Remote video URL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrnR0suvsxw&t=1s
Transcript

- Well welcome everybody.

Thanks for joining us for Focus on Undifferentiated Shock.

My name's Chris Pennell

and I'll be hosting today's webinar today.

Our guest speaker is Dr. Cameron Bain from the

University of Pennsylvania.

We'll be doing a second webinar with Dr.

Bain on Tuesday, July 1st at noon entitled Lung Pocus

and Critical Care, and we'd love for you

to join us for that one too.

You can sign up for that webinar@sonossite.com slash

behind the scan webinar.

With that, let me introduce Dr. Cameron Baston.

Cameron Baston is a clinician advisor for Penn Health Tech

and an assistant professor

of clinical medicine in the Department

of Medicine at the University

of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine.

He serves as an associate program director for the pulmonary

and critical care medicine fellowship

and as a doc director of clinician performed ultrasound

for the Department of Medicine.

He has an interest in helping create low cost medical

devices in the resource limited critical care setting

and works with several organizations on POCUS

and critical care education,

a mechanical engineer epidemiologist,

critical care physician and medical educator.

He spends about two thirds of his time caring

for critically ill patients

and the remainder working on education innovation

and health technology.

And with that I'll turn it over to Dr.

Basten to get started.

- Hi, my name's Cameron Bain.

I'm a pulmonary and critical care doctor at the

University of Pennsylvania.

Today I'm going to talk to you about POCUS

and undifferentiated shock.

The way we're going to do this, we're going to break it down,

we're going to start with a brief review of shock in general

and then I'll start talking about the way

that I use ultrasound to differentiate the

etiology of shock.

Once we have that, we can really start leaning into how

to narrow that differential as we go forward.

And then I'll talk about some of the next steps, things

that people want to do once you've figured out what type

of shock your patient has.

When we do this, we're going to

start with the definition of shock.

I'll get into the etiology and our traditional

windows into the body.

So I really like this original definition of shock,

that it's the clinical expression of circulatory failure

that results in inadequate cellular oxygen utilization.

And the most common reason that we have that

and the thing that we tend to recognize is

someone's blood pressure.

If they have arterial hypotension

and signs of tissue hypoperfusion,

and that could be a bunch of different things

that we'll get into, then we say they have shock if they

just have low blood pressure, they don't have shock

and then wheel and all had these original categorizations

of shock where you had hypovolemic shock, cardiogenic shock,

obstructive shock and distributive or low resistance shock

and they, they broke these down.

And I feel like these really help us know

what therapies are indicated

to help our patient get better tissue of oxygenation.

That said, we now have a more sophisticated understanding

than just macrocirculation.

If you look at the blood vessels with dark field microscopy

as seen here in the sublingual area, you can see

that sometimes the problem is not just low blood pressure,

it's actually edema, preventing diffusion

of oxygen across gradients

or other disruption, hemodilution constriction, tamponade,

something else causing a problem in the process

of getting oxygen to the cells.

Even when oxygen does get to the cells though

sepsis poisons the mitochondrial processes.

And so that means that sometimes the problem is not

sufficient cardiac output, not sufficient oxygen delivery

to tissues, but truly just that at a cellular level,

the tissues have been poisoned.

Ultrasounds not going to help us reverse that process,

but what it can help us do is make sure

that enough oxygen is being delivered to the cells.

And this brings us back to those

that etiology symbol we have for our shock states.

And so if we start thinking about these

and have in our head a pretest probability, knowing

that distributive shock,

primarily septic shock makes up most of what admissions

to the intensive care unit are, we can start thinking about

what patterns of ultrasound findings are going to let us know

which shock state our patient is in.

Before we get into ultrasound,

let's talk about our traditional windows into the body,

and that's inspection, auscultation,

palpation, and percussion.

We also get to go a little beyond that

and think about whether we're seeing altered mental status

signs of encephalopathy

or if we're seeing oliguria hyperemia

or modeled clammy skin as a way to see signs

of hypoperfusion beyond just our inspection.

We can also look at lab values with both lactate

and central venous saturation, giving us a clue as

to whether or not the patient has adequate oxygen

delivery to the periphery.

And thanks to the andro to shock trial,

we also should be thinking about capillary refill

as another indicator of whether

or not somebody has sufficient delivery of blood.

But now we can get into the really exciting part of this.

How are we going to use POCUS to figure out

what etiology of shock they have?

And the place we tend to start is the heart.

This review in New England Journal talked about the idea

that if you think about these four shock states,

there are typical patterns to echocardiography of the heart

and we think about distributive shock

as usually having normal cardiac chambers and preserved IL

and comparison to hypovolemic shock

where you have smaller chamber sizes

and you have high contractility, cardiogenic shock

of course tends to have large ventricles, poor contractility

and obstructive shock depends on which etiology

of obstructive shock you're talking about.

But they all should have a dilated inferior vena cava

whether or not you have a compression of the right ventricle

or an expansion of the right ventricle

depending on the etiology.

So let's talk about how to do this.

We're going to be able to look at the left ventricle,

the right ventricle and the atria.

And when we do this we're going to look for patterns

and we have an overfilled heart on the left

where you can see a dilated left atria, a dilated ventricle.

You can see in the middle the normal pattern

of normal sized left atria, normal sized, left ventricle,

normal sized rv, and on the right an underfilled heart.

And that's where you have a small end diastolic diameter

and we'll get into that in a little bit

more detail in a second.

When it comes to the left atrium, we can look on ultrasound

and we can see whether that left atrial volume represented

here by the left atrial diameter measured at end systole is

normal or abnormal and normal is dependent on

height and sex at birth.

But if you look at four centimeters as a general rule,

that's too big, you can also think about it relative

to the other chambers of the heart with this rule of thirds

where the left atrial diameter should be about the same

as the left ventricular outflow tract,

which should be about the same

as the right ventricular outflow tract.

This picture representing somebody

who has a dilated left atrium,

we can look at the right ventricle

and we can get information about the right ventricle from

any of our traditional cardiac windows.

In our peroneal long axis view, we're again using that rule

of thirds to see whether the right ventricular a flow tract

is greater in diameter than the LVOT

or the LA in the peroneal short axis view.

We can talk about the crescentic shape of the RV

and the apical four we can talk about whether it's bigger

or smaller than the left ventricle.

And the same thing is true in our subcostal view.

So here's going into detail

and giving you examples about that.

Here's a peroneal long axis view

and you can easily see here

that the right ventricular a flow tract is bigger in

diameter than the LVOT

or the left atrium that is abnormal In this view.

You can see the peroneal short axis view, you can,

you can see that the right ventricle is pressing the

interventricular septum into the left ventricle,

changing the shape of the RV from a crescent to more

of a oval.

And here in the apical four chamber view,

you can see on the left a normal heart with the ratio

of RV diameter to LV diameter,

that should be less than two thirds.

And on the right you can see a severely dilated right

ventricle, a severely dilated right atrium

and the intraventricular

and intraatrial septi are being pushed into the left side

of the heart representing increased pressure.

The normal ratio of the RVD LV being less than two thirds,

but we allow people to get

to one-to-one when they're critically ill.

It's important to remember that when you're looking

for pericardial tamponade,

the subcostal window tends to be our best.

And you can see the hand position needed to scan this

as well as a view you might get of a patient

with a large pericardial effusion

as the pressure in the pericardium increases,

the first thing that happens is you get IVC plethora.

This is the most sensitive finding for tamponade physiology

and then right atrial collapse

and then right ventricular collapse

where your sensitivity decreases

and your specificity increases as

that intra pericardial pressure rises.

So let's start to put this all together.

If we think about our etiologies of shock, hypovolemic,

cardiogenic, obstructive and distributive,

what we see in our cardiac views is now in the second column

of this table, small hyperdynamic chambers

for hypovolemic shock, large impaired function

for cardiogenic shock, typically obstructive shock showing

either the air artifact of a tension pneumothorax,

a clot in transit or right ventricular dilation

and impaired function in massive PE

or a pericardial fusion in tamponade.

In distributive shock, it might be hyperdynamic

or in the case of septic cardiomyopathy,

it might be impaired.

So the next window into the body

that we have is venous filling.

And we'll look at two different ways to look at this,

but I do want to offer that there are more

and more sophisticated approaches.

This is a review in that showed using spectral doppler

and the patterns of spectral doppler in different organs

of the body to talk about filling pressures.

But I'm just going to talk about evaluating the inferior vena

cava and the internal jugular vein.

So when you're trying to get your IVC, again,

you're starting with the transducer laid against the

subcostal region,

and you want to get this view that allows you

to see the IVC longitudinally, the hepatic vein starting

to drain into the IVC to confirm

that it's not the aorta liver on both sides of the IVC

and you can see the right atria

as the IVC drains into it really nicely.

In this picture interpreting this

is a little bit tricky.

So in the spontaneously breathing patient,

we think about the size

and the percentage that it collapses.

As visual representatives of the CVP

originally we would assign specific

and precise CVP values to different patterns of IVC size

and collapse, but we moved away from that

and now we use the American Society

of Echocardiography recommendations

where we basically say if A IVC is small

and collapsible defined

by less than 2.1 centimeters in diameter

and collapsing more than 50% in a spontaneously breathing

patient, then we assign the right atrial pressure of three.

If somebody has a large

and un collapsible IVC so greater than 2.1 centimeters

and collapsing less than 50%,

we assign them the estimated right atrial pressure of 15

and everything else, any other combination of size

and collapsibility, we assign the

right atrial pressure of eight.

We also tend to follow their guidelines that say

that if a patient is on positive pressure ventilation,

we assign them a right atrial pressure of eight regardless

of what their IVC dynamics look like.

As we do this though, I want to make sure

that we're not inappropriately narrowing our differential

to only thinking about their volume status.

Because IVC plethora is a non-specific finding.

Many things will cause a large non collapsing IVC

and that includes tamponade physiology as we just mentioned,

as well as multiple different times of cardiomyopathies

or pericarditis, massive PE or tricuspid regurgitation

and IVC thrombus is are rare,

but in my institution sometimes seen phenomena

where the IVC will be large even though the patient is

relatively hypovolemic.

Beyond that, even IVC collapse is non-Pacific.

We've all seen the patient who's got severe dyspnea

and their intrathoracic pressure swings are so great

that their IVC will collapse regardless of

what their intravascular volume status is.

And similarly, you can have something externally compressing

the IVC such as a mass or 10 societies causing a small

or collapsing IVC in a patient whose volume status,

which they have an elevated right atrial pressure.

So here's an example of video like this

I tend to use for teaching.

You can see the IVC in the longitudinal view,

you can see it draining towards the right atrium.

You can see liver on both sides

and you can see a hepatic vein starting to go into this

and you might look at this and say, oh,

this IVC is about two centimeters

and is not collapsing at all.

But you also, if you have a keen eye, can see

around the heart an koic space.

And when I rotate my transducer, I'll see that

that brings me again to a large pericardial effusion.

So when we think about the IVC

and the internal jugular vein, we get to see patterns

of these that correspond.

If you have an IVC that's not achievable

and many times in our critically ill patients,

we can't see the IVC because of ileus

or bowel gas or surgeries.

So if we think about plethoric, I vvcs, as you can see here,

large unchanging, normal IVCs or flat IVCs.

We have a correlating internal jugular pattern

where high on the neck,

you can see here a dilated IJ much bigger than the carotid

not changing with respiratory variation.

Here you can see a normal IJ where even just

above the clavicle you have a triangular,

a trapezoidal shape that changes in size with respiration.

This represents a normal right atrial pressure.

Or here you can see somebody who just

above the clavicle has a completely collapsed IJ

that only expands during exhalation.

So if we put that together into our table,

now we've got our third column thinking about

our etiologies of shock.

We can think about the fact that a hypovolemic

or hemorrhagic shock patient should never have a plethoric

IVC absent one of the confounders that we just talked about.

Instead their IVC or their IJ should be flat.

Cardiogenic shock patients tend to be volume overloaded,

so they tend to have plump IJs

and IVCs obstructive shock patients.

Similarly, the blood has to back up somewhere.

So if a obstructive shock patient is evaluated,

they should have a dilated neck vein and a dilated IVC

and distributed shock patients.

It depends on what phase of resuscitation they're in

prior to resuscitation.

These both these vessels are flat and then normal

and then plethoric if they are resuscitated.

Great. So that's our venous filling.

Let's talk about the pulmonary window as a way

to get an idea of what's going on in shock.

The first thing we can do is we can look for pneumothorax

and we do that primarily through lung sliding.

And if you look at these two videos, one done

with a linear transducer

and one done with a phased array transducer,

you can see the glistening shimmering artifact at the level

of the pleura that's highlighted here in the white box.

I'll offer that if you're a computer nerd like I am,

you might see this and say each pixel's just going black,

white, gray, black white, gray, black, white,

gray over the course of a respiratory cycle

and the presence of this finding

of this shimmering artifact known

as lung sliding rules out a pneumothorax at the place

of the transducers being held

with a greater confidence than a chest x-ray interpreted

by a radiologist.

Sometimes that lung sliding artifact is difficult to see

or if you have a patient

where their lung's not moving very much.

For instance, somebody who has bullous emphysema

or has low tidal volume ventilation, you can look

for the lung pulse.

And what you're seeing here is in the M mode imaging version

of evaluation for lung sliding, you can see a break

in the horizontal lines highlighted by those white arrows

or here on this longer spectrum.

And this allows you to see

that every time the heart beats in the chest,

it causes the two layers

of pleura to move against each other.

So even though there's no phasic variability of the pleura,

there's still aphasic variability

and that allows us to rule out pneumothorax

with the same confidence

as seeing respiro phasic lung sliding.

So if we put these together, we have lung sliding the

presence of beelines, which cannot be seen.

If there is a pneumothorax

and lung pulse, we start to get a pretty robust set

of indicators to rule out pneumothorax in a patient

with undifferentiated shock.

There's only one finding described in the literature

as ruling in pneumothorax

and what it's seen here, it's referred to as the lung point

and what you can see is that there is no lung sliding in the

pleura on the left hand side of the screen,

but there is lung sliding in a phasic pattern on the right

hand side of the screen.

This suggests that we're seeing the bottom edge

of the pneumothorax.

I'll offer that.

You can see this finding,

although it's described

as being a hundred percent specific in patients

who do not have pneumothorax, if they have a history

of thoracic surgery, for instance in my center

with a large number of lung transplant patients,

we frequently can find a lung point in a patient

with no pneumothorax.

It's also not very sensitive.

If we think about the size of pneumothorax, that tends

to cause tension physiology.

It's circumferential large pneumothoraces

as seen here in this chest x-ray

and that means you're never going to find the point

where the lung re adheres to the pleura.

The next step of my lung evaluation

with point-of-care ultrasound is is looking for B lines.

And what I'm looking for is whether there are these vertical

hyper coic artifacts and what their pattern is.

You'll also notice that on the left we have a smooth pleural

line, perfectly smooth white line with beelines coming off

of it, whereas on the right you have a little bit more

of a jagged plural line.

These are referred to as an irregular pleura

that irregular pleura suggests that it's an inflammatory

or infectious etiology of the beelines as opposed

to purely a volume overload etiology in comparison

to the smooth pleura here,

lung ultrasound is useful not just for the presence

of cardiogenic or non cardiogenic pulmonary edema,

but also for the detection of pneumonia.

So if we think about focal beeline patterns

as being present in our pneumonia patients

or potentially a consolidation as seen here

with a small pleural effusion in this patient

with strep pneumo pneumonia

or the dynamic air broncho Graham seen here

where you can see these white lines moving

with a phasic pattern in a patient who's got pus

in the airways.

These things all make lung ultrasound a better diagnostic

tool for pneumonia than plain chest x-ray

beyond just the pneumonia you can evaluate

for whether there's a closed space of infection like mima.

If you look closely at this image,

you can see the consolidated lung,

you can see the hypoechoic pleural effusion surrounding it

and you can see a couple of loculation connecting

that can consolidated lung

to the diaphragm on the right side of the screen.

That suggests pretty strongly

that this is going to be an exudative effusion.

The absence of loculation does not mean

that it's necessarily going to be translative,

but the presence of loculation was found

to be very predictive of an exudative effusion.

So now we've got our fourth column in this

table pulling this together.

We can think about whether we're seeing a diffuse ALINE

pattern as we should see in a hypovolemic patient,

a diffuse bline pattern as is present in a cold

and wet cardiogenic shock patient.

Or we can see the specific patterns of obstructive shock,

either the absence of lung sliding in pneumothorax,

the ALINE pattern of pulmonary embolism

unless you happen to catch the area of infarcted lung

or the ALINE pattern of tamponade

where you have clear lungs,

elevated neck veins in a distributive shock patient.

Again, you might see ALINE patterns or a pneumonia pattern,

but gradually as they get fluid you may see a beeline

pattern start to appear

as you get capillary leak into the lungs.

Pulling this together, there's a few other windows

that we can use to get some ideas of what form

of shock a patient's in.

We can do a DVT examination

and this is an example of a free floating thrombus in a vein

and you can see that you want to check all of the zones

of the lower extremity in order to have the confidence

to say that you've truly ruled out DVT.

Again, the absence of DVT does not mean

that PE is off our differential,

but the presence of DVT certainly raises our

pretest probability.

We can do skin and soft tissue ultrasound

looking for infections.

On the left you can see a video showing the irregular

borders, posterior acoustic enhancement

and hypo coic space of a abscess.

And on the right you can see the cobblestone pattern

that typically is seen in cellulitis

evaluating the gen genital urinary system.

We can see here the hydronephrosis of a patient

who had an obstructing urinary stone

and on the right you can see a distended bladder

with debris inside of it.

In a patient who had an untrained UTI effectively acting

as an abscess just looking at free fluid in the abdomen can

help us because if we see

what we see on the left ated hyper coic fluid, we start

to worry that this too is an infected space.

Again, an anti coic fluid does not rule out infection

and you have to do a paracentesis

and that's where ultrasound really leans into its strength

as procedural guide seen here doing real time ultrasound

guidance of a paracentesis in a patient

with a very small pocket.

Alright, now we've gotten through the first couple sections

and we can put together this pattern

of the ways in which different POCUS findings correlate

with different etiologies of shock.

Beyond that, we can start narrowing it down

and saying what things are different as we go from one form

of shock to another.

So the idea that if you find impaired function

that could be present in septic cardiomyopathy

but it makes cardiogenic shock think

higher on my differential.

Similarly, if we see a clot in transit

or rv PE is suddenly surged up if we see a pericardial

effusion, we have to think about pericardial tamponade.

We want to think about the pattern of filling pressures

and how those fit with different forms of shock.

If I have a patient who I'm worried about hemorrhagic shock

and I see a plump I have, you see

that moves down my differential.

And conversely, if I see a patient

where I'm thinking about obstructive shock,

but I see a flat IVC

or IJ that moves down my differential,

the lung ultrasound pattern can be helpful,

especially if we're trying to identify a pneumonia

that might might have been missed on our chest x-ray.

And then other findings such as free fluid in the abdomen

in a trauma patient, the presence

or absence of plural effusions DVDs

or a source of sepsis can really help us figure out which

type of shock we're dealing with.

So let's take this on a bit of a test run.

I'll show you some images and we'll practice figuring out

which form of shock these images would boast

appropriately be lumped into.

So if we look here, we have a pararenal long axis view in

the upper left hand corner, a longitudinal view

of the IVC in the right hand corner

and a lung ultrasound view at the bottom.

And if I look at this, I say, oh man,

I see a large left atrium

and a large fight right ventricle, I see a dilated LV

and I see a plump unchanging IVC and beeline pattern.

So when I put this together, I might think big rv,

big LV, plump IVC beelines, that's cardiogenic shock

until proven otherwise.

If I see this pattern of findings,

a dilated right ventricle, a dilated right atrium, a plump

or plethoric IVC

and an ALINE pattern, putting that together, I think man

that works with pe, an obstructive physiology of shock.

If I see this, a hyperdynamic heart both left

and right ventricles hammering away as hard as they can in

that apical four chamber view on the left, a flat IVC,

you can see it draining into the right atrium with almost

invisible diameter during inspiration

or a consolidated lung

as seen in this lung ultrasound showing a small pleural

effusion surrounding it to me that says normal

or hyperdynamic heart flat IVC consolidated lung,

I'm thinking about septic shock

unless I have a reason to not.

So where do we go from here? Now we've got a way

to figure out which form of shock we're in.

Let's talk about what we do next.

And this is where we're going to talk about izing,

our assessment of shock and the perhaps the most commonly

used protocol is the rush protocol.

And this can be thought of as an evaluation of the pump,

the heart, the pipes, the IVC, the aorta

and the deep veins and the tank, the pleural cavity

and the abdominal cavity

or this is sometimes thought up as high map

where you have the heart, the IVC Morrison's pouch,

the aorta and the lungs.

And this starts with a parasternal long axis view.

You can see that being acquired here.

And then you can move to an apical four chamber view

because as I like to tell my trainees, one view is no view.

You should always get two views of the heart

before committing to your interpretation of it.

A view of the IVC looking to see whether that's big,

small collapsing, non collapsing Morrison's pouch

and the other chambers in the abdomen with the understanding

that Morrison's pouch is the most sensitive

of those chambers for free fluid.

An evaluation of the aorta to look for aaa, an evaluation

of the lungs, primarily looking for pneumothorax as a source

of obstructive shock.

You can include other things such as ectopic pregnancy,

which as an adult pulmonary and critical care doctor,

I'm very rarely looking for evaluation of DVT trying

to figure out whether

or not I need to move PE higher on my differential.

Beyond that, we can get into this interesting skillset

of spectral doppler, interrogation of the aortic valve

and this allows us through VTI evaluation to look

for whether we are in a low output shock state

or a high output shock state.

And so we think about this using that VTIA measurement

of the diameter of the left ventricular outflow tract

and a in our minds a typical normal range.

And this one study from C in chest a couple years back

talked about the idea that if we have a VTI range

of less than 14, that's a low output state greater than 22,

that's a high output state

and we need to think about that

normalized to the heart rate.

If somebody's heart rate goes up, we expect

that each stroke is going to be smaller.

The challenge here is when we think about all of our forms

of shock, cardiogenic shock, obstructive shock,

hypovolemic shock and distributed shock prior

to resuscitation, these should all be

low cardiac output states.

But the difference is that once you've resuscitated a

patient with distributive shock,

they go into a high cardiac output state, they have shifted.

If we think back to those original couple slides from a

space of inadequate blood delivery to tissues

to now there's adequate blood delivery,

but unfortunately the cellular mechanisms

or the microcirculation has been poisoned,

we can use this serially

and this is where the real power comes in

and we can change ourselves from

thinking why are they in shock?

We've already established that too, is what I'm doing

to them helping the shock.

And so we can think about a hemodynamically unstable patient

who start in this low cardiac output state for all of them

and then we do something, we either add inotrope or fluids

and we see whether that improves our cardiac output

as measured via L-V-O-T-V-T-I.

If we want to get an actual cardiac output instead

of just L-V-O-T-V-T-I, the equation's here

for calculating stroke volume using that diameter

of the LVOT

and then we can multiply that by heart rate

to get a cardiac output number.

I'll offer that measurement errors in this get magnified

because you're thinking about a radius squared value.

So we can also just look at the VTI

and scale it over time normalized to the heart rate.

Here's an example. We have a patient who's got a VTI

measured through that aortic valve of 11 that's low.

This is a patient who's in a low cardiac output state

and then we can look at them

after the intervention of adding epinephrine.

And what we can see is they have improved their VTI they're

now, they now have a VTI of 15, they've moved closer

to a normal cardiac output it.

One of the questions that's often asked is, can we use POCUS

to answer whether or not a patient is going

to be fluid responsive?

And the answer to that is it is better than a physical exam.

But I want to highlight as this graphic shows from DeBaker

that while we may still be on the part

of the Frank Starling curve, we're adding additional fluid

to the patient, improves cardiac output.

We also could be on the part of the curve

where there is steep increases

with permeability of the capillaries.

So while we're improving cardiac output,

we're also causing more leaking into the lungs

that EVLW vascular lung water,

which can cause more harm than benefit,

especially if we already have adequate oxygen

delivery to tissues.

That said, there's a few different ways we can look at this.

One is this idea of the underfilled left ventricle

and this is really referring to LV and diastolic diameter

and a excellent study of VIN etal in 2017 looked at this

and said, Hey look, if you look at fluid responsive

patients, patients who improve their cardiac output by 15%

or more with bolus compared

to not fluid responsive patients,

the fluid responsive patients have a smaller LV

and diastolic volume.

The thing is that any 2D echo indicator we're using

to look at fluid responsiveness is going to depend on them

having normal diastolic function

and normal valvular function.

Also, it's going to be disrupted

by any atrial arrhythmias such as AFib.

If we're looking at the RV measurements to decide whether

or not somebody's fluid responsive, we have to assume

that they have normal RV function and normal RV afterload.

That said, when you take all these together

and you compare them to clinical indicators alone,

as was done in this study by Jack asking cardiologists,

do you think this patient has an elevated pulmonary

capillary wedge pressure versus echocardiographic

indicators, the ones that we just described,

they are superior to physical exam alone.

Then we might ask ourselves, which indicator should I use?

And this is where I'm going to go back to that study

by Ian Etal from the blue journal

where they compared a bunch

of different echocardiographic indices to see whether

or not somebody was fluid responsive.

And I love this study, it's incredible

and it's worth reading in detail,

but buried in the supplemental tables is this one which I

think is just gold.

And this is the idea that instead

of having a single threshold value for any indicator,

we want to have a recognition of whether we're trying

to maximize that indicator's ability

to be sensitive or specific.

And you can see here a comparison

between pulse pressure variability,

the change in max velocity through the aortic valve,

the change in size of the superior vena cava

or the change in size of the inferior vena cava.

And you can see that when you optimize this for sensitivity,

you get very different values than our normal thresholds

versus when you optimize it for specificity

and then you have this gray zone between the two.

And that's the area where I should not change my pre-test

to post-test probability.

I do want to close by saying while we spend a lot of time

and money trying to figure out

how we can predict fluid responsiveness in our patients,

I've started to care a little bit less than I used to.

And if we think about the classic study

that was released a couple years ago

where they tried randomizing people

to a more restrictive fluid strategy versus the standard

fluid strategy, they found no difference in mortality

or any of their other outcomes.

Admittedly, this is probably a reflection of the fact

that our standard of care has made it so

that the difference in amount of fluid received

by the restrictive versus standard group was a difference

of only a liter and a half,

which is relatively small compared

to when we look at historical norms.

And this clover's subgroup analysis shows

that the practice is already changing.

And when we really try to push people

to be in a restrictive versus liberal fluid group,

again we see no real difference in outcomes other than the

fact that the restrictive fluid group got more vasopressors.

But we see a difference in fluids of about two liters.

Again, making it so that I feel as long

as you're within a range of appropriate fluid values,

I'm a little less concerned in most patients, those patients

around the edges where I think another leader really will

hurt them or will they really be hurt

by the escalating vasopressors that are on.

Those are the patients where we want to think about, hey,

can I use POCUS in order

to differentiate their fluid responsiveness status?

So pulling this all together, I like to think

of point-of-care ultrasound as an important

part of the workup for shock.

It augments the ability of our physical exam to see

what someone's etiology of shock is

and a little bit of whether or not they're adequately perfu.

We can use advanced techniques such as VTI

to help us track whether or not our interventions are

improving or worsening our cardiac output.

And we can remember that patterns

of point-of-care ultrasound align

with certain clinical etiologies which can really help us

combine this with our history

and physical to create a meaningful illness script.

Thank you so much. Really excited to get

to answer some questions about this

and see how people are using POCUS in the field.

- Alright, thank you so much Dr. Bastin. We do have Dr.

Bastin here on the call to answer questions.

So we will go ahead and start the the q and A section.

Now, Miriam Jamil says,

how do we interpret IVC diameters in intubated patients?

- This is a great question

and something that I really enjoy talking

about when I'm in the hospital.

You, if you ask the American Society of Echocardiography how

to interpret the IVC for an intubated patient,

they'll tell you you can't

and you should just assume that the estimated right

atrial pressure is eight.

And I'm not trying to disagree with that.

It's, it's the standard that's been used for all

of the studies that have been done using echo

to do things like right atrial, sorry,

like right ventricular systolic pressure calculations.

But I think we can get a little bit more sophisticated in

our interpretation when we're talking about critically ill

patients in a medical intensive care unit

or really anywhere.

And that that means, what I mean by

that is we know the direction of error.

So positive intrathoracic pressure,

when somebody's on positive pressure ventilation, whether

that's bipa or

or invasive positive pressure ventilation should cause blood

to pool in the abdomen.

The obvious C should become plump, should be bigger

and should collapse less than we're expecting.

And so if I see a collapsing IVC,

that means something to me.

That means that this person doesn't have enough blood,

even when augmented

by the positive pressure ventilation does not have enough

blood to maintain their IVC as plethoric.

On the other hand, if I see a plethoric IVC in an intubated

patient, I don't know what to do with that.

I, I go back to my,

this should not affect my pre-test probability.

Now if we go back to that IGN atal paper though,

they did look at this in intubated patients

and what they specifically said is

that you should have different thresholds

and that's where that one table that they pop up in

in the supplemental table C, they have,

whether you want to maximize sensitivity

or if you want to maximize specificity.

And again, they're like, if you want to maximize the

specificity of this, then you unfortunately have

to use a change in IDC diameter of 3%.

Which gosh, that's so subject to measurement error that I,

I don't really end up using it all that often.

But they say if you have a,

if you want to maximize sensitivity, you can use that 22%.

And so, and so again, it's a, with the knowledge

of the directionality that the error should be moving based

on positive pressure ventilation,

we can get really useful information

about inciting etiology.

This all goes out the window if the patient is

interacting with the ventilator.

Spontaneous breathing on top

of positive pressure ventilation makes it really tough

to know what the pressure swings are looking

like and how to quantify them.

And then I just go to,

this should not affect my pretest probability

of either etiology or vine responsiveness.

Awesome. That great question.

- Awesome. Yeah, we've got another one here.

As a beginner using pocus,

how do you trust your skills enough to make a judgment

to change management?

- Another great question.

I, I'll tell you,

I very much remember the first time I picked up an

ultrasound and looked at it

and I was like, this is definitely a molar pregnancy.

All I see is snowy day and a polar bear.

I have no idea what's going on.

And I, I think that the hardest part right now is we're in

this transition time where there's certain areas

of concentrated expertise, p places where you have lots

of faculty who know what they're doing

and can help supervise

and areas where there's just not somebody to help you out.

The the thing that I remember is early on in my career,

somebody told me, anybody who's serious about getting good

at this keeps a portfolio of their scans.

And I think that's the best advice I could give

for a beginner is don't make

clinical decisions based on this.

When you start, make your clinical decisions based on the

illness scripts, physical exam history that you trust,

but as you develop your confidence

and you have this portfolio that you can compare

and you can go back and be like, oh, I thought that this,

this ended up being hemorrhagic shock

but my ultrasound showed this.

I need to learn how to put that together better.

This is how you get to the point

where you can trust what you're scanning.

So just a, just another reminder like call out

for building a portfolio for finding somebody to trust

to help you overread it and gradually

building up that confidence.

- So, alright. Let's see.

Do you have any other kind of tips

and tricks that you use when you're,

when you're scanning using pocus?

- Yeah, I mean I think, I think this was really focused on

this idea that shock is an isolated etiology and,

and we all know that that's not what happens

and that people come in with multiple

overlapping types of shock.

So when you have your patient who has known heart failure

and is septic

and you're trying to figure out which is the driver

for this, you know, this is, these are times

where sometimes you can use an ultrasound

to spare your patient the right heart cath.

That would probably give you the answer.

And what I mean by that is you get

to see what's driving first.

And the VTI is a great example of this.

When I have a patient who's got a

known heart failure produced ejection fraction

and they come in with what looks like sepsis

and I'm trying to figure out whether their hypotension is

primarily driven by pump failure or if it's driven by sepsis

and distributive after load reduction.

I like to be able to see two things.

Number one, have I seen their ejection fraction improve

from where it was before?

'cause if I think about it, you know,

gram negative broad sepsis I like to say is a great

after load reducing drug.

It makes it so easy

and you'll see people's ejection fraction augment in the

setting of their sepsis.

And you can say, all right, this plus maybe a central venous

saturation of a central line.

This points me towards the distributive state is what's

driving this person's hypotension.

And then the real power of ultrasound is that I get

to repeat my scans iteratively

and I get to say, all right, now 24 hours

of antibiotics later, let's see where we're at.

And I can say, oh my gosh,

now their ejection fraction has decreased

from yesterday to today.

I think we might be moving into

that post volume overload cardiogenic state that happens

after somebody sepsis starts to resolve 24 hours.

Being a little bit fast for that, but the,

the whole point I'm trying to make is don't scan once

and then lock your differential in there, scan,

do an intervention and see how it changes over time.

That gives you the, both the, the opportunity

to see whether the lab values are tracking in a direction

consistent with the ultrasound.

And if not, gosh, that narrows my differential

and to see whether or not my interventions are moving things

in a direction that appears to be more towards homeostasis

or away from them that those,

that's one quick thought Chris.

- Awesome. And we have another question coming in.

In a patient with a low ef, do you have a lower threshold

to start pressors over fluids

and unspecified shock even if you have some space fio two

wise on the vent?

- Yeah, this is a, this is a question

that I feel like is a callback to, to the fact

that when we look at patients

and how much volume they receive, anybody

who carries a chart history

of heart failure gets less fluids

and, and that makes sense, right?

We know that they're more vulnerable to volume overload

and likely to have volume overload occur with a steeper,

you know, extravascular lung water, water will appear at,

with a steeper curve on that kind of frank starling

and inverse frank Starling curve

that we talked about earlier in the talk.

So yeah, I, I want to be more careful.

That said, when we look back at these patients

as a large cohort, they tend

to probably get under resuscitated

and this is where ultrasound wins.

Again, I get to look at them

and say, my main fear from giving these people fluid is it's

going to spill into their lungs,

but if they have no B lines, then I can say I'm not afraid

of that right now and give them small boluses

and then check again.

And if I get to see in real time those B lines appearing

before they become hypoxemic,

I can get them adequate resuscitation, whatever that means

with the gray scale about it, without having

to worry about the damage that gets caused

by significant volume overload.

I get to watch really closely.

Just because a patient has a low ejection fraction does not

mean that they don't also have the potential

to benefit from fluids.

It just means that you want to be checking more frequently.

And again, I think of ultrasound as being

a little more rapid,

a little more accurate than my pulse oximeter in knowing

when I've started to have water spilling into the lungs.

And gosh, the first time you do a lung ultrasound,

it seems like it takes forever.

But as you get used to this hand positioning

and just where the pro goes, the dance that you do,

it's literally a 62nd test

and you do that while you're also checking cap refill,

you're in the room, you're bonding

with the patient and their family.

It's bringing us back to the bedside.

It's making us feel the connection with clinical care

that got us into this industry to begin with.

- Great. No current questions at the moment.

We can wait around for a little bit more.

Like I said, you can put those questions down in the q

and a box at the bottom or the side of your screen.

Cameron, any other things that you want

to talk about when it comes to undifferentiated shock?

- Yeah, well I'll offer the, the kind of cool thing

that I'm thinking about right now

and I'm curious if anybody wants to take this

and make a a project out of it.

I deal with a lot of patients where their IVC is collapsed

because of that false positive I talked about of

intraabdominal hypertension because of tens cytes.

And I'm trying to figure out in these patients whether their

IVC is collapsing

because they're relatively hyperbolic,

whether they're in a distributive state

or if it's collapsing because of the fluid on the outside.

And then the thing

that I think is interesting is I am fascinated

by these disparities when,

when the POCUS findings don't match up to this simple story

that we, that we learn about.

This is what all volume overload looks like.

This is what distributed shock looks like.

This is what cardiogenic shock looks like.

And when you have somebody who has elevated neck veins,

but a totally flat IVC in the presence of ascites

or in the presence of intraabdominal bleed, this is

where I start thinking, oh man,

is this intraabdominal hypertension?

How else do I get signs

of volume overload in the SVC while signs

of volume under load and the IVC?

So I like this, this thought process of saying, Hey,

let me start to do these combinations.

This is all separate from the people

who have gotten much more specific in their ultrasound

interrogations and they're able

to put spectral doppler on organs like the kidneys

and the liver and start to say, Hey, am I seeing a pattern

of resistance in the renal arteries consistent

with Anasarca Arena sarka?

Am I seeing a pattern in the hepatic veins consistent

with regurgitation in the absence of a valvular pathology?

All these start pointing you towards more subtle

and technical indicators of volume overload.

You can put these together into a scoring system that's

described by some people as veys.

I don't use veys in most of my shock patients

because mostly I'm trying to figure out etiology of shock,

fluid tolerance, fluid responsiveness,

and then is my intervention making things better or worse?

- Alright, that is fantastic information.

It looks like we don't have any more questions coming in.

So Dr.

Bain, thank you so much for being here

and thank you so much for the incredible information

that you shared with us today.

We really appreciate it.

- So happy to be here, Chris. Thanks so much for having me.

- Awesome. Well once again,

we'll be doing a second webinar with Dr.

Bain on Tuesday,

July 1st at noon entitled Lung Pocus and Critical Care.

And we would really love it if you joined us for that.

You can see the webinar QR code here.

If you go ahead and scan that, that'll take you

to sono site.com/behind the scan webinar.

Thank you all so much for joining us today,

we really appreciate it and we'll see you at the next one.

Thanks again, Cameron.

- Bye.

When treating critically ill patients, shock is frequently identified, yet the underlying etiology is elusive. Recognizing and interpreting POCUS findings is crucial for rapid diagnosis and proper treatment of these time-sensitive cases. Join Cameron Baston MD to learn how to use POCUS to differentiate the etiology of shock.

What You'll Learn

  • Identify the components of shock with POCUS: cardiac, venous filling, pulmonary, and others.
  • Recognize and interpret the pattern of POCUS findings in case study examples to narrow the shock differential.
  • Apply the appropriate treatment in clinical shock scenarios.
  • Appreciate growing applications and advanced POCUS techniques in shock cases.
Image
Cameron Baston
Presenter: Cameron Baston, MD, MSCE
Position: APD Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, DOM Director of Point of Care Ultrasound, Faculty Associate Director for PennHealthTech, Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine, University of Pennsylvania

Cameron Baston, MD, MSCE, is a clinician advisor for Penn Health-Tech and an Assistant Professor of clinical medicine in the Department of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine. He serves as associate program director for the Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine fellowship, and as director of clinician-performed ultrasound for the Department of Medicine. He has an interest in helping create low-cost medical devices in the resource-limited Critical Care setting and works with several organizations on POCUS and Critical Care education. A mechanical engineer, epidemiologist, Critical Care physician, and medical educator, he spends about 2/3 of his time caring for critically ill patients, and the remainder working on education innovation and health technology.

Show more Show less

This educational webinar is intended for healthcare professionals and not for patients or consumers. The material is provided for general educational purposes, as a reference and a supplement to professional experience, education and training, and should not be considered the exclusive source for this type of information. This educational webinar is not intended to recommend any device for a particular indication or to provide indications for use for any device. At all times, it is the professional responsibility of the practitioner to exercise independent clinical judgment in each particular situation. Fujifilm assumes no responsibility or liability for any misuse of the information imparted in this webinar. This educational webinar does not supplement, replace, or supersede device labeling, including instructions for use, which accompanies any FUJIFILM Sonosite product.