Emergency Department Bedside Ultrasonographic Measurement of the Caval Index for Noninvasive Determination of Low Central Venous Pressure
TL;DR: Bedside ultrasonographic measurement of caval index greater than or equal to 50% is strongly associated with a low central venous pressure and could be a useful noninvasive tool to determine central venus pressure during the initial evaluation of the ED patient.
About: This article is published in Annals of Emergency Medicine.The article was published on 2010-03-01. It has received 255 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Inferior vena cava & Central venous pressure.
Citations
More filters
1,835 citations
King Abdulaziz Medical City1, University of the Witwatersrand2, University of Minnesota3, King Saud University4, Harvard University5, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai6, University of Belgrade7, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center8, Aarhus University Hospital9, University of South Florida10, Scripps Mercy Hospital11, University Hospital of Wales12, Sydney Adventist Hospital13, Peking Union Medical College Hospital14, Apollo Hospitals15, University of South Carolina16, Cornell University17
TL;DR: 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.
Abstract: 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.
397 citations
TL;DR: In spontaneously breathing patients with ACF, high cIVC values (>40%) are usually associated with fluid responsiveness while low values (< 40%) do not exclude fluid responsiveness.
Abstract: Introduction
To investigate whether respiratory variation of inferior vena cava diameter (cIVC) predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients with acute circulatory failure (ACF).
279 citations
Cites background from "Emergency Department Bedside Ultras..."
...Nevertheless, in spontaneously breathing patients, cIVC is widely used because it correlates to CVP even if CVP is, however, poorly predictive of fluid responsiveness [21,22]....
[...]
...It has been shown that there is a good correlation between high cIVC value and low CVP value [21,22,42]....
[...]
TL;DR: It is suggested future directions for bedside ultrasound use and research to improve diagnostic capacity and patient care in the most remote areas of the globe.
Abstract: As portability and durability improve, bedside, clinician-performed ultrasound is seeing increasing use in rural, underdeveloped parts of the world. Physicians, nurses and medical officers have demonstrated the ability to perform and interpret a large variety of ultrasound exams, and a growing body of literature supports the use of point-of-care ultrasound in developing nations. We review, by region, the existing literature in support of ultrasound use in the developing world and training guidelines currently in use, and highlight indications for emergency ultrasound in the developing world. We suggest future directions for bedside ultrasound use and research to improve diagnostic capacity and patient care in the most remote areas of the globe.
265 citations
Additional excerpts
...1 [85]....
[...]
Book•
01 Jan 2008TL;DR: A systematic approach to an effective resuscitation effort can be incorporated into a protocolized cardiovascular management algorithm, which can improve patient-centered outcomes and the cost of healthcare systems, by faster and more effective response.
Abstract: Functional hemodynamic monitoring is the assessment of the dynamic interactions of hemodynamic variables in response to a defined perturbation. Recent interest in functional hemodynamic monitoring for the bedside assessment of cardiovascular insufficiency has heightened with the documentation of its accuracy in predicting volume responsiveness using a wide variety of monitoring devices, both invasive and noninvasive, and across multiple patient groups and clinical conditions. However, volume responsiveness, though important, reflects only part of the overall spectrum of functional physiologic variables that can be measured to define the physiologic state and monitor response to therapy.
236 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: This study randomly assigned patients who arrived at an urban emergency department with severe sepsis or septic shock to receive either six hours of early goal-directed therapy or standard therapy (as a control) before admission to the intensive care unit.
Abstract: Background Goal-directed therapy has been used for severe sepsis and septic shock in the intensive care unit. This approach involves adjustments of cardiac preload, afterload, and contractility to balance oxygen delivery with oxygen demand. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of early goal-directed therapy before admission to the intensive care unit. Methods We randomly assigned patients who arrived at an urban emergency department with severe sepsis or septic shock to receive either six hours of early goal-directed therapy or standard therapy (as a control) before admission to the intensive care unit. Clinicians who subsequently assumed the care of the patients were blinded to the treatment assignment. In-hospital mortality (the primary efficacy outcome), end points with respect to resuscitation, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) scores were obtained serially for 72 hours and compared between the study groups. Results Of the 263 enrolled patients, 130 were ...
8,811 citations
Cooper University Hospital1, Rhode Island Hospital2, University of Birmingham3, Stony Brook University4, McMaster University5, University of Jena6, University of Pittsburgh7, St Thomas' Hospital8, University Hospital of Lausanne9, University of Minnesota10, St. Michael's Hospital11, University of Turin12, University of Hertfordshire13, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine14, Harvard University15, NorthShore University HealthSystem16, Houston Methodist Hospital17
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, published in 2004.
Abstract: Objective
To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, “Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock,” published in 2004.
3,928 citations
01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, the GRADE system was used to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations.
Abstract: To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, “Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock,” published in 2004. Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. We used the GRADE system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation [1] indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost), or clearly do not. Weak recommendations [2] indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. Key recommendations, listed by category, include: early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures prior to antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7–10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for post-operative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7–9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B) targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization ( 2C ); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper GI bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.
3,824 citations
Cooper University Hospital1, Rhode Island Hospital2, University of Birmingham3, Stony Brook University4, McMaster University5, University of Jena6, University of Pittsburgh7, St Thomas' Hospital8, University Hospital of Lausanne9, University of Minnesota10, St. Michael's Hospital11, University of Turin12, University of Hertfordshire13, Johns Hopkins University14, Harvard University15, NorthShore University HealthSystem16
TL;DR: The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high to very low and to determine the strength of recommendations.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE
To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, \"Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,\" published in 2004.
DESIGN
Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding.
METHODS
We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation (1) indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost) or clearly do not. Weak recommendations (2) indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations.
RESULTS
Key recommendations, listed by category, include early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure > or = 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for postoperative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B), targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization (2C); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); and a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B).
CONCLUSIONS
There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.
2,924 citations
"Emergency Department Bedside Ultras..." refers background in this paper
...supportive resources, and trained personnel who can devote themselves solely to conducting monitoring.(3,4) Perhaps because...
[...]
1,835 citations
"Emergency Department Bedside Ultras..." refers result in this paper
...Previous studies have also shown that inferior vena cava measurements are not possible in 10% to 15% of patients, usually because of large body habitus, excessive intra-abdominal bowel gas, or large amounts of intrathoracic air.(9,12)...
[...]