Advertisement

Ultrasound Evaluation of Shock and Volume Status in the Intensive Care Unit

  • Keith Corl
  • Sameer Shah
  • Eric GartmanEmail author
Chapter
  • 3.2k Downloads
Part of the Respiratory Medicine book series (RM)

Abstract

Point-of-care ultrasound can be utilized in an algorithmic approach to the patient with undifferentiated shock. Within minutes, a focused ultrasonographic exam can aid in the clinical classification of the patient, allowing appropriate further testing and treatment to be initiated. In this chapter, we illustrate a protocol for the ultrasound evaluation of shock and also discuss the evidence for the use of ultrasonography in the assessment of intravascular volume status.

Keywords

Inferior Vena Cava Central Venous Pressure Fluid Responsiveness Predict Fluid Responsiveness Inferior Vena Cava Diameter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Perera P, Mailhot T, Riley D, et al. The RUSH exam: rapid ultrasound in SHock in the evaluation of the critically Ill. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2010;28(1):29–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson PR, McAuley DJ, Kendall RJ, et al. Abdominal and cardiac evaluation with sonography in shock (ACES): an approach by emergency physicians for the use of ultrasound in patients with undifferentiated hypotension. Emerg Med J. 2009;26:87–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jones AE, Tayal VS, Sullivan DM, Sullivan VS, Kline JA. Randomized, controlled trial of immediate versus delayed goal-directed ultrasound to identify the cause of nontraumatic hypotension in emergency department patients. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(8):1703–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brennan JM, Blair JE, Goonewardena S, et al. A comparison by medicine residents of physical examination versus hand-carried ultrasound for estimation of right atrial pressure. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:1614–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kobal SL, et al. Comparison of effectiveness of hand-carried ultrasound to bedside cardiovascular physical examination. Am J Cardiol. 2005;96(7):1002–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eisenberg PE, Jaffe AS, Schuster DS. Clinical evaluation compared to pulmonary artery catheterization in the hemodynamic assessment of critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 1984;12(7):549–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wo CC, Shoemaker WC, Appel PL, et al. Unreliability of blood pressure and heart rate to evaluate cardiac output in emergency resuscitation and critical illness. Crit Care Med. 1993;21(2):218–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harvey S, Harrison DA, Singer M. Assessment of the clinical effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in management of patients in intensive care (PAC-Man): a randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366(9484):472–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(2):165–228.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nagdev AD, Merchant RC, Tirado-Gonzalez A, et al. Emergency department bedside ultrasonographic measurement of the caval index for noninvasive determination of low central venous pressure. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;55(3):290–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kumar A, Anel R, Bunnell E, et al. Pulmonary artery occlusion pressure and central venous pressure fail to predict ventricular filling volume, cardiac performance, or the response to volume infusion in normal subjects. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(3):691–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marik PE, Cavallazzi R. Does the central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? An updated meta-analysis and a plea for some common sense. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(7):1774–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    The ProCESS Investigators, Yealy DM, Kellum JA, Huang DT, et al. A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(18):1683–93. Epub 2014 Mar 18.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weekes AJ, Tassone HM, Babcock A, et al. Comparison of serial qualitative and quantitative assessments of caval index and left ventricular systolic function during early fluid resuscitation of hypotensive emergency department patients. Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18(9):912–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bodson L, Vieillard-Baron A. Respiratory variation in inferior vena cava diameter: surrogate of central venous pressure or parameter of fluid responsiveness? Let the physiology reply. Crit Care. 2012;16(6):181.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bendjelid K, Romand JA. Fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: a review of indices used in intensive care. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29(3):352–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barbier C, Loubieres Y, Schmit C, et al. Respiratory changes in inferior vena cava diameter are helpful in predicting fluid responsiveness in ventilated septic patients. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30(9):1740–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Feissel M, Michard F, Faller JP, et al. The respiratory variation in inferior vena cava diameter as a guide to fluid therapy. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30(9):1834–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Machare-Delgado E, Decaro M, Marik PE. Inferior vena cava variation compared to pulse contour analysis as predictors of fluid responsiveness: a prospective cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2011;26(2):116–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dipti A, Soucy Z, Surana A, Chandra S. Role of inferior vena cava diameter in assessment of volume status: a meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med. 2012;30(8):1414–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Muller L, Bobbia X, Toumi M, et al. Respiratory variations of inferior vena cava diameter to predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients with acute circulatory failure: need for a cautious use. Crit Care. 2012;16(5):R188.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lanspa MJ, Grissom CK, Hirshberg EL. Applying dynamic parameters to predict hemodynamic response to volume expansion in spontaneously breathing patients with septic shock. Shock. 2013;39(2):155–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Corl K, Napoli AM, Gardiner F. Bedside sonographic measurement of the inferior vena cava caval index is a poor predictor of fluid responsiveness in emergency department patients. Emerg Med Australas. 2012;24(5):534–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weingart S. Podcast 86 – IVC ultrasound for fluid tolerance in spontaneously breathing patients. EMCrit Blog. 2012. Available from: http://emcrit.org/podcasts/ivc-ultrasound-for-fluid-tolerance-in-spontaneously-breathing-patients/. Accessed 5 May 2014.
  25. 25.
    Wallace DJ, Allison M, Stone MB. Inferior vena cava percentage collapse during respiration is affected by the sampling location: an ultrasound study in healthy volunteers. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17(1):96–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nakao S, Come PC, McKay RG, Ransil BJ. Effects of positional changes on inferior vena caval size and dynamics and correlations with right-sided cardiac pressure. Am J Cardiol. 1987;59:125–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep MedicineRhode Island HospitalProvidenceUSA
  2. 2.Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep MedicineRhode Island HospitalProvidenceUSA
  3. 3.Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  4. 4.Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep MedicineMemorial Hospital of Rhode IslandPawtucketUSA

Personalised recommendations