So if anyone hasn’t read it, here it is:
Click to access Circulatory%20Shock%20-%20NEJM%202013.pdf
I read the article by critical care icons Dr. Jean-Louis Vincent and Dr. De Backer with interest as I am always keen to find out what the cutting edge is… So here is my take on their review.
The inclusion of CVP in the assessment. Ouch. No evidence whatsoever. Evidence for lack of correlation to fluid responsiveness… I wonder if they themselves were cringing a little about including it, particularly form the fact that they just put high vs low rather than commit to a value, which makes me think they realize it’s a bit of a trap. (It reminds me a bit of those night-time orders I still sometimes see which say if u/o < 30 cc/hr give a bolus if CVP under 12 or lasix if over 12. So basically depending on whether that patient’s head is elevated, or if he’s turned on one side or the other, he may go from “needing fluids” to “needing diuretics”…).
First of all, they obviously did an elegant job on description of shock states, and particularly of highlighting the common-ness of mixed etiology shock.
I like that they admitted that the end-point for fluid resuscitation is “difficult to define.” Any answer other than that would really speak to non-physiological thinking, as I’ve referred to in prior posts/podcasts.
Dopamine: good job on trying to take it off the shelf for shock. As far as I’m concerned, only useful when you’ve run out of norepinephrine, although there is the odd time when you have a septic AND bradycardic patient where it could come in handy…
Bringing some focus on the microcirculation: no recommendations, but that’s appropriate since there are none to be made yet, but this is where the money is in the future, as far as I’m concerned. Once we figure out how to manage the microcirculation (we do ok with the macro circulation) we might forge ahead. But good to point the finger in that direction.
I do (not surprisingly) really, really like the fact that they included ultrasound in their assessment protocol, and emphasizing that focused echocardiography should be done as soon as possible. Very nice. Finally.
Hopefully, this pushes mainstream ED and critical care physicians to realize they need basic bedside ultrasound skills…
Overall, I think it is a good review, certainly worth the read for trainees. I would like to see focus on re-examining and questioning our approach, which could spur readers to embark on research with a different angle. For instance, why do we assume that we need to fill patients to the point of no longer being fluid responsive in order to avoid vasopressors? Is there any evidence for that? Not that I know of…
But, for having put an emphasis on point-of-care ultrasound, it gets a big round of applause from me!
Like the stated objective of getting to preload independent part of Starling curve. It is broad enough to encompass the many physiologic states we encounter yet promotes agressive while controlled fluid Tx
Great general review of shock (Etco2 could also have been mentionned at sone point)