The Impact of Point-of-Care Ultrasound-Guided Resuscitation on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Critical Care Medicine 52(11):p 1661-1673, November 2024.

OBJECTIVE: 

To determine the impact of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS)-guided resuscitation on clinical outcomes in adult patients with shock.

DATA SOURCE: 

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and unpublished sources from inception to December 2023.

STUDY SELECTION: 

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the use of POCUS to guide resuscitation in patients with shock.

DATA EXTRACTION: 

We collected data regarding study and patient characteristics, POCUS protocol, control group interventions, and outcomes.

DATA SYNTHESIS: 

We identified 18 eligible RCTs. POCUS slightly influences physicians’ plans for IV fluid (IVF) and vasoactive medication prescription (moderate certainty), but results in little to no changes in the administration of IVF (low to high certainty) or inotropes (high certainty). POCUS may result in no change in the number of CT scans performed (low certainty) but probably reduces the number of diagnostic echocardiograms performed (moderate certainty). POCUS-guided resuscitation probably reduces 28-day mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78–0.99), the duration of vasoactive medication (mean difference –0.73 d; 95% CI, –1.16 to –0.30), and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63–1.02) (low to moderate certainty evidence), and lactate clearance (high certainty evidence). POCUS-guided resuscitation may results in little to no difference in ICU or hospital admissions, ICU and hospital length of stay, and the need for mechanical ventilation (MV) (low to moderate certainty evidence). There is an uncertain effect on the risk of acute kidney injury and the duration of MV or RRT (very low certainty evidence).

CONCLUSIONS: 

POCUS-guided resuscitation in shock may yield important patient and health system benefits. Due to lack of sufficient evidence, we were unable to explore how the thresholds of operator competency, frequency, and timing of POCUS scans impact patient outcomes.

 

Effectiveness of diaphragmatic ultrasound as a predictor of successful weaning from mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

 

by Henry M. Parada-Gereda, Adriana L. Tibaduiza, Alejandro Rico-Mendoza, Daniel Molano-Franco, Victor H. Nieto, Wanderley A. Arias-Ortiz, Purificación Perez-Terán and Joan R. Masclans 

 

Critical Care volume 27, Article number: 174 (2023) 

 

Background

Several measurements have been used to predict the success of weaning from mechanical ventilation; however, their efficacy varies in different studies. In recent years, diaphragmatic ultrasound has been used for this purpose. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of diaphragmatic ultrasound in predicting the success of weaning from mechanical ventilation.

Methods

Two investigators independently searched PUBMED, TRIP, EMBASE, COCHRANE, SCIENCE DIRECT, and LILACS for articles published between January 2016 and July 2022. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool; additionally, the certainty of the evidence is evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology. Sensitivity and specificity analysis was performed for diaphragmatic excursion and diaphragmatic thickening fraction; positive and negative likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) with their confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated by random effects analysis, summary receiver operating characteristic curve was estimated. Sources of heterogeneity were explored by subgroup analysis and bivariate meta-regression.

Results

Twenty-six studies were included, of which 19 were included in the meta-analysis (1204 patients). For diaphragmatic excursion, sensitivity was 0.80 (95% CI 0.77–0.83), specificity 0.80 (95% CI 0.75–0.84), area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve 0.87 and DOR 17.1 (95% CI 10.2–28.6). For the thickening fraction, sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI 0.82–0.87), specificity 0.75 (95% CI 0.69–0.80), area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve 0.87 and DOR 17.2 (95% CI 9.16–32.3). There was heterogeneity among the included studies. When performing a subgroup analysis and excluding studies with atypical cutoff values, sensitivity and specificity increased for diaphragmatic thickening fraction; sensitivity increased and specificity decreased for diaphragmatic excursion; when comparing studies using pressure support (PS) versus T-tube, there was no significant difference in sensitivity and specificity; bivariate meta-regression analysis shows that patient position at the time of testing was a factor of heterogeneity in the included studies.

Conclusions

Measurement of diaphragmatic excursion and diaphragmatic thickening fraction predict the probability of successful weaning from mechanical ventilation with satisfactory diagnostic accuracy; however, significant heterogeneity was evident in the different included studies. Studies of high methodological quality in specific subgroups of patients in intensive care units are needed to evaluate the role of diaphragmatic ultrasound as a predictor of weaning from mechanical ventilation.

A decade of progress in critical care echocardiography: a narrative review

A decade of progress in critical care echocardiography: a narrative review

By: Vieillard-Baron, A., Millington, S.J., Sanfillipo, F. et al.

Intensive Care Med (04/2019). P1-19 – first online: 25^th March 2019

Introduction

This narrative review focusing on critical care echocardiography (CCE) has been written by a group of experts in the field, with the aim of outlining the state of the art in CCE in the 10 years after its official recognition and definition.

Results

In the last 10 years, CCE has become an essential branch of critical care ultrasonography and has gained general acceptance. Its use, both as a diagnostic tool and for hemodynamic monitoring, has increased markedly, influencing contemporary cardiorespiratory management. Recent studies suggest that the use of CCE may have a positive impact on outcomes. CCE may be used in critically ill patients in many different clinical situations, both in their early evaluation of in the emergency department and during intensive care unit (ICU) admission and stay. CCE has also proven its utility in perioperative settings, as well as in the management of mechanical circulatory support. CCE may be performed with very simple diagnostic objectives. This application, referred to as basic CCE, does not require a high level of training. Advanced CCE, on the other hand, uses ultrasonography for full evaluation of cardiac function and hemodynamics, and requires extensive training, with formal certification now available. Indeed, recent years have seen the creation of worldwide certification in advanced CCE. While transthoracic CCE remains the most commonly used method, the transesophageal route has gained importance, particularly for intubated and ventilated patients.

Conclusion

CCE is now widely accepted by the critical care community as a valuable tool in the ICU and emergency department, and in perioperative settings.