Advertisement

Brain Ultrasonography Consensus on Skill Recommendations and Competence Levels Within the Critical Care Setting

  • Chiara Robba
  • Daniele Poole
  • Giuseppe Citerio
  • Fabio S. Taccone
  • Frank A. RasuloEmail author
  • the Consensus on brain ultrasonography in critical care group
Original Work

Abstract

Background

To report a consensus on the different competency levels for the elaboration of skill recommendations in performing brain ultrasonography within the neurocritical care setting.

Methods

Four brain ultrasound experts, supported by a methodologist, performed a preselection of indicators and skills based on the current literature and clinical expertise. An international panel of experts was recruited and subjected to web-based questionnaires according to a Delphi method presented in three separate rounds. A pre-defined threshold of agreement was established on expert subjective opinions, > 84% of votes was set to support a strong recommendation and > 68% for a weak recommendation. Below these thresholds, no recommendation reached.

Results

We defined four different skill levels (basic, basic-plus, pre-advanced, advanced). Twenty-five experts participated to the full process. After four rounds of questions, two items received a strong recommendation in the basic skill category, three in the advanced, twelve in the basic-plus, and seven in the pre-advanced. Two items in the pre-advanced category received a weak recommendation and three could not be collocated and were excluded from the list.

Conclusions

Results from this consensus permitted stratification of the different ultrasound examination skills in four levels with progressively increasing competences. This consensus can be useful as a guide for beginners in brain ultrasonography and for the development of specific training programs within this field.

Keywords

Brain ultrasound Training Intensive care Acute brain injury Consensus Delphi 

Notes

Collaborators

The Consensus on brain ultrasonography in critical care group participants: Marcel Aries: Dep. of Neurosurgical Critical Care, University of Groningen, the Netherlands, Rafael Badenes: Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia, Spain, Judith Bellapart: Neuro Intensive Care, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia, Pierre Bouzat: Pôle Anesthésie Réanimation, University of Grenoble, Grenoble France, Danilo Cardim: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, Andre Denault: l’Institut de cardiologie de Montréal, Université de Montréal, Canada, Jamil R. Dibu: Respiratory & Critical Care Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi, UAE, Thomas Geeraerts: Dep. of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University Hospital of Toulouse, France, Alberto Goffi: Department of Medicine, Division of Resp. Critical Care), University Health Network, Toronto, Canada, Ryan Hakim: Columbia Presbyterian University Hospital, New York, USA, Massimo Lamperti: Respiratory & Critical Care Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi, UAE, Victoria McCredei: Neurocritical care, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Canada, Llewellyn Padayachy: Department of Child and Adolescent Health, University of Pretoria, South Africa, Soojin Park:Columbia Presbyterian University Hospital, New York, USA, Hemanshu Prabhakar: Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (AIIMS), India, Corina Puppo: Critical Care Unit, Montevideo, Uruguay, Andrea Rigamonti: Trauma-Neuro Intensive Care Unit, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada, Aarti Sarwal: Wake Forest Baptist Health Center, Winston Salem, NC, USA, Mypinder Sekhon: Neurointensive Care, Vancouver General Hospital, Canada, Luzius Steiner: University Hospital Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland, Carol Turner: Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, UK.

Author’s Contribution

FR, CR designed the study. FR, CR, GC, and FT drafted the article. CR, GC collected the data. DP performed the statistical analysis. GC served as time manager. All authors participated in interpreting the data. FR, CR wrote and edited the article. From the Consensus on brain ultrasound in critical care group participants some of the experts have participated in answering the consensus questionnaires in various rounds.

Source of Support

No financial Support. Endorsed by the Neuro Critical Care Society.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval/Informed Consent

Since this paper addresses a consensus performed through a Delphi process (experts exposed to questionnaires) and does not involve patients or patients data, niether Ethical nor Informed Consent was necessary.

References

  1. 1.
    Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. ACGME Program requirements for graduate medical education in critical care medicine, 1 July 2017. https://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/142_critical_care_medicin e_2017-07-01.pdf?ver = 2017-04-27-145212-687.
  2. 2.
    European Union of Medical Specialists. Training requirements for the core curriculum of multidisciplinary intensive care medicine.
https://www.uems.eu/data/assets/pdf_file/0004/44437/UEMS-2014.40-European-Training-Requirements-Intensive-Care-Medicine.pdf.
  3. 3.
    Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Objectives of Training in the subspecialty of adult critical care medicine, 1 July 2014. http://www.royalcollege.ca/cs/groups/public/documents/document/y2vk/mdaw/~edisp/tztest3r cpsced000888.pdf.
  4. 4.
    Volpicelli G, Elbarbary M, Blaivas M, et al. International evidence-based recommendations for point-of-care lung ultrasonography. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38:577–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Echocardiography. Accreditation in adult critical care echocardiography. https://www.bsecho.org/media/161652/cc_accreditation_pack_2015.pdf.
  6. 6.
    Via G, Hussain A, Wells M, et al. International evidence-based recommendations for focused cardiac ultrasound. JASE. 2014;27(7):683e1–32.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    American College of Emergency Physicians. Ultrasound guidelines: emergency, point-of-care and clinical ultrasound guidelines in medicine. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;69:e27–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klinzing S, Steiger P, Schüpbach RA, Bèchir M, Brandi G. Competence for transcranial color-coded Duplex sonography is rapidly acquired. Minerva Anestesiol. 2015;81(3):298–304.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blehar DJ, Barton B, Gaspari RJ. Learning curves in emergency ultrasound education. Acad Emerg Med. 2015;22:574–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rasulo FA, De Peri E, Lavinio A. Transcranial Doppler ultrasonography in intensive care. Eur J Anaesthesiol Suppl. 2008;42:167–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Robba C, Cardim D, Sekhon M, et al. Transcranial Doppler: a stethoscope for the brain-neurocritical care use. J Neurosci Res. 2018;96:720–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rasulo F, et al. Visualizing impending cerebral circulatory arrest caused by intracranial hypertension following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2017;29(1):64–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pérez ES, Delgado-Mederos R, Rubiera M, et al. Transcranial duplex sonography for monitoring hyperacute intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke. 2009;40:987–90.  https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.524249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Becker G, Bogdahn U, Strassburg HM, et al. Identification of ventricular enlargement and estimation of intracranial pressure by transcranial color-coded real-time sonography. J Neuroimaging. 1994;4:17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seidel G, Gerriets T, Kaps M, Missler U. Dislocation of the third ventricle due to space-occupying stroke evaluated by transcranial duplex sonography. J Neuroimaging. 1996;6:227–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cardim D, Robba C, Bohdanowicz M, et al. Non-invasive monitoring of intracranial pressure using transcranial doppler ultrasonography: Is it possible? Neurocrit Care. 2016;25:473–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Robba C, Santori G, Czosnyka M, et al. Optic nerve sheath diameter measured sonographically as non-invasive estimator of intracranial pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44:1284–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Robba C, Cardim D, Tajsic T, et al. Ultrasound non-invasive measurement of intracranial pressure in neurointensive care: A prospective observational study. PLoS Med. 2017;14:e1002356.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rasulo FA, Bertuetti R, Robba C, et al. The accuracy of transcranial Doppler in excluding intracranial hypertension following acute brain injury: a multicenter prospective pilot study. Crit Care. 2017;21(1):44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Consensus Group on Transcranial Doppler in Diagnosis of Brain Death. Latin American consensus on the use of transcranial Doppler in the diagnosis of brain death. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2014;26(3):240–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lobo CL, Cançado RD, Leite AC, et al. Brazilian guidelines for transcranial doppler in children and adolescents with sickle cell disease. Rev Bras Hematol Hemoter. 2011;33(1):43–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Segura T, Calleja S, Irimia P, et al. Recommendations for the use of transcranial Doppler ultrasonography to determine the existence of cerebral circulatory arrest as diagnostic support for brain death. Span Soc Neurosonology Rev Neurosci. 2009;20(3–4):251–9.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nedelmann M, Stolz E, Gerriets T, et al. Consensus recommendations for transcranial color-coded duplex sonography for the assessment of intracranial arteries in clinical trials on acute stroke. Stroke. 2009;40(10):3238–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nedelmann M, et al. Consensus recommendations for transcranial color-coded duplex sonography for the assessment of intracranial arteries in clinical trials on acute stroke. Stroke. 2009;40:3238–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Walter U, Behnke S, Eyding J, et al. Transcranial brain parenchyma sonography in movement disorders: state of the art. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2007;33(1):15–25 (Review).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Masdeu JC, Irimia P, Asenbaum S, et al. EFNS guideline on neuroimaging in acute stroke. Report of an EFNS task force. Eur J Neurol. 2006;13(12):1271–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wira CR III, Madsen TE, Chang BP, et al. Is there a neurologist in the house? A summary of the current state of neurovascular rotations for emergency medicine residents. AEM Educ Train. 2018;2:S56–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(3):i–iv, 1–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Suzuki R, Shimodaira H. Pvclust: an R package for assessing the uncertainty in hierarchical clustering. Bioinformatics. 2006;22(12):1540–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Core Team R. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2015.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sloan MA, Alexandrov AV, Tegeler CH, et al. Assessment: transcranial Doppler ultrasonography: report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2004;62(9):1468–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Edmonds HL Jr, Isley MR, Sloan TB, et al. American Society of Neurophysiologic Monitoring and American Society of Neuroimaging joint guidelines for transcranial doppler ultrasonic monitoring. J Neuroimaging. 2011;21(2):177–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Alexandrov AV, Sloan MA, Wong LK, et al. Practice standards for transcranial Doppler ultrasound: part I-test performance. American Society of Neuroimaging Practice Guidelines Committee. J Neuroimaging. 2007;17(1):11–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Alexandrov AV, Sloan MA, Tegeler CH, et al. Practice standards for transcranial Doppler (TCD) ultrasound. Part II. Clinical indications and expected outcomes. American Society of Neuroimaging Practice Guidelines Committee. J Neuroimaging. 2012;22(3):215–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hahn RT, et al. Guidelines for performing a comprehensive transesophageal echocardiographic examination: recommendations from the American society of echocardiography and the society of cardiovascular anesthesiologists. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013;26(9):921–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jelacic S, et al. The use of TEE simulation in teaching basic echocardiography skills to senior anesthesiology residents. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2013;27(4):670–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Picard MH, et al. American society of echocardiography recommendations for quality echocardiography laboratory operations. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2011;24(1):1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Spencer KT, et al. Focused cardiac ultrasound: recommendations from the American society of echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013;26(6):567–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Price S, et al. Echocardiography and lung ultrasonography for the assessment and management of acute heart failure. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2017;14(7):427–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mayo PH, Beaulieu Y, Doelken P, et al. American college of chest physicians/La Société de Réanimation de Langue Française statement on competence in critical care ultrasonography. Chest. 2009;135:1050–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Expert Round Table on Echocardiography in ICU. International consensus statement on training standards for advanced critical care echocardiography. Intensive Care Med 2014;40:654–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mitchell C, Rahko PS, Blauwet LA, et al. Guidelines for performing a comprehensive transthoracic echocardiographic examination in adults: recommendations from the american society of echocardiography. JASE. 2019;32(1):1–64.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fletcher SN, Grounds RM. Critical care echocardiography: cleared for take up. Br J Anesth. 2012;109:490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
  45. 45.
    Boulkedid R, Abdoul H, Loustau M, Sibony O, Alberti C. Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e20476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and Neurocritical Care Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive CareOspedale Policlinico San Martino IRCCSGenoaItaly
  2. 2.Anesthesia and Intensive Care Operative UnitS. Martino HospitalBellunoItaly
  3. 3.School of Medicine and SurgeryUniversity of Milano BicoccaMilanItaly
  4. 4.Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Erasme HospitalUniversité Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium
  5. 5.Department of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, Spedali Civili University Hospital of BresciaUniversity of BresciaBresciaItaly

Personalised recommendations