Parasternal Long Axis

Parasternal long axis (PLAX/PSLA)

In the PLAX view, the RV appears as a triangular/elongated structure anterior to the LV. Only a small portion of the RV is visible, limiting assessment of overall RV size and function.

This view provides a qualitative glimpse of RV function and size but should be interpreted alongside other views for a complete RV strain assessment

 

What is Normal?

> Triangular shape 

> Smaller than the LV and should not violate the 1/3 rule with the RV, LVOT, and LA all being about 1/3 of the screen and being approximately the same size. 

> The RV should squeeze inward uniformly, with the free wall moving toward the septum during systole.

 

Figure 4: PLAX view with normal RV function 

 

 

What is NOT Normal?

> Visually reduced contraction  

> Visually, if the RV is equal to or larger than the LV, then there is likely RV dilation. In severely dilated RVs, the LV will appear to look compressed by the RV  

 

Figure 5: PLAX Cardiology convention demonstrating a prominent, dilated RV in the near field. 

 

Figure 6: PLAX cardiology convention demonstrating RV dilation and flattened septum.Note that the LV appears as if it is being compressed by the RV. 

What am I Looking at?

 

The RV is typically assessed by dividing it into three key regions: the inlet, the body/apex, and the outlet (infundibulum or conus) (figure 1,2). The inlet includes the tricuspid valve (TV) and the portion of the RV just beyond it. The body/apex represents the most distal and trabeculated portion of the RV. The outlet leads to the pulmonary valve and main pulmonary artery. Because the RV is wrapped around the LV and lies just beneath the sternum, different PoCUS views emphasize different RV regions. Recognizing which regions are visualized in each view is essential to accurately assessing the RV.

The RV free wall refers to the outer wall of the RV that is not shared with the LV, lying opposite the interventricular septum (IVS). The RV free wall is typically described in three segments: basal, mid, and apical (figure 3). These segments are based on proximity to the tricuspid valve and apex. On ultrasound, the RV free wall can be seen in various views (especially the apical 4-chamber and subcostal 4 chamber).

The RV is characterized by prominent trabeculations and contains the moderator band, a muscular ridge crossing the RV cavity that can appear as a distinct linear structure on imaging (figure 3).

 

Figure 1: Anatomical diagram of the RV

 

Figure 2: PSAX (aortic level) view illustrating the different regions of the RV and its crescent shape.

 

Figure 3: A4C Right heart focused view labeled. Note the trabeculations present at the apex of the RV

Technique

Patient Position

Supine or left lateral decubitus position

 

Emergency Medicine VS Cardiology Probe Convention

While RV strain assessment can be completed in either the Emergency Medicine or Cardiology probe conventions, this module will present images and guidance using the Cardiology convention to align with standard echocardiography practices.

 

Technique

1. Parasternal long axis – qualitative assessment of RV size and function

· Assess size compared to the LV

· Assess overall contractility

2. Parasternal short axis – qualitative assessment of RV function and size

· Begin at the aortic valve level and sweep toward the apex, assessing RV size and function relative to the LV at each level.

3. Parasternal short axis – septal assessment at the mid papillary level

· Evaluate septal motion for flattening

4. Apical 4 chamber  qualitative assessment of RV function and size

· Compare RV size to the LV

· Assess wall thickening, contractility, and RV free wall motion.

5. Subxiphoid 4 chamber –  qualitative assessment of RV function and size

· Compare RV size to the LV

· Assess wall thickening, contractility, and RV free wall motion.

6. Subxiphoid IVC – Assessment of IVC

· Qualitatively assess the size and collapsibility of the IVC

 

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

 

Indications

Indications

  • Pulmonary Hypertension
  • Lung disease such as ARDS, Pneumonia, bronchiolitis, asthma
  • Volume Overload
  • Pulmonary Embolism
  • Left-sided heart failure
  • Myocarditis
  • Abnormal ECG
  • Combined with lung POCUS for cardiopulmonary assessment/tolerance

 

Equipment

  • Ultrasound machine
  • Phased array ultrasound probe
  • Gel

Introduction

Introduction

Right ventricular (RV) strain refers to the state of increased pressure or volume overload that impairs RV function. These processes can lead to structural and functional changes in the RV that can be detected on ultrasound. RV strain is a critical consideration in pediatrics, particularly in cases of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), pulmonary hypertension, diffuse myocarditis and congenital heart defects (CHDs). These clinically significant conditions highlight the importance of assessing RV morphology and hemodynamics in pediatric patients, especially as it relates to switching to positive pressure ventilation.

Physical exam findings for cardiac symptoms can be inconclusive. The standard of care is generally to request formal cardiology echocardiogram to be interpreted by a cardiologist. This can delay diagnosis and initiation of treatment, compromising 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 RV pressure, size and 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 the efficiency of patient care, particularly when images and documentation are captured appropriately and shared with cardiology in real time for review (center specific). If there is concern about an undiagnosed or presumed CHD, consultation with cardiology for formal echocardiogram should not be delayed.

This course focuses on guiding learners through a preliminary assessment for RV strain using PoCUS. While the evaluation of CHDs and valvular abnormalities is common in pediatric cardiology, these are beyond the scope of PoCUS and should be reserved for formal echocardiography. By course completion, learners should feel confident assessing for RV strain using the five standard PoCUS cardiac views.

Why Ultrasound?

Ultrasound has many advantages. It is low cost, portable, and free from ionizing radiation. This, in addition to its ability to look at 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), pediatric 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].

The ability of cardiac PoCUS to evaluate RV strain in pediatric patients is limited in the current literature. However, several adult studies, primarily in the context of suspected pulmonary embolism, have demonstrated that physicians without formal cardiology training can reliably assess RV morphology, pressure, and function using cardiac PoCUS following appropriate training [6-9]. Reported diagnostic performance varies but generally shows moderate to high agreement with formal imaging (CTA or formal echocardiography), with reported sensitivities ranging from 50% to 100% and specificities up to 98%.

To date, only one pediatric study has specifically evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of cardiac PoCUS for assessing RV size and function. Novice pediatric intensivists, following focused PoCUS training, used RV size, Tricuspid Annular Plane Systolic Excursion (TAPSE), and visual assessment of RV function to evaluate RV strain. Their interpretations showed perfect agreement with formal echocardiography (κ = 1) and substantial agreement with blinded cardiologist review (κ = 0.72), with both sensitivity and specificity reported at 100% [10].

PoCUS facilitates repeatable scanning, allowing practitioners to monitor the effectiveness of interventions and changes in RV filling and preload, and structure and function 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 but dedicated training, PoCUS can safely and accurately be used by practitioners at the bedside in both adult and pediatric populations [2, 11-15]. Given these benefits, PoCUS use for cardiac assessments is supported by various professional societies [16,17].

Definitions

A4C Apical four chamber
AOV Aortic valve
FAC Fractional area change
HV Hepatic vein
IVC Inferior vena cava
IVS Interventricular septum
IAS Interatrial septum
LV Left ventricle
PLAX/PSLA Parasternal long axis
PSAX/PSSA Parasternal short axis
PoCUS Point-of-Care Ultrasound
PPV Positive pressure ventilation
RV Right ventricle
RVPO Right ventricle pressure overload
RVVO Right ventricle volume overload
TAPSE Tricuspid Annular Plane Systolic Excursion
TV Tricuspid Valve

KidSONO Right Ventricular Strain

 

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.

 

  1. Nanji K, Gulamhusein H, Jindani Y, Hamilton D, Sabri K. Profile of eye-related emergency department visits in Ontario – a Canadian perspective. BMC Ophthalmol. 2023;23(1):305. doi:10.1186/s12886-023-02999-x
  2. Henríquez-Recine, Noval S, Zafra B, De Manuel S, Contreras I. Ocular Emergencies in Children: Demographics, Origin, Symptoms, and Most Frequent Diagnoses. López-Gil N, ed. Journal of Ophthalmology. 2020;2020:1-6. doi:10.1155/2020/6820454
  3. Seguin J, Le CK, Fischer JW, Tessaro MO, Berant R. Ocular Point-of-Care Ultrasound in the Pediatric Emergency Department. Pediatr Emer Care. 2019;35(3):e53-e58. doi:10.1097/PEC.0000000000001762
  4. Khoo SA, Ong GYK. Use of Ocular Point-of-Care Ultrasound in a Difficult Pediatric Examination: A Case Report of an Emergency Department Diagnosis of Retinoblastoma. The Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2020;58(4):632-635. doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2020.01.006
  5. Pujari A, Swamy DR, Singh R, Mukhija R, Chawla R, Sharma P. Ultrasonographic assessment of paediatric ocular emergencies: A tertiary eye hospital based observation. World Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2018;9(4):272. doi:10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2018.04.006
  6. Riggs BJ, Trimboli-Heidler C, Spaeder MC, Miller MM, Dean NP, Cohen JS. The Use of Ophthalmic Ultrasonography to Identify Retinal Injuries Associated With Abusive Head Trauma. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2016;67(5):620-624. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.09.027
  7. Ang GS, Dhillon B. Do junior house officers routinely test visual acuity and perform ophthalmoscopy? Scott Med J. 2002;47(3):60–3.
  8. Bruce BB, Lamirel C, Biousse V, et al. Feasibility of nonmydriatic ocular fundus photography in the emergency department: phase I of the FOTO-ED study. Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18(9):928–33.
  9. Morad Y. Fundus anomalies: what the pediatrician’s eye can’t see. International J Qual Health Care. 2004;16(5):363–5.
  10. Shuttleworth GN, Marsh GW. How effective is undergraduate and postgraduate teaching in ophthalmology? Eye. 1997;11(5):744–50
  11. Propst SL, Kirschner JM, Strachan CC, et al. Ocular Point-of-Care Ultrasonography to Diagnose Posterior Chamber Abnormalities: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(2):e1921460. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.21460
  12. Chiu HH, Al-Farsi N, Wong AMF, Davis A, Tessaro MO, Wan MJ. Diagnostic utility of point-of-care ultrasound and optical coherence tomography for papilloedema in children: a prospective pilot study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2024;108(9):1286-1291. doi:10.1136/bjo-2023-324552
  13. Shrestha GS, Upadhyay B, Shahi A, Jaya Ram KC, Joshi P, Poudyal BS. Sonographic Measurement of Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter: How Steep is the Learning Curve for a Novice Operator? Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine. 2018;22(9):646-649. doi:10.4103/ijccm.IJCCM_104_18
  14. Gauthey M, Tessaro MO, Breitbart S, Kulkarni AV, Davis AL. Reliability and feasibility of optic nerve point-of-care ultrasound in pediatric patients with ventricular shunts. Childs Nerv Syst. 2022;38(7):1289-1295. doi:10.1007/s00381-022-05510-x
  15. Lewis D, Rang L, Kim D, et al. Recommendations for the use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) by emergency physicians in Canada. CJEM. 2019;21(6):721-726. doi:1017/cem.2019.392
  16. Marin JR, Abo AM, Doniger SJ, et al. Point-of-Care Ultrasonography by Pediatric Emergency Physicians. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2015;65(4):472-478. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.01.028
  17. Abramowicz JS, Adhikari S, Dickman E, et al. Ocular Ultrasound: Review of Bioeffects and Safety, Including Fetal and Point‐of‐Care Perspective. J of Ultrasound Medicine. 2022;41(7):1609-1622. doi:10.1002/jum.15864
  18. Gurthie J. Ophthalmic Sonography: Through the Lens of a Sonographer. Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography. 2021;37(6):517-520. doi:10.1177/875647932110193
  19. Nowicki A. Safety of ultrasonic examinations; thermal and mechanical indices. Med Ultrason. 2020;22(2):203. doi:10.11152/mu-2372
  20. Silva CT, Brockley CR, Crum A, Mandelstam SA. Pediatric Ocular Sonography. Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI. 2011;32(1):14-27. doi:10.1053/j.sult.2010.09.005
  21. Ahn J, Dinh V, Deschamps J, et al. Ocular ultrasound made easy: step-by-step guide. POCUS 101. Published January 10, 2020. Accessed October 16, 2025. https://www.pocus101.com/ocular-ultrasound-made-easy-step-by-step-guide/
  22. Fatima A, Modi P, Sinha TP, Bhoi S, Kumar A, Sagar S. Ultrasound as a Diagnostic Tool in Detection of Maxillofacial Fractures at Level 1 Trauma Centre ED in India. Australas J Ultrason Med. 2025;28(2):e70001. doi:1002/ajum.70001
  23. Jank S, Emshoff R, Strobl H, Etzelsdorfer M, Nicasi A, Norer B. Effectiveness of ultrasonography in determining medial and lateral orbital wall fractures with a curved-array scanner. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2004;62(4):451-455. doi:1016/j.joms.2003.05.016
  24. Jenkins CNJ, Thuau H. Ultrasound imaging in assessment of fractures of the orbital floor. Clinical Radiology. 1997;52(9):708-711. doi:1016/S0009-9260(97)80037-2
  25. Pruksapong C, Wongprakob N, Panphichet M. Accuracy of linear-probe ultrasonography in diagnosis of infraorbital rim fractures. Ultrasound J. 2023;15(1):9. doi:1186/s13089-022-00298-y
  26. Anwar MR, Mahant S, Agbaje-Ojo T, et al. Diagnostic test accuracy of ultrasound for orbital cellulitis: A systematic review. Amanati A, ed. PLoS ONE. 2023;18(7):e0288011. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0288011
  27. Chang MY, Pineles SL. Optic disk drusen in children. Survey of Ophthalmology. 2016;61(6):745-758. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2016.03.007
  28. Modi P, Bhoi S, Aggarwal P, et al. Feasibility of USG ‐Guided Objective Initial Assessment of Pupillary Size and Pupillary Reflexes Versus Clinical Examination in Patients With Altered Mental Status: A Cross‐Sectional Study. J of Ultrasound Medicine. 2024;43(2):335-346. doi:1002/jum.16366

Summary

Summary

  • Ocular PoCUS is a valuable “rule-in” tool for children with ocular symptoms or when fundoscopic examination is limited.
  • Always use a Tegaderm patch with sterile gel and apply the least possible pressure during the exam.
  • Scan the affected eye in two planes, ensuring a complete sweep through all structures, and compare with the contralateral eye if findings are uncertain.
  • Carefully visualize and evaluate each structure of the eye, assessing systematically for abnormalities.
  • Be mindful of common pitfalls: PoCUS should not be used to rule out disease when suspicion is high, globe rupture is a contraindication, and artifacts or poor cooperation can limit interpretation.

Pitfalls and Challenges

Ocular PoCUS in children should be considered primarily a “rule-in” tool, where abnormal findings can support the diagnosis and expedite ophthalmology consultation, but a normal scan should not be used to exclude disease when the history or examination raises concern.

As with all pediatric PoCUS, child cooperation remains a challenge. An uncooperative child can lead to motion artefact, incomplete views, or missed findings. Short, focused sweeps combined with distraction or parental assistance can improve image acquisition, while definitive diagnosis should always involve ophthalmology when cooperation or image quality is limited. Artefacts also present a challenge. Reverberation artefact within the vitreous may mimic hemorrhage or other pathology. Optimizing gain and depth, performing sweeps in multiple planes, and comparing both eyes can reduce the risk of misinterpretation.

Even with optimal technique, certain conditions, such as anterior segment pathology may limit visualization of the posterior segment, reducing diagnostic confidence and making comparisons with the unaffected eye especially important [5]. If there is uncertainty due to limited visualization, an ophthalmology referral should always be organized.

Differentiating vitreous hemorrhage/detachment from retinal detachment is another common difficulty, as both appear as echogenic material within the posterior chamber. A key distinction is that retinal detachments remain tethered to the optic nerve head, while vitreous hemorrhage is more mobile and free-floating with eye movement. Vitreous detachment also will remain horizontal when the patient moves their eye side to side.

In suspected globe rupture, PoCUS is contraindicated because even minimal probe pressure can worsen the injury. If rupture is a leading concern, PoCUS should be avoided; however, in cases where scanning was performed for another indication and a rupture is incidentally suspected, the study should be stopped immediately and urgent ophthalmology consultation obtained.

Again, safety is an important consideration. Ocular tissues are particularly sensitive to ultrasound acoustic output, so the MI/TI should always be kept as low as possible. Ideally, an “ocular” preset should be used.  If the machine does not offer one, the user must manually minimize output settings (MI ≤ 0.23, TI ≤ 1.0). Users should also not apply color or pulsed wave doppler to avoid increasing the power output.