The Resus Tracks – A Chat w/Lars Chapter 1. #FOAMed, #FOAMcc

So for anyone not familiar with Lars (@LMSaxhaug on Medtwitter), if you are into applied resuscitation physiology, this is someone to follow. He seems to be Norway’s answer to Korbin Haycock (@khaycock2).

He is a POCUS researcher and currently a Cardiology/Internal Medicine Trainee, and I hope someone who will help take POCUS to another level. I’ve been meaning to chat with him for a while after some incredible threads on twitter really pushing the applied bedside physiology envelope.

So here is our first discussion, with a few more planned in the near future as we get down to the nitty gritty. But everything does need an intro.

So here is our discussion:

I think Lars makes some excellent points, particularly the need for global hemodynamic assessment, not having a narrow, almost single parameter threshold approach, as well as his point on adaptative tachycardia – though I am not in full agreement about the atrial fibrillation, but most definitely agree that most of the cases in the ICU are secondary, and deciding how much it is contributing to the hemodynamic compromise isn’t always clear.

Looking forward to further discussions, and I smell a panel discussion with Korbin and Jon-Emile on RVOT doppler!

 

cheers

 

Philippe

 

 

 

 

RV Doppler: Resistance vs. Back Pressure. Jon-Emile Kenny & Korbin Haycock! #FOAMed #FOAMer #FOAMcc #POCUS

So I’m still trying to digest the RVOT Doppler physiology and working my hand at generating the best views and Doppler angles I can (See previous post on RVOT Doppler here). Not sure yet how this will fit in to my clinical practice but I think it’s worth shining a light into this murky pseudo-science of resuscitation. These guys are helping define its potential use… Naturally, this is bleeding-edge stuff. Use it to try to understand what’s going on with your patient’s physiology, don’t use this on board exams! My comments in bold.

Now for the big guns…

 

Jon-Emile Kenny (@heart_lung), pulmccm.org, heart_lung.org

Hey Guys – great discussion as always!
One thing that I find confusing on this topic, and is helpful – i think – when scrutinizing the literature, is the difference between ‘impedance’ and ‘resistance.’ Elevated vascular ‘resistance’ is often used too broadly; for example, true/pure WHO II pulmonary venous hypertension [say from acute left atrial pressure hypertension, but before chronic, compensatory pulmonary arterial changes] is actually typified by a *decrease* in resistance, but an increase in *impedance.* To make things more confusing, acute left atrial hypertension will often display a high “resistance” mathematically … even though, the true resistance can be low. What am i saying? if you imagine an acute increase in the left atrial pressure, the pulmonary venous beds and pulmonary vascular beds “recruit and dilate” backwards [why we see cephalization on the CXR] typically from the bottom to the top of the lungs up the hydrostatic gradient. Recruitment and dilation actually *increases* the cross-sectional radius/area of the vascular beds — a true decrease in resistance [Poiseuille what?]! But, as these vascular beds are engorged, they reach that infamous, hockey-stick-shaped compliance curve point [go leafs go!], where the vessels become really stiff … that is, the compliance falls such that each ejection the RV throws into this dilated circulation, the pressure rises dramatically [especially the systolic pulmonary pressure] …

This I think is a key concept to understand and keep in mind when analyzing the venous system. The physical characteristics are more akin to a floppy plastic bag or balloon, with little rise in pressure until a certain point, then a sharp one – Jon’s “hockey stick.”  It was Jon who made me realize that, with exposure to chronically elevated right atrial pressures, one could have a very big IVC (say 25-30mm, but in fact a low CVP, whereas in normal IVCs exposed to normal CVPs, that sharp rise in pressure probably occurs somewhere around 20mm. Hence, the + value we use in the PAP calculation using TR Vmax for the RAP may be very inaccurate in chronically elevated PAP… Food for thought.

Thus, the calculated pressure gradient rises and and the calculated resistance falls, but what has actually happened is that compliance has fallen, not “resistance”. More broadly, the term “impedance” is composed of compliance, resistance and something called the characteristic impedance [the Windkessels!]. Typically what abnormal RV Doppler shows you is that *impedance* has risen. At the end, you are often still left with the why? Impedance can rise when “true resistance “falls, but compliance also falls [as above] – yet the calculated RVSP/regurgitant jet will also rise. The linked papers are fantastic, but they both excluded patients with left heart disease, so you can be more confident that the RVOT abnormalities seen are related to true ‘pre-capillary’ problems. I’d be willing to bet [and if there’s data, i’d be interested to read it] that patients with pure WHO II pulmonary venous hypertension have very similar abnormalities on the right side. The key means to distinguish – as Korbin talks about – is really looking at the left heart [E/e’] and clinical context to get a better sense of what’s going on.

What would also be interesting would be to look at acutely “decompensated” true left heart disease in volume overload and correlated with RVOT morphology and great vein Doppler velocimetry. My guess is that as you decongest the pulmonary veins [increase their compliance] that the RVOT envelope “pulsatility” goes away [the RV ejection envelope appears more rounded] as does the venous pulsatility in the great veins and intra-renal veins! It’s all about energy transfer … moving away from excessive potential energy trapped in distensible structures [i.e. congestion] to kinetic energy [normal, forward blood flow]

Jon.

 

Korbin (@khaycock2)

Thanks for the reply Jon-Emile, as usual you bring an incredible amount of intelligent well thought out points.

As you mentioned, afterload is much better described in terms of the 3-element Windkessel model as resistance is only one component of said model (the other factors being vascular compliance and characteristic impedance). Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that the most practical and easiest way to non-invasively determine arterial load is to calculate the Ea (formula: (SBP*0.9)/SV). This would include all of the factors that determine afterloading conditions instead of simply using resistance as it is only one of those factors.

Clinically speaking, I think it is important to address why afterloading conditions are abnormal when we come across undifferentiated pulmonary HTN in the acute setting. Practically in my mind, this is simply finding if the pHTN is due to post-capillary “back pressure” from elevated left atrial pressures or due to elevated pre-capillary pulmonary vascular resistance (or could be some combination of both of course). Both of these conditions can cause elevated pulmonary artery pressures, as you have pointed out, and there are a few other contributors to the afterload as well that we are ignoring (or else we’d blissfully nerd out all day and forget to take care of the patients).

I agree with this concept. This is what may direct me to use pulmonary vasodilators, whether inhaled or even the choice of milrinone or vasopressin (not a vasodilator per se but a non-pulmonary vasoconstrictor). If all the pulmonary hypertension is post-capillary, there would be little or no benefit. This important decision point is what prompts me to look into this whole right-sided Doppler thing… Let’s see what else Korbin has to add! 

So how can find out the cause(s) of the elevated PAP? Is it resistance or back pressure from the left atrium? This is essentially the topic of the post. Because PVR=(mPAP-LAP)/CO, it has been suggested that the TR gradient can be a surrogate for the mPAP-LAP and RVOT VTI be a surrogate for CO. Thus if the ratio is high, we can assume that a significant component of the pHTN is due to resistance in addition to or to the exclusion of the contribution of LAP. You have rightly questioned and very well explained why you wonder if these are valid assumptions that translate to the finding the clinical causes of pHTN.

You pointed out that the cited papers in the post excluded patients with LV failure, thus bringing into question if the TR/VTI ratio methods and their permutations are actually detecting PVR as the primary etiology of the pHTN or are corrupted by elevations in LAP. Here are 3 papers that included a significant number of patients with pHTN and elevated PCWPs as measured by RHC that show that the TR/VTI methods do seem to work to detect PVR elevations themselves even if the LAP are high:

1) Am J Cardiol. 2013 September 15; 112(6): 873–882. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.05.016.
2) J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2013;26:1170-7.
3) J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41:1021–7.

Somewhere in my files I have a study that shows that the mid systolic notch is fairly specific for high PVR and independent of LAP as well. but apologies, I’d have to look for it.

As I might have mentioned in the audio portion of the post (I can’t remember), there is a second method to flesh out PVR from LAP causes of pHTN. First, you need to find a good estimation of the LAP. ECHO has multiple ways of various accuracies to get a number. The formulas are listed above. I don’t believe any of them are validated in acutely sick patients though. Once you have a LAP number, turn your attention to the pulmonary valve regurgitant jet which will almost always be there if there’s pHTN. The wave form is sort of down-sloping trapezoidal lasting through diastole. The velocity at end-diastole can be squared, multiplied by 4, then added to the RAP to give you the end-diastolic PAP. This is normally < 6 mmHg higher than the LAP pressure measurement, if it is a bit more higher, there likely is increased PVR. This is the same principle used in a RHC, where the inflation of the balloon stops flow and therefore eliminates resistance so that the PCWP can be measured and differentiated from the dPAP. The problem with this method is that it doesn’t work as well as the TR/VTI methods

I really enjoyed your thoughts about how Doppler waveform patterns may be affected once compliance limits have been reached, and I’m sure there is something to this that is real as well no doubt! I thought it might be helpful to provide you with the additional studies that included the patients with high LAP, and do a bit of re-explaining/restating your points to anyone new to this stuff.

Thanks again Jon!

Jon replies:

Hey Korbin – thanks for the references – I’ll dig into them. My main concern is that the mPAP-LAP will disproportionately rise (mostly because the sPAP disproportionately rises) when the left atrial pressure is high … that is when it’s actually not a “resistance” problem but rather a back pressure problem, the mathematical resistance is high. As you mention, this is why there’s a push to move away from “PVR” with RHC and more towards the dPAP-PCWP gradient which should be less than 6 mmHg. I made a cartoon describing this in an old post (https://pulmccm.org/critical-care-review/icu-physiology-1000-words-folly-pulmonary-vascular-resistance/). Thanks for these references, I’ll read them and see if they make sense from the framework I’ve adopted – which is entirely stolen from this great article

Naeije, R., et al., The transpulmonary pressure gradient for the diagnosis of pulmonary vascular disease. Eur Respir J, 2013. 41(1): p. 217-23.

Maybe Phil should do a point-counterpoint podcast where Rory comes in at the end and shakes his head because nothing really matters in the end.

“Nihilism rules…”

Jon

Korbin:

Thanks Jon, I would like to see what you think. Thanks back at you for the reference you mentioned in your reply. And you’re hilarious!

Jon replies:

I had a read of the references that you provided, thank you. I think my concerns still apply, however. My main concern is what is being used as the gold standard for ‘pulmonary vascular resistance.’ An elevated calculated pulmonary vascular resistance (e.g. in WU) doesn’t actually tell you where the pathology is. the assumption is that an elevated calculated pulmonary vascular resistance is caused by a high pre-capillary resistance in the pulmonary circulation, but this isn’t necessarily true. as i showed in that post that i linked to (https://pulmccm.org/critical-care-review/icu-physiology-1000-words-folly-pulmonary-vascular-resistance/) … if one were to acutely cross-clamp the descending aorta, below the diaphragm, the calculated pulmonary vascular resistance would rise, even though the pathology is totally outside of the thorax!! i have no doubt that the TRV / RVOT-VTI would also rise in that very same patient with the cross-clamped descending aorta such that the good correlation between the calculated ‘pulmonary vascular resistance’ and the TRV / RVOT-VTI is maintained – but the pathology is in the abdomen – not the pulmonary vascular tree! So many exclamation marks; but i’m not yelling. In a hypothetical patient with a cross-clamped descending aorta, one might be tricked into giving a pulmonary vasodilator — but that would be the absolute wrong thing to do, even though the calculated pulmonary vascular resistance is high. The treatment is to afterload reduce the struggling LV (remove the cross clamp) — which would then lower the calculated “pulmonary” vascular resistance and the TRV / RVOT-VTI.

the problem in reasoning lies in what happens with the left atrial pressure rises (as would happen if one acutely cross-clamped the descending aorta). it is assumed that as the LAP rises that the mPAP – LAP gradient stays the same or rises in proportion. but what happens when the LAP rises is that the mPAP rises disproportionately because of pulmonary vascular engorgement/stiffening (in fact, the pulmonary vascular resistance has fallen because of recruitment and dilation of the pulmonary tree). what *does* rise in proportion is the dPAP – LAP gradient [should stay below 7 mmHg]. i strongly suspect that the ability of the TTE to detect/calculate the dPAP – LAP gradient is not yet refined enough because there is a lot of supposition and inference when making dPAP and LAP measurements with pulsed wave Doppler.

alas, with either an elevated TRV / RVOT-VTI (or calculated pulmonary vascular resistance from a RHC), one still doesn’t know if it’s purely a left-sided problem (e.g. purely elevated LV afterload) – which could seriously alter management. to know that, i think that a full interrogation of the left heart and pulmonary veins must be done before knowing exactly what an elevated TRV / RVOT-VTI specifically identifies. in addition to that vascular resistance post above, i dug into some more of this in a discussion on the SIOVAC trial a while back (https://pulmccm.org/randomized-controlled-trials/choose-wisely-avoid-sildenafil-pulmonary-hypertension-corrected-left-heart-valvular-disease-siovac-trial/) – which, in my opinion, should never have passed ethics.

Jon

So this is really fascinating stuff. I must admit both Korbin and Jon make excellent points, and for now am not sure if and how to use RV Doppler in clinical decision-making, but until then will be sure to polish up these skills so that they are ready for prime time, and use them in observation of physiology in my shock patients. We’ll see what conclusions I draw.

cheers

 

Philippe

H&R2019 Lecture Series: Rory Spiegel on Acid Base! #FOAMed, #FOAMer

So here is a really solid lecture by Rory (@EMnerd) on his approach to acid base disorders. Definitely worth a listen, and probably the way I will go about teaching it from now on!

 

His slides can be found here.

For those who want more H&R2019, click here. Category 1 CME likely to come in the next weeks!

Is POCUS the new PAC??? A Chat with Jon-Emile Kenny (@heart_lung) #FOAMed, #FOAMcc

So here is what Jon tweeted a couple weeks ago:

Yikes! Does that spell doom for POCUS???

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.

Love to hear comments!

For more of Jon’s physiology awesomeness, visit http://www.heart-lung.org.

Cheers

 

Philippe

 

 

PS for cutting-edge and bleeding edge discussions, including Jon-Emile and a lot more, don’t miss H&R2019 this may in Montreal…

POCUS, Mythology and Hemodynamic Awesomeness with Jon and Korbin! #FOAMed, #FOAMer, #FOAMus

In Greek mythologyPrometheus (/prəˈmθəs/GreekΠρομηθεύςpronounced [promɛːtʰeús], meaning “forethought”)[1] is a Titanculture hero, and trickster figure who is credited with the creation of man from clay, and who defies the gods by stealing fire and giving it to humanity, an act that enabled progress and civilization. Prometheus is known for his intelligence and as a champion of mankind.[2]

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.

Korbin adds:

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.

‘Nuff said.
Philippe
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.

The Subtleties of the SHOC-ED Trial: Don’t Just Read The Abstract! #FOAMed

So this was my comment to my friend Jon’s awesome discussion on the SHOC-ED Trial, which is certainly interesting.

Jon, great post as always! I do agree with most of it, but would have to caution readers about reading it with the filtered glasses that make people too often take home the message that they want to – usually the path of least resistance (or change). I think your main point and most critical one is that there is no protocol or recipe that should ever be applied to resuscitation, especially single-variable-based resuscitation (eg old school orders like CVP>12 lasix and <12 bolus), and substituting the IVC for CVP won’t help. And from a standpoint of volume-responsiveness, I totally agree, with the understanding that as the IVC gets more plethoric, the percentage of responsive patients will decrease, inevitably, but one cannot predict with certainty whether that one patient will or will not. However, the parallel change is that, as the IVC gets more plethoric, the volume tolerance is likely decreasing as well, so that your benefit to risk ratio is dropping. And of course you can’t recipe that just based on IVC, but should be looking at the site of pathology (eg lung, brain abcess, pancreatitis with ACS, etc…), physical exam, to determine your patient’s volume tolerance. Because we all know that most of that miraculous fluid will end up clogging the interstitium, with consequences ranging from cosmetic to fatal (though usually blamed on the patient being “so sick” in the first place, absolving the clinician from any wrongdoing). So comments like the one previous to mine, stating “give volume and see if the response occurs” are, in my mind, a poor approach. We know from studies that you cannot simply remove the fluid you gave and go back to the start with lasix (glycocalyx damage, etc), and we also know that much of the effect of said fluid administration dissipates in minutes to hours (I’m sure Jon can quote these studies off the top of his head!).

As we have discussed in the past, I think POCUS is much underused as a fluid stop point – most of its use is on the ‘let’s find a cool reason to give.’  I would argue that you should hardly ever give fluid to a full IVC (especially if markers of pathological congestion are present – portal vein pulsatility and all), unless you are dealing with temporarily improving tamponade or tension pneumo, because even if you are volume responsive, you are likely not volume tolerant. This also goes to the point that a single, initial POCUS exam will potentially not have the same impact as a whole POCUS-based management which will use it to reassess congestion status, cardiac function, etc.

Having said all this, the most important part of the SHOC-ED article is, in my mind, their discussion, which is full of all the important reasons why the final conclusion is not `we don’t need to do POCUS in shock,’ which is what I see happening (similarly to the TTM reaction), as they outline the cognitive fallacy of putting on trial a diagnostic tool whilst the therapeutics are not yet clearly established. Those only reading the abstract or conclusion will actually miss the important points of this study which the authors clearly explain.

In particular, the ‘rare’ instances of tamponade or aortic aneurysm or PE in their series would be diluted out by the sepsis, but for those patients, it would matter. As the authors state:

‘one might argue that even a single unanticipated emergency procedure would justify the use of POCUS in critically ill patients.

I would have to wholeheartedly agree.

cheers

 

Philippe

The Resus Tracks 06: Farkas (@Pulmcrit) on Shock Perfusion and Infrared Tech! #FOAMed, #FOAMcc

So I had the chance to catch my friend Josh today, and, as always, he had some unique insights to contribute.

 

I really like the IR idea from the standpoint of objectivity and reproducibility. At first it sounded like a fancy (and fun, of course) way to check skin temperature as I routinely do, but the ability to objectify from doc to doc could be really interesting. Will get on that with my colleagues in my unit. We’ll see what we can come up with in the next months!

 

Love to hear from some others trying to tweak and optimize their resus!

 

cheers

 

Philippe