Background Focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) is a simplified, clinician-performed application of echocardiography that is rapidly expanding in use, especially in emergency and critical care medicine. Performed by appropriately trained clinicians, typically not cardiologists, FoCUS ascertains the essential information needed in critical scenarios for time-sensitive clinical decision making. A need exists for quality evidence-based review and clinical recommendations on its use. Methods The World Interactive Network Focused on Critical UltraSound conducted an international, multispecialty, evidence-based, methodologically rigorous consensus process on FoCUS. Thirty-three experts from 16 countries were involved. A systematic multiple-database, double-track literature search (January 1980 to September 2013) was performed. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation method was used to determine the quality of available evidence and subsequent development of the recommendations. Evidence-based panel judgment and consensus was collected and analyzed by means of the RAND appropriateness method. Results During four conferences (in New Delhi, Milan, Boston, and Barcelona), 108 statements were elaborated and discussed. Face-to-face debates were held in two rounds using the modified Delphi technique. Disagreement occurred for 10 statements. Weak or conditional recommendations were made for two statements and strong or very strong recommendations for 96. These recommendations delineate the nature, applications, technique, potential benefits, clinical integration, education, and certification principles for FoCUS, both for adults and pediatric patients. Conclusions This document presents the results of the first International Conference on FoCUS. For the first time, evidence-based clinical recommendations comprehensively address this branch of point-of-care ultrasound, providing a framework for FoCUS to standardize its application in different clinical settings around the world.

International Evidence-Based Recommendations for Focused Cardiac Ultrasound

This article provides a comprehensive review of dehydration assessment and presents a unique evaluation of the dehydration and performance literature. The importance of osmolality and volume are emphasized when discussing the physiology, assessment, and performance effects of dehydration. The underappreciated physiologic distinction between a loss of hypo-osmotic body water (intracellular dehydration) and an iso-osmotic loss of body water (extracellular dehydration) is presented and argued as the single most essential aspect of dehydration assessment. The importance of diagnostic and biological variation analyses to dehydration assessment methods is reviewed and their use in gauging the true potential of any dehydration assessment method highlighted. The necessity for establishing proper baselines is discussed, as is the magnitude of dehydration required to elicit reliable and detectable osmotic or volume-mediated compensatory physiologic responses. The discussion of physiologic responses further helps inform and explain our analysis of the literature suggesting a ≥ 2% dehydration threshold for impaired endurance exercise performance mediated by volume loss. In contrast, no clear threshold or plausible mechanism(s) support the marginal, but potentially important, impairment in strength, and power observed with dehydration. Similarly, the potential for dehydration to impair cognition appears small and related primarily to distraction or discomfort. The impact of dehydration on any particular sport skill or task is therefore likely dependent upon the makeup of the task itself (e.g., endurance, strength, cognitive, and motor skill).

Dehydration: physiology, assessment, and performance effects.

Respiratory variation in the inferior vena cava (ΔIVC) has been extensively studied with respect to its value in predicting fluid responsiveness, but the results are conflicting. This systematic review was aimed at investigating the diagnostic accuracy of ΔIVC in predicting fluid responsiveness. Databases including Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Knowledge were searched from inception to May 2013. Studies exploring the diagnostic performance of ΔIVC in predicting fluid responsiveness were included. To allow for more between- and within-study variance, a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model was used to pool the results. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients on mechanical ventilation, spontaneously breathing patients and those challenged with colloids and crystalloids. A total of 8 studies involving 235 patients were eligible for analysis. Cutoff values of ΔIVC varied across studies, ranging from 12% to 40%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity in the overall population were 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61-0.86) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.69-0.95), respectively. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 20.2 (95% CI: 6.1-67.1). The diagnostic performance of ΔIVC appeared to be better in patients on mechanical ventilation than in spontaneously breathing patients (DOR: 30.8 vs. 13.2). The pooled area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.79-0.89). Our study indicates that ΔIVC measured with point-of-care ultrasonography is of great value in predicting fluid responsiveness, particularly in patients on controlled mechanical ventilation and those resuscitated with colloids.

Ultrasonographic measurement of the respiratory variation in the inferior vena cava diameter is predictive of fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Management of patients at risk of acute kidney injury

Introduction Assessment of the size of the inferior vena cava (IVC) and its change in diameter in response to respiration have been investigated as a tool to screen for severe hypovolaemia [1], predict fluid responsiveness (FR) [2, 3] and assess potential intolerance to fluid loading. IVC size, collapsibility (IVCc) [2] and distensibility (IVCd) [3] have gained acceptance by emergency and intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians as FR predictors in patients with shock [4]. The ease of acquisition, reproducibility of measurements and increasing availability of ultrasound devices have supported the expansion of its use. Conflicting results have also been published [5, 6]. Injudicious application in clinical contexts where these indices have not been specifically tested may, however, mislead. On the basis of physiological principles and available, although limited, scientific evidence, it can be hypothesized that in a number of clinical conditions IVC size and/or respiratory variability may not depend on volume status and may not predict FR accurately. Although not specifically investigated yet, these conditions can be described and grouped on the basis of their main physiological determinant, as follows (Table 1) (pictorial samples are also presented as electronic supplementary material, ESM):

/pdf/ten-situations-where-inferior-vena-cava-ultrasound-may-fail-1nkhvdk4nk.pdf

Ten situations where inferior vena cava ultrasound may fail to accurately predict fluid responsiveness: a physiologically based point of view.

Background and Objective Hypovolemic shock is an important cause of death in the emergency department (ED). We sought to conduct a meta-analysis to quantify existing evidence on sonographic measurement of inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter in assessing of volume status adult ED patients. Methods A search of 5 major databases of biomedical publication, EMBASE, Ovid Medline, evidence-based medicine (EBM) Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge, was performed in first week of March 2011. Studies meeting the following criteria were included: (1) prospectively conducted, (2) measured IVC diameter using ultrasonography, (3) inpatients under spontaneous ventilation, and (4) reported IVC diameter measurement with volume status or shock. Article search, study quality assessment, and data extraction were done independently and in duplicate. Mean difference in IVC diameter was calculated using RevMan version 5.5 (Cochrane collaboration). Results A total of 5 studies qualified for study eligibility from 4 different countries, 3 being case-control and 2 before-and-after design, studying 86 cases and 189 controls. Maximal IVC diameter was significantly lower in hypovolemic status compared with euvolemic status; mean difference (95% confidence interval) was 6.3 mm (6.0-6.5 mm). None of the studies blinded interpreters for volume status of participants. Conclusion Moderate level of evidence suggests that the IVC diameter is consistently low in hypovolemic status when compared with euvolemic. Further blinded studies are needed before it could be used in the ED with confidence.

Agarwal Dipti

Papers

Role of inferior vena cava diameter in assessment of volume status: a meta-analysis.