine. 2021;22(3):262-274. doi:10.1097/PCC.0000000000002658
  15. Ranjit S, Aram G, Kissoon N, et al. Multimodal Monitoring for Hemodynamic Categorization and Management of Pediatric Septic Shock: A Pilot Observational Study*. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine. 2014;15(1):e17-e26. doi:10.1097/PCC.0b013e3182a5589c
  16. Singh Y, Tissot C, Fraga MV, et al. International evidence-based guidelines on Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) for critically ill neonates and children issued by the POCUS Working Group of the European Society of Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC). Crit Care. 2020;24(1):65. doi:10.1186/s13054-020-2787-9
  17. Lu JC, Riley A, Conlon T, et al. Recommendations for Cardiac Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Children: A Report from the American Society of Echocardiography. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography. 2023;36(3):265-277. doi:1016/j.echo.2022.11.010 1.
  18. Sanz J, Sánchez-Quintana D, Bossone E, Bogaard HJ, Naeije R. Anatomy, Function, and Dysfunction of the Right Ventricle. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2019;73(12):1463-1482. doi:1016/j.jacc.2018.12.076
  19. Kaul S, Tei C, Hopkins JM, Shah PM. Assessment of right ventricular function using two-dimensional echocardiography. American Heart Journal. 1984;107(3):526-531. doi:1016/0002-8703(84)90095-4
  20. Sato T, Tsujino I, Oyama-Manabe N, et al. Simple prediction of right ventricular ejection fraction using tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion in pulmonary hypertension. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;29(8):1799-1805. doi:1007/s10554-013-0286-7 1.
  21. Nickson C. The Dark Art of IVC Ultrasound. Life in the Fast Lane. Published November 3, 2020. Accessed October 22, 2025. https://litfl.com/the-dark-art-of-ivc-ultrasound/
  22. EL-Nawawy AA, Omar OM, Hassouna HM. Role of Inferior Vena Cava Parameters as Predictors of Fluid Responsiveness in Pediatric Septic Shock: A Prospective Study. Journal of Child Science. 2021;11(01):e49-e54. doi:1055/s-0041-1724034 1.
  23. De Souza TH, Giatti MP, Nogueira RJN, Pereira RM, Soub ACS, Brandão MB. Inferior Vena Cava Ultrasound in Children: Comparing Two Common Assessment Methods*. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine. 2020;21(4):e186-e191. doi:1097/PCC.0000000000002240
  24. POCUS 101. The D Sign – Right Heart Strain from Pressure vs Volume Overload. POCUS 101. Published August 7, 2017. Accessed August 18, 2025. https://www.pocus101.com/the-d-sign-right-heart-strain-from-pressure-vs-volume-overload/
  25. Mah K, Mertens L. Echocardiographic Assessment of Right Ventricular Function in Paediatric Heart Disease: A Practical Clinical Approach. CJC Pediatric and Congenital Heart Disease. 2022;1(3):136-157. doi:1016/j.cjcpc.2022.05.002
  26. Conlon TW, Baker D, Bhombal S. Cardiac point-of-care ultrasound: Practical integration in the pediatric and neonatal intensive care settings. Eur J Pediatr. 2024;183(4):1525-1541. doi:1007/s00431-023-05409-y

Summary

  • POCUS is a rapid and focused tool for assessing RV strain, offering more timely insights than the physical exam alone and providing useful preliminary information to guide further cardiology evaluation and management.
  • POCUS should be used as a rule-in tool, not a rule-out test, especially when clinical suspicion for RV strain is high. A normal or unclear POCUS exam does not exclude pathology and should not replace formal imaging when concern persists
  • Always assess for RV strain from the standard windows (PLAX, PSAX, A4C, and subxiphoid 4-chamber/IVC) to ensure consistency and accuracy.
  • On ultrasound, RV strain is characterized by RV dilation, septal flattening (from pressure or volume overload), and, in more advanced cases, reduced systolic function and IVC plethora.
  • Be mindful of the limitations, both technical (e.g., foreshortening, off-axis views, poor acoustic windows) and interpretive (e.g., variability in qualitative assessment).

Pitfalls and Limitations

As with all pediatric cardiac PoCUS, obtaining adequate imaging windows remains a central challenge in the assessment of RV strain. Visualizing the RV can be additionally challenging due to anatomical considerations such as cross-sectional variability and the more horizontal cardiac axis often seen in infants and young children [10]. Lung interference is also common, as right heart structures are frequently obscured by overlying lung tissue. In addition, child cooperation is a recurring obstacle in pediatric imaging; the use of caregivers and distraction techniques is often necessary to improve success.

Similar to LV function assessment, RV strain imaging is susceptible to foreshortening and off-axis imaging. In the PSAX window, a low imaging window or off-axis rotation can produce apparent septal flattening (“pseudoflattening”) (figure 24, 25), which may mimic RVVO and/or RVPO and lead to inappropriate conclusions or interventions [17, 24,25]. In the A4C view, foreshortening may occur when imaging from too high of an intercostal space, making the RV appear truncated or blunted (figure 26,27). Always confirm you are at the appropriate intercostal space by scanning through adjacent levels in each window.

Similarly, IVC interpretation carries technical limitations. In children receiving positive pressure ventilation, the IVC shows reversed respiratory variation, and its craniocaudal and mediolateral motion during respiration can introduce apparent changes in caliber, potentially leading to overestimation of collapsibility or distensibility [22,23]. In addition, only the extremes (marked collapse or minimal/no collapse) are truly informative in pediatric 2D IVC assessment; intermediate appearances are unreliable and should be interpreted cautiously within the overall clinical context [21].

Because of these technical challenges, some studies have shown that in pediatric RV strain PoCUS examinations, fewer than half of the obtained images are adequate for qualitative assessment [10]. Even in light of these limitations, supplemental qualitative measures are still not recommended for pediatric RV strain PoCUS at this time due to the difficulty in defining normal values for pediatric populations [26]. Quantitative assessment should be saved for formal echocardiography, where time permits access to normal values charts relative to age and body surface area.

In practice, qualitative interpretation often relies on comparing RV size and function to that of the LV. However, this relative approach carries pitfalls: if the LV is dilated or dysfunctional, the RV may appear deceptively normal by comparison, when it may also be abnormal (figure 28). It is therefore important to always consider global cardiac function when interpreting RV findings.

Lastly, differentiation of RVVO and RVPO septal flattening can be difficult, particularly in PoCUS settings without ECG gating. Any flattening of the IVS should prompt formal echocardiography for further evaluation [17]. Formal echocardiography should also be pursued when image quality is suboptimal, interpretation is uncertain, or there are clinical concerns for RV strain, even if PoCUS findings appear normal [17].

 

Figure 24 (a) PSAX image of the IVS on axis versus (b) Pseudoflattening of the IVS in the same patient, secondary to a low scanning window.

 

Figure 25 (a) PSAX view of the IVS on axis versus (b) Pseudoflattening of the IVS in the same patient, secondary to a low scanning window.

 

 

Figure 26. Foreshortened RV in the A4C view

 

 

Figure 27. (a) Foreshortened RV in the A4C view. Note the blunted RV apex and loss of the triangular apical tip compared to (b) Elongated RV with triangular tip in the A4C view

 

Figure 28A4C cardiology conventionshowing RV dilation alongside LV dilation. Although the RV appears smaller than the LV, it is also enlarged.  

Subxiphoid IVC

Subxiphoid IVC

The subxiphoid view visualizes the IVC as it enters the right atrium. The IVC appears as an anechoic, tubular, collapsible structure.  Visually assessing the size and respiratory variation of the IVC may help estimate right atrial pressure and volume status, though this is not well correlated [21].

IVC diameter cutoff values are established for adults, however no such reference standards exist for the pediatric population. Some evidence supports the use of IVC-to-aortic ratios; however, these are unreliable and limited in practice. Therefore, a qualitative assessment focusing on IVC collapsibility and distensibility is recommended for pediatric RV strain assessment. And while the presence of collapsibility is reassuring, only the extremes (marked collapse or minimal/no collapse) are truly informative in 2D assessment of the pediatric population.

Assessment should be made in the long axis with the IVC displayed horizontally.

 

What is Normal?

  • Small caliber
  • Highly collapsible

** In children receiving positive pressure ventilation (PPV), the IVC behaves differently than in spontaneous breathing: its diameter expands during inspiration and contracts during expiration [22]. It is important to consider this when assessing the IVC in children receiving PPV.

 

Figure 20: Subxiphoid IVC view in cardiology convention demonstrating normal diameter and respiratory variation.

 

 

What is NOT Normal?

  • A plethoric IVC with little to no respiration

· In these cases, it is important to question why the IVC appears distended with minimal variation (e.g., RV strain, tamponade).

  • Flat/nearly collapsed

· May suggest hypovolemia or distributive states; fluid administration might be warranted, but always interpret in the context of the overall clinical picture.

 

Practice Pearl:

Intermediate appearances, where the IVC is neither flat, highly collapsable or plethoric, are unreliable and challenging to interpret in pediatric populations. The extremes (marked collapse or minimal/no collapse) are the findings that are informative. Always prioritize the clinical context over IVC PoCUS findings alone.

 

Figure 21: Subxiphoid IVC view cardiology convention demonstrating plethoric IVC with little to no collapse with respiratory variation. 

 

M-Mode of the IVC

Mmode can be applied to the IVC to help visualize and quantify respiratory variation.  

> The standard assessment point is just caudal to the hepatic vein confluence [23]. 

> On M-mode, the IVC will appear as a thin, anechoic band which will change in diameter over the respiratory cycle, creating a wavelike pattern that reflects the vessel’s dynamic collapse and distension (figure 22). 

 

A key limitation to be aware of on assessment of the IVC is that the IVC moves in both craniocaudal and mediolateral directions during respiration. These movements can introduce error as this displacement cannot always be detected in longitudinal 2D or Mmode. This can potentially lead to underestimating IVC caliber and overestimation of collapsibility and distensibility (figure 23) [23].  

 

Figure 22. Mmode of the IVC from the subxiphoid position. 

 

Figure 23. Subxiphoid Mmode of the IVC demonstrating lateral displacement, falsely suggesting IVC collapse. 

 

Advanced Practice Pearl: Color Doppler of the Hepatic veins

Hepatic vein Doppler assessment on PoCUS can provide indirect evidence of RV strain. This  represents an advanced PoCUS skill and will be covered in a future KidSONO advanced practice module.