A practical approach to critical care ultrasound

Multi-organ clinical ultrasound as a complement to the diagnostic process in an internal medicine consultation

INTRODUCTION

Evaluating outpatient cases in internal medicine consultations presents a significant diagnostic challenge. Ultrasound can be a highly useful tool in assessment and decision-making.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted on a cohort of patients attending an internal medicine rapid assessment clinic. Eighty patients were prospectively recruited. A medical consultation was conducted as per usual clinical practice, followed by a POCUS evaluation; collecting pulmonary, cardiac, and abdominal data. All findings were analyzed and recorded, particularly those that were significant or altered the initial diagnosis, subsequent tests, or treatment.

RESULTS

Significant ultrasound findings were found in 37.5% of the patients. Of all ultrasound scans, the most clinically relevant were in the heart region (31.9%), followed by the abdomen (26%). These findings led to a change in overall management in 27.5% of patients. Using logistic regression, a model was developed to estimate the presence of clinically relevant findings with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.78 (95% CI 0.66-0.89; p < 0.001) with 80% Sensitivity and 66% Specificity.

CONCLUSION

The systematic and standardized incorporation of clinical ultrasound in internal medicine consultations contributes to decision-making, can provide significant findings that allow for modifications in clinical suspicion and therapeutic management.

Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound for shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Circulatory failure is classified into four types of shock (obstructive, cardiogenic, distributive, and hypovolemic) that must be distinguished as each requires a different treatment. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is widely used in clinical practice for acute conditions, and several diagnostic protocols using POCUS for shock have been developed. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS in identifying the etiology of shock.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, Clinicaltrial.gov, European Union Clinical Trials Register, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR) until June 15, 2022. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Meta-analysis was conducted to pool the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS for each type of shock. The study protocol was prospectively registered in UMIN-CTR (UMIN 000048025).

RESULTS

Of the 1553 studies identified, 36 studies were full-text reviewed, and 12 studies with 1132 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-0.91] and 0.98 [95% CI 0.92-0.99] for obstructive shock, 0.78 [95% CI 0.56-0.91] and 0.96 [95% CI 0.92-0.98] for cardiogenic shock, 0.90 [95% CI 0.84-0.94] and 0.92 [95% CI 0.88-0.95] for hypovolemic shock, and 0.79 [95% CI 0.71-0.85] and 0.96 [95% CI 0.91-0.98] for distributive shock, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for each type of shock was approximately 0.95. The positive likelihood ratios for each type of shock were all greater than 10, especially 40 [95% CI 11-105] for obstructive shock. The negative likelihood ratio for each type of shock was approximately 0.2.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of the etiology for each type of shock using POCUS was characterized by high sensitivity and positive likelihood ratios, especially for obstructive shock.

Training strategies for point of care ultrasound in the ICU

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Ultrasound in critical care medicine (CCUS) is a relatively young tool that has been evolving rapidly as skillsets, applications and technology continue to progress. Although ultrasound is identified as a core competency in intensive care unit (ICU) training, there remains significant variability and inconsistencies in the delivery of ultrasound training. The goal of this narrative review is to explore areas of consensus and highlight areas where consensus is lacking to bring attention to future directions of ultrasound training in critical care medicine.

RECENT FINDINGS

There exists considerable variation in competencies identified as basic for CCUS. Recent efforts by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine serve as the most up to date iteration however implementation is still limited by regional expertise and practice patterns. Major barriers to ultrasound training in the ICU include a lack of available experts for bedside teaching and a lack of familiarity with new technology.

SUMMARY

Though international uptake of CCUS has made many gains in the past 20 years, further adoption of technology will be required to overcome the traditional barriers of CCUS training. Although the availability and time constraints of experts will remain a limitation even with wireless capabilities, the ability to expand beyond the physical constraints of an ultrasound machine will vastly benefit efforts to standardize training and improve access to knowledge.

A point-of-care thoracic ultrasound protocol for hospital medical emergency teams (METUS) improves diagnostic accuracy

Background

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has proven itself in many clinical situations. Few data on the use of POCUS during Medical Emergency Team (MET) calls exist. In this study, we hypothesized that the use of POCUS would increase the number of correct diagnosis made by the MET and increase MET’s certainty.

Methods

Single-center prospective observational study on adult patients in need for MET assistance. Patients were included in blocks (weeks). During even weeks, the MET physician performed a clinical assessment and registered an initial diagnosis. Subsequently, the POCUS protocol was performed and a second diagnosis was registered (US+). During uneven weeks, no POCUS was performed (US−). A blinded expert reviewed the charts for a final diagnosis. The number of correct diagnoses was compared to the final diagnosis between both groups. Physician’s certainty, mortality and possible differences in first treatment were also evaluated.

Results

We included 100 patients: 52 in the US + and 48 in the US−  group. There were significantly more correct diagnoses in the US+ group compared to the US− group: 78 vs 51% (P  = 0.006). Certainty improved significantly with POCUS (P  <  0.001). No differences in 28-day mortality and first treatment were found.

Conclusions

The use of thoracic POCUS during MET calls leads to better diagnosis and increases certainty.

Trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov. Registered 12 July 2017, NCT03214809 https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03214809?term=metus&cntry=NL&draw=2&rank=1

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13089-021-00229-3.

Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) for the Cardiothoracic Anesthesiologist

Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) is a valuable bedside diagnostic tool for a variety of expeditious clinical assessments or as guidance for a multitude of acute care procedures. Varying aspects of nearly all organ systems can be evaluated using POCUS and, with the increasing availability of affordable ultrasound systems over the past decade, many now refer to POCUS as the 21^st-century stethoscope. With the current available and growing evidence for the clinical value of POCUS, its utility across the perioperative arena adds enormous benefit to clinical decision-making. Cardiothoracic anesthesiologists routinely have used portable ultrasound systems for nearly as long as the technology has been available, making POCUS applications a natural extension of existing cardiothoracic anesthesia practice. This narrative review presents a broad discussion of the utility of POCUS for the cardiothoracic anesthesiologist in varying perioperative contexts, including the preoperative clinic, the operating room (OR), intensive care unit (ICU), and others. Furthermore, POCUS-related education, competence, and certification are addressed.