So I keep hearing and seeing people bash the IVC. Casually dismissing it with a shrug. “It’s not really good for volume responsiveness, you know…”
All that deserves is an eyeball-rolling emoji. That is, unfortunately, the reaction of docs who are trying to devise a threshold or recipe-based approach to POCUS management (which will be just as bad as any recipe-based medicine) as opposed to physiological understanding of what is going on with the patient.
There’s so much good information packed in scanning the IVC (properly, in both axes – for more, see a bunch of my previous posts), and frankly, volume responsiveness is the least of my concerns, that it is a shame to toss out the proverbial baby with the bathwater.
So I talked about this at Stowe EM – an awesome conference run by my friend Peter Weimersheimer (@VTEMsono), which I highly recommend to anyone for next year, great talks, people and spot:
So managed to pin another really bright guy down today and get his thoughts. Of course we digress some, but I think in all the topics that are truly important to sepsis resuscitation.
So I think all the resuscitationists I have spoken to tend to hover around the same common points:
lactate is a marker of severity of insult/injury/inflammation but NOT something to specifically treat with an automatic fluid “chaser.”
getting a global assessment of the patient’s perfusion – including things such as CRT is important.
a strategy that seeks to exterminate fluid responsiveness is non-sensical and pathological.
The nice thing for our southern neighbours is that this study may give you a solid excuse to shake off that lactate mandate.
And I think that Korbin’s ending remarks are important, and it is something I try to teach residents, that there is little value in rapidly normalizing hemodynamic values – which treats the medical team very well – if there is an aftermath that is not beneficial for the patient. Kathryn Maitland’s FEAST study is the real groundbreaker for that concept. So probably a coordinated and careful ground assault is better than dropping the nuke.
First, much thanks to Scott Weingart whose technical pointers are improving my audio quality! Still a ways to go but on the path!
Second, if you’re not registered for H&R2019, there’s only about 20 spots left. And only a handful for the much-anticipated Resuscitative TEE course. Don’t miss out. If you enjoy these discussions, there will be plenty of that, especially in the protected meet-the-faculty times.
And finally, though he doesn’t yet have a blog, you can now follow Korbin on twitter @khaycock2!
Definitely interesting stuff, and have to commend the authors on a complex resuscitation strategy that had some real-world flexibility built in in terms of later generalizability and applicability for real-world cases. However there are some fundamentals I have concerns about. Let’s see what Rory thinks:
Yeah. I think the bottom line of opening resuscitationists’ eyes to NOT apply monosynaptic reflexes of giving fluids to elevated lactate is good. In that sense, definitely a step forward.
However, the insistence on maximizing CO under the illusion of optimizing perfusion remains problematic and leads to a congested state unless only a small or perhaps moderate amount of fluid is required to achieve non-volume responsiveness. I think it’s important to realize that the most rapid correction of hemodynamics is a surrogate marker and has not been definitively associated with survival across the board (eg the FEAST study and others), and it’s only proven clinical impact may be on health care workers’ level of anxiety.
Tune in soon for some other smart docs’ take on this!
So clearly we had to get to the bottom of this statement…So a google hangout was in order.
Part 1 my intro:
and Part 2 our discussion:
So the bottom line is that we agree that there is a risk that POCUS may partly head the way of the PAC, or at least be challenged in a similar fashion. Hopefully the wiser physicians will see the inherently flawed logic that would push the field in that direction. Alternately, we could all get our minds and efforts together and try to do a triangulation of data to really pinpoint hemodynamics.
So I’ve been quite passionate about adding ECPR to our shop for quite a while now, but bureaucratic hospital processes, particularly in Quebec these days, has us bogged down and makes progress slow and painful, despite good intentions. So we need a boost, not only to be able to offer this technology to our patients, but more importantly, to show that it can be done in a community hospital, that all you need is the desire to give your cardiac arrest patients the best chance at neurologically intact survival they can get.
Here’s a little explanation, particularly for the non-medical readers:
That, and of course a pre-determined corridor to a tertiary care center with a cath lab and a compatible ECMO system to yours.
We have the good fortune to be a couple blocks from the Montreal Heart Institute who are interested in collaborating, and we have the desire, skill and motivation to pull this this off.
It’s important for both MDs and non-MDs to understand that this approach would possibly save 50% of the patients that we normally have no hope to save. At the point when we initiate ECMO, these patients have almost no chance with the current means. That is an incredible impact.
But we do need your help. The government isn’t moving fast, and won’t until this is established practice (well Dr. Rola, where else is this being done locally? – same question/answer as when I asked for a 100,000$ ultrasound system for our ICU in 2004: nowhere around here!).
So I figured that if we can raise enough money, and with the help of our awesome Foundation – under the presidency of Mr. Arcobelli, no effort has been spared to raise funds and the quality of care that we offer at Santa Cabrini! So to help them out and to get the ball rolling, we’re setting up our project on chuffed.org, a crowdfunding site which is tied to the Santa Cabrini Hospital Foundation, and every dollar will be specifically earmarked for this and not used for anything else.
My hope is that by the end of 2019, we have an active ECMO unit able to be deployed for cardiac arrest cases in the east end of Montreal, and that in the years following, other community hospitals follow suit. We are a small community hospital, but with a big heart!
We need 250,000$. The device costs about 150,000$, each circuit about 7,000$ and we need to set up some training for the team. That should get us jumpstarted and cover the first 10 patients.
We’re more than happy to field any questions. As a start, the Critical Care & Ultrasound Institute be donating a minimum of 2,000$ (it’s a bit early to be able to commit to more, as we do have to feed the participants and bring the faculty…) from the H&R2019 conference, , which takes place at Santa Cabrini Hospital from May 21-24, 2019.
I’d like to thank Joe Bellezzo, Zack Shinar and Scott Weingart from the @edecmo project who planted the seed and showed all of us that this could be done.
I would also like to thank Santa Cabrini’s Team 6444 of operators, who are a major driving force behind this effort: Sandy Mormina, Rita Pisanelli and more!
PLEASE HELP AND DONATE AT: http://www.chuffed.org (not active yet, will be linked soon) and please forward this to friends and colleagues. You can also send a cheque labelled “ROLA ECMO Project” in the note part of the cheque (this will ensure that the money cannot be used for anything else) to the following address:
Santa Cabrini Hospital Foundation, 5655 Rue St-Zotique, Montreal, H1T1P7, QC, Canada.
Every dollar gets us a little bit closer!
cheers and thank you!
Dr. Philippe Rola
Chief of Service, Intensive Care Unit, Santa Cabrini Hospital
So I just wanted to illustrate something I keep bringing up, essentially that the entire IVC literature based on the AP diameter measurement is physiologically and mathematically flawed. I think the poll and images above clearly support this: given a short axis view, clinicians clearly have a different opinion (and possibly intervention!) than using only a long axis view.
My take, as I’ve said and will keep saying, is that there is a lot of info in IVC POCUS, and the one I am LEAST concerned with is volume responsiveness, which sadly seems to be everyone’s only focus nowadays when it comes to the IVC.
But here’s some food for thought, some of my clinical applications in 5 seconds of scanning:
initial shock patient: big fixed IVC -> no fluids, hurry and find the downstream problem and correct!
resp failure patient: small IVC -> it’s not a massive PE, keep looking for the cause don’t send for a STAT CT angio!
AKI patient: big IVC look at venous doppler and call for lasix, stop the fluids and albumin that were being mistakenly given!
AKI or shock patient & small IVC: sure , start with some fluids and reassess soon (that means hours not the next day)
etc..etc.. there’s more, and “fluid responsiveness” is only in extremes and fairly low on the list for me!
ps if you like physiology, and a physiologico-clinical approach, don’t miss H&R2019!
So, fresh from reading Jon’s post, I felt I had to add a bit of nuance in my previous post to what I feared some might extract as a take-home message, even if in fact, we are not that differing in opinion at all – which Jon expressed here:
i agree with ultrasound for finding the uncommon causes of shock. these examples seems to permeate twitter and make ultrasound very appealing. because ultrasound is non-invasive, it makes the risk-to-benefit ratio very low for these uncommon but highly-lethal and treatable causes.
but that needs to be compared to the risk-to-benefit ratio of ultrasound for the more common causes of shock – like ‘non-cardiogenic, septic’ etiologies as seen in SHOC-ED. here, “static’ ultrasound [as per the RUSH and ACES protocols] – per SHOC-ED – appears to be neither helpful nor harmful. your read of the discussion is perfect, but i was depressed because it read as if the authors only realized this ex post facto – study of previous monitoring utensils [e.g. PAC] should have pre-warned the authors …
i will take some mild issue with markers of volume responsiveness and tolerance. you are correct on both fronts – but what the data for the IVC reveals – perhaps paradoxically – is that true fluid responders can have a very wide-range of IVC sizes from small to large and unvarying … this was born out in most of the spontaneously breathing IVC papers [airpetian and more recent corl paper] the sensitivity was rather poor.
the same *could* be true for the opposite side of the coin. a large great vein may not mean a volume intolerant patient. i tried to exemplify how that could be so in the illustrative case in my post. an elderly man, with probable pulmonary hypertension and chronic TR who probably “lives” at high right-sided pressures. nevertheless, he likely has recurrent C. diff and is presenting 1. hypovolemic and 2. fluid responsive despite his high right-sided pressures. portal vein pulsatility *could* be quite high in this patient – but he still needed some volume.
the obvious underlying issue here – which I know you are well attuned to – is that a Bayesian approach is imperative. when you PoCUS your patients, you are inherently taking this into consideration – i know that you are a sophisticated sonographer. my hidden thesis of the post is that if ultrasound findings are followed in a clinical vacuum and followed without really understanding the physiology [which can explain clinico-sonographic dissociation – like the patient in my fictitious case]… disappointment awaits.
Then Korbin Haycock chimes in and adds a level of understanding that I completely agree with but had difficulty in expressing, but which I think is key to understanding the current and future evolution of POCUS. Complex, operator-dependant medical leaps such as laparoscopic surgery suffered with similar growing pains. But I’ll let Korbin shed some light:
I think the issue of POCUS in resuscitation is somewhat analogous to Prometheus’s gift of fire to humanity.
Jon has quite aptly pointed out that if POCUS (particularly a single POCUS supplied data point such as IVC diameter), if used in isolation, without clinical context, and without comprehensive information, is not much better than using a single data point such as CVP to make complex clinical decisions. Multiple factors influence the behavior of the IVC, just as they do with the CVP. Being a dynamic entity, the IVC does have some advantages over a static number like the CVP. However, if considered by itself, the IVC POCUS evaluation will only result in the same pitfalls as using the CVP as a guide to fluid management. If POCUS is applied in such a blunt manner, we are doomed to repeat our previous folly of using the CVP as a guide to fluid resuscitation. I hope I am in the ball park of the core of Jon’s point here, if not as very eloquently stated by him.
Phil is advocating a more nuanced and sophisticated approach to POCUS than what the SHOC-ED trial investigators used to guide management in their study. Most shocked patients presenting to the ED (“Emerge!”) come with a phenotype of distributive shock. Indeed, these were the majority of the patients in the SHOC-ED trial. Any experienced clinician will recognize this syndrome virtually every time, with no more than an “eyeball and Gestalt” assessment from across the room and a set of vital signs. Current dogma is that this syndrome ought to be treated with 30 cc/kg of crystalloids and then to add a vasopressor if the patient’s blood pressure is still low. Given this, there couldn’t have been much difference as to how patients were managed in either group in this study. I however, disagree with this aggressive crystalloid administration approach, as I’m sure many readers of Phil’s blog do as well. What I gather Phil is saying here is, as he insightfully stated in the past, “IVC never lies, it’s just not telling you the whole story.” A complete POCUS gives us (OK, well almost) the whole story. The caveat here is you must know a whole lot about POCUS. Thus the Prometheus analogy. A little information is a child playing with fire.
Someone new to POCUS, with only a novice’s understanding of what an IVC POCUS evaluation means, will probably make the correct assessment of a patient’s fluid status about 60-70% of the time. This probably is only slightly better than an experienced clinician’s non-POCUS judgement. Hardly enough to translate into any meaningful clinical outcome in a trial without a ridiculously large sample size to find a pretty small benefit. But POCUS potentially offers so much more information. LV and RV systolic function, LV and RV diastolic function, SV, CO, SVR, PVR, RAP/CVP, sPAP/mPAP/dPAP, LVEDP/LAP/PAOP, valvular pathology, tamponade, fluid responsiveness (for what ever that’s worth!), RV/LV interactions (both in series and in parallel), EVLW, insight into pulmonary vascular permeability, renal resistive index/renal venous congestion, portal hypertension/congestion, gut flow resistance, and on and on. Most of this information can be more or less determined in less time that it takes to put in a central line in order to get the damned CVP (actually, I do like to know what my CVP is, for what it’s worth). The more data points you are able to collect with increased POCUS skills and experience, the more grasp you have as to what is going on with your patient and the right way to treat them. I would argue that given the information attainable with advanced POCUS skills, POCUS is a no-brainer that will enormously improve not only individual patient outcomes, but effect populations at large, if only the general hospital based practitioner can attain a more than introductory understanding of POCUS.
So, I guess the question is, “how much training is enough training?” I don’t know. Inevitably, POCUS knowledge will incur a bit of the Dunning-Kruger effect as pointed out by Jon’s example of an IVC POCUS fail. But reading Jon’s clinical case example, from the get go, I found myself asking questions that would change may management one way or another with additional information that I could get quickly and easily with additional POCUS interrogation of the patient. Jon pointed this out himself by revealing that the patient has pulmonary hypertension as manifested by the tricuspid regurgitation upon auscultation of the heart. With POCUS, I don’t need to guess what a heart murmur is or how bad it is or even if it is relevant to my patient in this case for that matter. POCUS can tell me it’s TR and it tells me what the sPAP/mPAP/dPAP and PVR is if I care to find out. So if this level of information can be gleaned, for me, no one can argue that POCUS has no merit. But, I’ve spent a lot of time striving to be good at this, just as probably a lot of people reading this have done as well. What about newbies?
Consider: At my main hospital, for a variety of sensible reasons I won’t get into, we decided to train a group of nurses in POCUS in order to evaluate septic patients. They achieve basic training in POCUS and are very competent sonographers with regard to IVC, gross LV and RV function, and pulmonary edema. They are a small group of very intelligent, skillful nurses that are excited to learn all they can. We had them evaluate every septic patient that presented to our hospital, do a POCUS exam, and discuss the findings with a physician. We established some very basic resuscitation endpoints largely based on POCUS findings applied to each individual patient and their POCUS exam. Our severe sepsis/septic shock mortality rates dropped from 35-38% to 8-10% with this program. Our hospital plans to publish this data officially soon for public analysis, but it did make a difference in our experience. That said, my nurses do frequently show me cases where I notice some small detail on their POCUS exam that propmts an additional investigation that alters the plan in management. Also, some of my very competent POCUS savvy residents make errors because they don’t have enough knowledge yet. I’m sure I can make these errors too at times as well, although hopefully less and less so with time.
Here’s my point: Heed Jon’s admonition to look at the big picture and not rely on isolated data points. Be inspired by Phil’s passion for the potential of a good POCUS evaluation. If you only get your toes wet with POCUS, you are playing with forbidden fire. But if you care to look into it further, POCUS opens up worlds to you. By all means, learn all you can about POCUS. Recognize that if you are new to POCUS techniques, there are improtant caveats to each finding, and physiology that needs to be considered with a comprehensive view, some of it may be strictly non-POCUS related information as well. Your patient is unique and only a careful comprehensive consideration of what’s going on with your patient will guide the best approach to your management of their illness. I don’t think SHOC-ED or any other trial for that matter can address the nuances of good individualized patient management. That is up to you.Jon replies:
nice analogy – i think Korbin’s response is appropriate and i look forward to speaking alongside him in May. as i chew on the SHOC-ED a little and try to distill my concerns – i think what it boils down to is this: it’s less about playing with fire – i think – and more about how this fire is brought to the community as a whole. my post on pulmccm was more of a warning to the early adopters [like us] who are planning these trials. imagine 40 years ago:
-the flotation PAC is introduced, a small group of clinical physiologists use it thoughtfully, understand the caveats, the problems of data acquisition, interpretation, implementation, the problems with heart-lung interactions, intra-thoracic pressure, etc.
-these early adopters present their results to the community as a whole
-the physiology of the PAC is simplified
-the numbers from the PAC are introduced into algorithms and protocols and **widely** adopted into clinical practice
-the PAC is studied based on the above and found to make no difference in patient outcome.
-in 2010 a venerable intensivist suggests floating a PAC in a complicated patient and the fellow on rounds chuckles and states that their is ‘no evidence of benefit’
does this sound eerily familiar? is our present rhyming with the past? if the planners of POCUS trials are not careful, i promise you that the same will happen but insert any monitoring tool into the place of PAC. i can very easily visualize a fellow on rounds in the year 2030 scoffing at the idea of PoCUS because trials [SHOC-ED, and future trials x, y and z] showed no difference in patient outcome. is it because PoCUS is unhelpful or is it because the way it was introduced and studied was unhelpful? and the three of us will sound like the defenders of the PAC from 30 years ago: “PoCUS isn’t being used correctly, it’s over-simplified, it works in my hands, etc. etc.”
it’s not PoCUS that’s unhelpful, it’s how we’re implementing it – and i was most depressed when the authors of SHOC-ED appeared to stumble upon this only in the discussion of their paper – like you mentioned phil. imprecise protocols will result in equally imprecise data and the result will be nebulous trial outcomes. we should all be worried.
Excellent points Jon. The PAC example is very relevant, as on more than one occasion, I’ve had the argument put to me by some colleagues that essentially how I’m applying POCUS is really no different than the information gleaned from the PAC, and “that’s been shown to not be helpful to outcomes” etc. So, therefore, why do I bother?
Then again, I’ve seen a fair amount of phenylephrine being thrown at hypotensive cardiogenic shock patients after a 2 liter normal saline bolus didn’t do the trick.
You are absolutely spot on when you point out that seeing the big picture, knowing the physiology, and being aware of the pitfalls of isolated data points is important to making the right decisions in patient care.
Furthermore, I agree that when a clinical trial is done that doesn’t consider some of the nuances of all this, and “shows” that POCUS, or any other diagnostic modality for that matter, doesn’t contribute to better patient outcomes, it probably only serves to marginalize a potentially valuable diagnostic tool to an actually astute intelligent clinician.
I’m not meaning by saying this to bash the good intentions of the SHOC-ED trial. To be fair, it’s really hard to design a trial that can take into account all the permutations that are involved in any individual patient presents with, having their own unique clinical situations, hemodynamic profiles, co-morbidities (both known and undiagnosed), etc. POCUS, PAC, transpulmonary thermodilution, ECG, chest x-ray, CT scans, labs, physical exam–these are all merely tools that guide patient care. Albeit some are way more powerful than others. I can image various amounts of uproar if some of these traditional tools were subjected to clinical trials to prove their utility. The argument, if proven “useless” in a study for the oldest and well accepted tools would always be, “put it in the clinical context, and its value speaks for itself.” For me, I’d happily like to make clinical descisions based on information based on an advanced POCUS exam or PAC, rather than interpreting hepatojugular reflux or a supine chest x-ray.
Any diagnostic test requires that the clinician understand the limitations of that test, and understand that the whole clinical scenario must me taken into account. You’ve hit on that, I think, with your argument. This surely has implications when any technology or test is studied.
PS These are just the kind of discussions that can change both the way you approach medicine and manage your patients, and these are the ones you find behind the scenes and in the hallways of H&R2018. Don’t miss H&R2019 if you take care of sick patients. It’s the kind of small, chill conference where the faculty will be happy to take a few minutes and discuss cases and answer all your questions (if they can) about acute care.