ringer’s

July 31, 2019

Exploring the Pulmonary Vasculature with Korbin Haycock: RVOT Doppler. #FOAMed, #FOAMcc, #POCUS

So some recent twitter discussions, particularly involving my friend Korbin (@khaycock2) and Lars (@LMSaxhaug) – whom I am trying to get on the podcast soon – were really fascinating in regards to RV and pulmonary hypertension assessment. So time to dig into this a little.
The basic POCUS RV assessment is RV:LV ratio and TAPSE, along with RV free wall thickness (should be below 5mm) and the D sign in parasternal SAX. This is a solid start to screen for significant RV dysfunction.
The next level should be to measure PAP using TR Vmax, in order to assess the degree of pulmonary hypertension. Thats pretty much where I’ve been at for the last few years and wasn’t sure there was really a lot more that was necessary from an acute care standpoint where your immediate questions are fluids/pressors/inotropes and some inhalational pulmonary dilators. I wasn’t convinced I needed more.
But of course Korbin and Lars are on another level, and started to talk about doing RVOT doppler and looking at TR Vmax to RVOT VTI ratios to estimate pulmonary vascular resistance. Is there any difference there? Is my PAP not enough? Well, turns out there may be some useful information there, so I will let Korbin do the talking, and my apologies for my dumb questions during this discussion!
So I will be toying with RVOT doppler and trying to see if this is something that warrants a place in acute care management. I suspect it may be something that may tip towards earlier inhaled vasodilator therapy, or else make not using them a more confident choice. I do like the waveform analysis. I think we generally overlook a lot of good info by focusing on numbers over morphology!
So far, images using the PS SAX view have been quite good:
Additionally, RVOT notching could be suggestive of an acute PE – makes sense (study link here!)
Here are a couple of excellent references:
So thanks to Korbin and Lars for forcing me to up my doppler game some more!
cheers
Philippe
Formula Fun:
Tricuspid regurgitation pressure gradient for sPAP:
sPAP=4*(TRvelocity^2) + RAP or
sPAP=TRpg +RAP
mPAP=(sPAP)*0.61 + 1.9
Acceleration time equations for sPAP and mPAP:
sPAPlog= -0.004(AT) + 2.1
mPAP=90 – (0.62*AT)
Pulmonary Regurgitation pressure gradient:
mPAP=4*(Peak initial velocity^2) +RAP
dPAP=4*(End velocity^2) + RAP
dPAP-PCWP should be about <6mmHg or else PVR is likely, see PCWP equations below
PVR equation to screen for increased PVR, or if PVR < 3 WU:
PVR=10*(TRvelocity/RVOT VTI) + 0.16. TR velocity is in m/sec, if <2 WU, no increased PVR.  This equation is accurate up to 3 WU
PVR equations for increased PVR > 3 WU.  These equations less accurate if PVR < 3 WU:
PVR=5.19*(TRvelocity^2) – 0.4, or more simplified: 5 * (TRvelocity^2). Note that the 5 * (TRvelocity^2 is almost sPAP equation (4 * TRvelocity^2)=sPAP
PVR=sPAP/RVOT VTI if no RVOT notch present
PVR=(sPAP/RVOT VTI) + 3 if RVOT notch is present
PCWP equations (for detection of group 2 pHTN to elevated sPAP), as you know, this is a whole other area, and gets a quite a bit more complicated, but to summarize:
PCWP likely elevated if E/e’>15, unlikely if E/e'<8
In NSR, PCWP=1.24 * (E/lateral e’) + 1.9
In ST, PCWP=1.5 * (E/lateral e’) + 1.5
In atrial fibrillation averaged over 5 beats, PCWP=0.8 * (E/lateral e’) +6
Using color M-mode and propagation velocity: PCWP=5.27 * (E/Vp) + 4.6
July 21, 2019

A Synopsis on Fluid Resus Parameters. #FOAMed, #FOAMcc, #POCUS

Hi, so my good friend Jeff Scott, ED/ICU doc and serious POCUSologist, asked me to summarize our current approach to fluid management, which is an amalgam of literature, physiology and bedside medicine-based evidence.

A few points to emphasize:

  1. does my patient need fluid/ will he/she benefit from fluid.
  2. is my patient fluid tolerant
  3. is my patient fluid responsive – yes, it’s the last and least important

I figure we may follow this up with a discussion – that’s often the best way to get to the real clinical decision points, and it’s always interesting to hear the questions and ideas that come up, so looking forward to it!

I figured might as well make a mini podcast of it, so here it is:

cheers

 

Philippe

July 19, 2019

“Volume Status” and other meanderings. #FOAMed, #FOAMcc, #FOAMer #POCUS

So the discussions go on about volume status and POCUS, and recently one in particular made me realize that it is important to reframe the way we think about “volume status.” As Segun Olusanya (better known as @iceman_ex) said, “the IVC is not a fuel tank indicator,” and indeed it is not. But even if it was, would that be useful? If somehow, an 18 mm IVC (short axis circular or average of course!) corresponded exactly to a 0.70 ml/kg blood volume, would that be of any use?

No. Of course not.

I get asked this question in consult a lot. So I could be a stickler on principle and answer, whether verbally or in a consult, that the volume status cannot be precisely ascertained using POCUS, and keep walking down the hospital hallway.

But let’s instead reconsider the true clinical question for a moment. What does “volume status” mean when requested by a colleague. The truth is that he or she is likely asking you whether there is a need to give fluid, remove fluid, or stay the course.

Ahhhh. Now POCUS, the IVC and its friends can help. A lot. A lot more that most clinical examinations and chart reviews of weights or ins and outs can. Way more. Why? Because if you are cool, with a normodynamic heart and a small IVC, you are on the low side of volume. Now you may also have a lot of B lines from your pneumonia and the lack of volume tolerance will give your answer to be very careful with fluids. If you are warm and hyperdynamic with a small IVC and totally clear lungs, no elevated ICP and a soft belly, you may just be vasodilated but, if your BP is on the low side, some fluid is a fair go, so long as you follow closely thereafter for fluid stop points. If you have a low urine output, a big IVC, a pulsatile PV and a poor LV, you probably need lasix, no matter how clear your lungs are and even if your creatinine is rising, in fact, especially since it is rising.

The permutations are myriad. But that’s why we have MDs and are supposed to be able to integrate bits and pieces of physiological data to come up with an understanding of our patients. And POCUS gives us an unprecedented bedside view into this physiology.

So if you do have legit POCUS skills, and are able to do a bit more than a long axis M mode of the IVC, then try this instead:

“Sure thing, now tell me a bit about your patient – I imagine you’re debating whether to give some fluids or diurese?”

Forget about volume status in terms of absolutes. Just think of what the clinical question is, and give your colleagues the answers they need.

I think the patients will do a lot better that way.

I’ve already put up a lot of stuff about the IVC here over the years.

cheers

 

Philippe

November 23, 2018

The First Steps Towards Physiological Resuscitation: A Team Effort. #FOAMed, #FOAMcc

(original figure from this old post)

So Rory (@EMnerd) hit us last week with an interesting question that was brought up by David Gordon, a resus fellow working with him, and thought some of us may be willing to belabour his point. A lengthy and really fascinating exchange ensued, which I felt was worth sharing with the #FOAMed community:

 

Rory (Spiegel @EMnerd) find him on emcrit.org

Korbin Haycock (please leave comments to encourage him to get on Twitter)

Segun (Olusanya @iceman_ex) find him on LITFL.com and The Bottom Line

Me (@ThinkingCC) also thinkingcriticalcare.com

David Gordon

My editorial comments!

 

Rory: 

David brought up an interesting question today. Why not do a straight leg raise and use TAPSE to assess the likelihood the pt will be “volume responsive”?

My answer was the following:
“I don’t think the RV increases TAPSE in response to fluid and so the only way TAPSE would be able to assess fluid responsiveness would be if it decreased in response to a a SLR. My contention is this would be a late marker of fluid intolerance and others signs of venous congestion (portal/renal vein doppler) would be seen far earlier. “
In addition I brought up that “volume responsiveness” is a flawed surrogate and we should rather be focusing on volume tolerance.
And that is, in my opinion, the critical concept. 
Anyway David seemed less than satisfied with my answers so I figured I would open the discussion to you physiology nerds…
Korbin: 
That’s an interesting thought, you have brought up.  To clarify, are you asserting that an increase in TAPSE from a volume challenge or SLR could be a indicator of volume responsiveness?  If I missed your meaning, please correct me.
I think Rory is right in his assessment that TAPSE would likely be a more valuable indicator of fluid tolerance (or more importantly , intolerance), rather than fluid responsiveness.  TAPSE, however,  may be (I don’t know) a more sensitive indicator of fluid tolerance than things like IVC collapsibility index, etc.  This might make sense as a decreasing TAPSE (or TAPSV, too for that matter) in response to a fluid challenge might be an earlier indicator that the RV won’t do much with more fluids before it would manifest in things like a non-collapsing, plethoric IVC, decreasing S’/D’ wave ratio on HVD, portal vein pulsitivity, or pulsatile intrarenal venous Doppler.
One problem I’ve had for a long time with fluid responsiveness from the standpoint of the circulation up to the pulmonary valve (IVC collapsibility index being the most common example), is that it doesn’t measure what you really want to know, and that is LV fluid responsiveness.  There is a whole lot going on hemodynamically from when blood leaves the RV to where it finally contributes to LV preload.  I think if you want to know if the patient is fluid responsive, there are quite a few ways to assess this directly, rather than looking at the RV, IVC, etc.
I stopped chasing every bit of volume responsiveness a long time ago, however it does have its place in managing the sick patient, I think.  Usually, my first question is about volume tolerance/intolerance, before I start to think about volume responsiveness.
To investigate the fluid tolerance/intolerance status, I’ll look into a lot of things, usually using a lot of ECHO/US information.  My sonographic considerations are: LV contractility, diastolic function and ventricular compliance, LVEDP, valve pathology, SVR, B-lines (and if B-lines are present, put that into the context of what the LVEDP is because if the pressures are low, but the lungs are wet, pulmonary vascular permeability is high and I’ll think very hard before giving fluids), pulmonary artery pressures, PVR, interventricular septal shifts, RV contractility, IVC, HVD, portal vein, and renal Doppler.
(has anyone ever seen an ED doc do this anywhere??? Wow!!!)
Also, I’m lucky to have some other tools at my place like transpulmonary thermodilution catheters and pulse wave analysis devices to assess things as well.  Sometimes these things make serial assessments more convenient than dragging the US machine over multiple times, and can also give additional information, like EVLW, PVPI, etc.
(I think in the case of Korbin’s hospital, it may be important to bring downstairs care upstairs!)
Secondarily, if I think the patient is volume tolerant and then I have determined that they are volume responsive, and would benefit from volume administration, the next question I ask myself is what’s the best way to do this.
Clinical assessment combined with ECHO comes into play, as if the patient is genuinely volume depleted, volume repletion makes sense.  However, a lot of volume responsiveness is driven by syndromes of high CO and low SVR.  In these cases, I usually give very little volume and opt for a vasopressor to drive venous return instead.  This strategy tends to correct the CO/SVR derangement as well as take care of the volume responsiveness at the same time.  I feel much better if I know that my MAP is being generated by a balanced CO, SVR, and volume status rather than having a “normal” MAP.
I think that is a really, really important cognitive model. The common and traditional approach is to try to maximize CO with fluids and avoid the terrible vasopressors. In a disease where the primary derangement is vasodilatory, it doesn’t seem logical… However finding the right balance is difficult. And with the near-extinction of the PA catheter, we no longer have a low SVR value staring us in the face begging for some pressors.
Sorry to be so long winded, guys.  Hope I didn’t bore you with stuff I’m sure you already know.  These topics are really interesting to me though!  I’d be interested in all of your thoughts on the TAPSE question.
Segun:
I think the RV is more likely to dilate in response to Fluid than change TAPSE, as suggested by a paper or two on RVEDA changes as a predictor of Fluid responsiveness https://ccforum.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/cc3503
(RV dilatation May result in a reduction in TAPSE too?) 
Potentially, yes. SV may not decrease but TAPSE may.
The end result should be a change in stroke volume, so one could argue that rather than TAPSE you could just measure RVOT VTI in response to a passive leg raise. (I don’t really see the difference between M mode and PW doppler, and RVOT VTI is simple enough to measure from a PSAX or RV outflow view)
TAPSE is an Uber-simplified method of looking at RV contractilty rather than volume (overloaded RVs can have excellent TAPSE, for instance). I think it would answer a very different question.
Me:
Interesting question indeed. I can’t agree more with Rory and Korbin. Korbin’s clinical run-through is, as far as I’m concerned, completely on point and, if i weren’t so lazy, and had all the hardware he is fortunate to have, would consider as gold a standard as possible, until  mitochondrial monitoring and trans-capillary flow monitor technology is made.
I think it requires a bit of a paradigm shift away from volume responsiveness, that has been all the rage in the last decade or since the end of the swan age, and instead towards focusing on tolerance. There is significant and building evidence that congestion is end-organ damaging, and evidence that chasing maximal CO is mortality-causing (80’s and 90’s literature supranormal o2 delivery and all that), hence on both fronts focusing on congestion makes more sense.
I think we have to follow the fluid path (venous congestion y/n, rv ok y/n, lungs ok y/n and finally lv ok y/n) and then do a global almost holistic ‘is fluid the best option’ reflection including brain, gut, kidneys, peripheral tissues, etc, with Korbin’s nice little twist on balance of CO, SVR for the BP/perfusion. I don’t think there’s any point of care monitoring tool to unequivocally ascertain the best level of each today.
Rory:
So here is my question, should we be asking “Is this pt likely to benefit from fluids?” rather than “Is this pt likely to augment their CO with fluids?” 
Stop for a moment and think of most of your septic patients (not all, yes, some have cardiomyopathy, some are profoundly hypovolemic), are they actually in a low CO state?  The near-obsession with CO is probably rooted in the common belief that the elevated lactate stems from hypoperfusion, a myth which has been debunked.

Lets say we use Korbin’s gold standard I think we still have to ask what is the benefits of giving this pt fluids? There are many patients I see who would meet all the criteria outlined by Korbin in whom I still don’t administer fluids because whatever increase in cardiac output I get will be transient at best. I am inclined to sit tight allow my antibiotics to take effect and let the pt correct their own vasoplegia. After an initial small aliquot of fluid in the ED I like to see obvious signs of hypovolemia before I give additional boluses. I do like the CLASSIC trials criteria:

(1) Lactate of at least 4 mmol/L
(2) MAP below 50 mmHg in spite of the infusion of norepinephrine
(3) Mottling beyond the edge of the kneecap (mottling score greater than 2)

(4) Oliguria 

All this from the perspective of a decongested venous system and a under-filled heart on US
Korbin:
To Rory’s point, I agree that just because there is a lack of fluid intolerance and the presence of fluid responsiveness, it doesn’t necessarily mean fluids are indicated.
If I have a clinical story that supports a likely lack of hydration plus I’m looking at a high SVR, low CO, and a low SV, I will usually give some fluids.  Mottling, especially if pressors are on board, to me is a clue that some sort of volume might be indicated.
That’s actually quite interesting.  The pathophysiology of mottling isn’t clear (click here for an interesting read), but definitely a space to earmark, when trying to find the optimal balance between vasopressors and CO augmentation.
As far as the lactate goes, as everyone here knows, there’s a whole lot of reasons to have a hyperlactatemia.  It’s drives me a little crazy when I see a lactate come back elevated and the first thing someone wants to do is give fluids, especially if they haven’t considered any of the stuff we’ve been talking about.
I think if you have a patient with a high lactate, the first thing to do is ask yourself why they have a high lactate, rather than trying to correct the number.
Rory:
Agreed, most of the time in a septic pt I view a rising lactate as a sign I don’t have source control rather than a signal to give additional fluids.
Philippe:
So in terms of fine tuning, here is one thing I like to do with tissue saturation – SctO2 (cerebral)  and peripheral:   if it drops with vasopressors I favor augmenting CO (fluids if not too congested, inotropes to consider) if it rises or stays flat with pressors i stay the course. This is definitely not evidence-based, but to me, if tissue saturation decreases while increasing vasopressor dose, it seems logical that the perfusion is dropping, and not a course worth pursuing. I like to think of it as an example of MBE (medicine-based evidence) in the patient in which it is occurring.
David:
It seems to me the feeling is that we shouldn’t be chasing any single indicator of fluid status/tolerance/response/optimization evaluation and the key is to ask the clinical questions and pair that with our sonographic assessment.   RV functional assessment may have a role in that discussion, but TAPSE may not be the best indicator as RVOT VTI may be a better answer to the initial question.
The study that Segun sent out seems to indicate that LVEDA may be a better predictor of SVI.  The septal interdependence plays a larger role than I initially thought and perhaps using M mode to look at changes in septal motion gives you more information about the ability of the heart as a whole to manage the fluids…
That’s an excellent point, because even if the RV can handle the fluid, if the LV cannot, it’s gonna end up in the lungs.
Philippe, what kind of time course do you allow for your lactate to change, other than just response to your initial resuscitation?
Lactate should improve over hours. As Rory says, if a day later it’s still hovering above 4, and you don’t have impaired hepatic clearance, you might be missing something…
Korbin:
That’s something that certainly something to consider, Rory.   I think a lactate that is suddenly rising is most likely driven by a catecholamine surge driven by something going the wrong way.  But not always.
The important thing is to stop and think about what’s going on.
Case in point:  Last week I had a patient that had cardiac arrest due to an asthma exacerbation.  I had put a TEE probe down during he resuscitation, and a little bit afterward based on what I was seeing on the TEE, I felt she needed a pressor.  I used epinephrine because the beta-2 agonism might help with bronchodilation.  Everything hemodynamically look pretty good, except the lactate came up.  The ICU resident saw the lactate and ordered a liter of LR.  I called them and explained that the epinephrine was likely the cause of the lactate and it probably wasn’t anything to worry about.
Rory:
Just the other day I was called to the floor to assess a pt because the treating team was concerned he was septic when his lactate came back at 6.5. I walked in the rm as they were hanging the 30cc/kg fluid bolus. A brief assessment revealed he was in florid CHF. Once I convinced them to stop giving fluids and instead use an aggressively dose of diuretics he did just fine and cleared his lactate without issue.

In my mind lactate in and of itself uninterruptible. In a pt who is otherwise improving and the lactate is not clearing as fast as I would like I tend to just stop checking it. The one I find troublesome is in the post resus pt who doesn’t look great, I don’t have an obvious source, their pressor requirements are slowly rising and the lactate is hovering in the 4-5 range. That’s the pt that tends to do poorly if you don’t identify and establish source control

Korbin:
Agree with that Rory.
If I have those patient with a persistent lactate elevation, and they look like they could be malnourished, I’ll give them some thiamine, too.
Segun:
My two cents- there’s data soon to be released that compared echocardiographic dimensions (RV/LVEDA, IVC etc) to mean systemic pressure- showing no correlation with ANY echocardiographic parameters.
It would seem that going purely by dimensions, you cannot predict volume state on echo… so at the moment we can detect hypERvolaemia with lung, portal vein, and renal vein POCUS (and to a degree IVC), and profound hypOvolaemia by looking at doppler patterns (although the patient is more likely to tell you).
The other side of things, which has been clearly elucidated by everyone in this thread, is the concept of “permissive responsiveness”. Ruthlessly thrashing every heart to its maximum myocardial stretch doesn’t necessarily seem to be the best idea, to my mind.
I agree with everyone’s thoughts. Beyond the initial LLS/Shocked AF stage, you need a very good reason to give a fluid bolus!
And don’t get me started on lactate…
Korbin
I would only comment that the magic of Doppler probably is far more valuable than cardiac dimensions when dealing with hemodynamics.  Dimensions give anatomic values that can be extrapolated to hemodynamics, but PW and CW Doppler interrogation infers pressure differentials, which can directly be applied to things like flow and resistance.  Tissue Doppler has the added informative value of cardiac compliance, so that a comprehensive picture can be painted in light of filling pressures and the relationship to preloading.
When I look at all this together, I really feel that in most cases, a quite accurate picture of what’s going on is within grasp.
To emphasize again, something like B-lines with a compliant, low LVEDP LV, tells me valuable information about pulmonary vascular permeability.  Tread carefully about fluids here.
David:

How does the RV respond to a fluid bolus?

To answer this question first we must understand the role of the right heart in the circulatory system. Often the right ventricle (RV) is compared to the left ventricle, in reality it serves an entirely different function. The left ventricle generates the necessary pressures required to maintain systemic perfusion. The right ventricle’s job is to enable venous return, which is generated by the gradient between the mean systemic filling pressure and the right atrial pressure (RAP). The role of the RV is to maximize that gradient by keeping the RAP as low possible. 

With this in mind let us examine the RV’s response to a fluid bolus. As the RV becomes filled, conformational changes occur within the RV that allow it to increase its stroke volume without increasing the distending pressure.Under normal circumstances, the RV end diastolic distending pressure does not increase in response to fluid loading. Therefore, if the RV is functioning appropriately, RAP does not accurately reflect RV preload. But in pathological states, when the RV is hypertrophied, diseased, or overdistended there is an inverse relationship between RVEDV and RV stroke volume. Any fluid, or increased RV pressure beyond this point results in an increase in RAP, decreasing venous return.1

1. Pinsky MR. The right ventricle: interaction with the pulmonary circulation. Critical care (London, England). 2016;20:266.

So that was the discussion. I certainly thought it was very interesting. Following this, we decided we’d band together and try to hammer out what we think should be the optimal management of shock, trying to tie in physiology, the scant evidence that is out there about resuscitation, and the pitfalls of venous congestion. Finding the sweet spot in the balance between vasopressors, inotropes and fluids is a very real challenge that all resuscitationists face regularly, and it is very unlikely that, given the complexity of such a protocol, looking at tolerance, responsiveness and perfusion, that an RCT would be done anytime soon.

We’ll be sure to share when we come to a consensus, but certainly the broad strokes can be seen here, and I’d love to hear anyone’s take on this!

And of course, we’ll definitely be discussing this further with smarter people at H&R2019 – think Jon-Emile Kenny (@heart_lung), Andre Denault and Sheldon Magder!

Cheers

Philippe

November 11, 2018

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

In Greek mythology, Prometheus (/prəˈmiːθiːəs/; Greek: Προμηθεύς, pronounced [promɛːtʰeús], meaning “forethought”)[1] is a Titan, culture 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.
November 4, 2018

H&R2019! Final Programme. Register Now! Montreal, May 22-24, 2019! #HR2019

This event is past. It was awesome. If you really wish you’d been there, you can catch most of it here!

And don’t miss H&R2020!

Click here to register!

Registration is open and we have said goodbye to the snail mail process. Fortunately, we are a lot more cutting edge in medicine than in non-medical technology.

We are really excited about this programme, and a lot of it comes from the energy and passion coming from the faculty, who are all really passionate about every topic we have come up with.

The hidden gem in this conference is the 4 x 40 minutes of meet the faculty time that is open to all. Personally I’ve always felt that I learn so much from the 5 minute discussions with these really awesome thinkers and innovators, so wanted to make it a priority that every participant should get to come up to someone and say ‘hey, I had this case, what would you have done?’   Don’t miss it!

CME Accreditation for 14 hours of Category 1.

This programme has benefitted from an unrestricted educational grant from the following sponsors (listed alphabetically):

Cook

Fisher-Paykel Healthcare

GE Healthcare

Maquet-Gettinge

Masimo

Medquest

MD Management

Medtronic

Novartis

Teleflex

 

The Accreditation is as follows:

 

Here is the Final Programme:

Final Programme

Wednesday May 22 – PreCongress course

  1. Full day Resuscitative TEE course

FOR DETAILS SEE HERE

 

    2. Full day Keynotable

    3. Half day Hospitalist POCUS (PM)

    4. Half day Critical Care Procedures (AM)

    5. Half day Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu for MDs (AM)

for more details on these pre-conference courses please see here.

 

Main Conference Programme: H&R2019 Full Pamphlet

Social Events:

Thursday May 23rd Meet the Faculty cocktail! 1900 – Location TBA – BOOKMARK THIS PAGE!

 

Register here!

FOR ANY QUESTIONS CONTACT HOSPRESUSCONFERENCE@GMAIL.COM.

 

September 6, 2018

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

August 28, 2018

The Resus Tracks 04: Shock Circulation & Renal Perfusion with Korbin Haycock. #FOAMed, #FOAMer, #FOAMus

 

So I got to have a chat with ER doc extraordinaire Korbin Haycock today, reasserting my belief that tissue perfusion is not proportional to blood pressure.  I am again including the article discussed, and here is the graph in question:

Here is our talk:

And the paper – which is definitely worth a read, as it clearly supports individualizing therapy!

MAP in sepsis review

 

cheers and please jump into the discussion!

 

Philippe

February 22, 2018

Kylie & Korbin chime in to the Venous Congestion Issue. #FOAMed, #FOAMcc, #FOAMus

So I think much of the awesomeness of #FOAMed is sparking discussion and exchange, and the many little steps in clinical management besides the initial prescriptions. So I thought I would highlight and exploit a couple of really interesting reader comments:

So first, Kylie (@kyliebaker888):

Great to listen guys, thanks, and very timely. I had just read Tremblay’s paper after coming across a very pulsatile PV in a relatively well elderly patient with bad TR. Two questions – which PV are more likely pulsatile in the first place….Tremblay mentions RVF/TR and very thin folk. What is your experience?
Second Question – what did the GB wall/GB fossa look like after the initial very positive fluid balance? Does everyone blow out their GB wall with fluids, or only some?

It is always important to isolate the patients’ whose physiology may change the clinical signs (in this case PV pulsatility) and make their interpretation different. I agree that massive TR, especially chronic, would likely account for pulsatility. I am not certain about the physiology for the very thin patient, but I have heard the same thing from Andre.  So my personal take on a patient with severe TR and a pulsatile PV would be to look at the IVC variation, TR notwithstanding, if it is fixed and plethoric I would diurese – the organs don’t care what the cause of the congestion is.  

As for the GB, I have also seen edema, and then try to correlate with cholestatic enzyme changes that would be out of proportion to the hepatocellular enzymes if there is a primary GB process. This is certainly an imperfect science. In a critically ill septic patient, I have a low threshold to drain the GB if in doubt.

Then Korbin gives his two cents, and then some! 

Great case, loved it. Thoughtful management, brilliant!

I couldn’t help thinking as I listened, that it is so important to avoid over-resuscitation with fluids in the first place. We all know that the majority of crystalloids given will end up as interstitial edema, so any benefit from the increase in stroke volume is temporary at best (consider carefully what you gain and at what cost). Wet lungs=increased mortality, days on the vent, and ICU stays. Wet kidneys=AKI 2-3 days after initial resuscitation and potential RRT. Congested liver=gut edema and continuation of inflammatory cytokines/sepsis syndrome. Too much fluids–>BNP levels rise, high BNP levels in the presence of LPS=glycocalyx shedding, and more interstitial edema everywhere.

Cannot agree more.

I think there is some decent evidence that an early fluid liberal approach combined with a late fluid restrictive approach can potentially benefit a patient in septic shock, but its clear that an overall positive fluid balance does harm. Perhaps, even the early fluid liberal strategy (in sepsis specifically) should be tempered by a careful consideration of what is really going on.

My take here is that, by using POCUS, there is no need for a “general approach.” POCUS takes essentially no time. In about 5 seconds you can confirm a small IVC that can (initially) take fluid, a medium one (that you need to watch) or a full one (yes, it happens – that gets no fluid). So to me there is no need to have a pre-determined approach…

Sepsis is an entity characterized by venous return being limited by a decrease in mean systemic pressure (MSP) due to an increase in venous capacitance, rather than a decrease in fluids that generates the stressed volume (MSP=fluid filling/venous capacitance). The body compensates with an adrenergic response that maintains (or attempts to maintain) MAP by an increase in a catecholamine driven augmentation in cardiac output/contractility. This adrenergic response likely has more to do with the increase in lactate production observed in sepsis, rather than actual tissue hypo-perfusion and anaerobic metabolism mechanism. Increases in CVP inhibit venous return and congest the kidneys and GI tract (the left atrial pressures are the equivalent problem for the lungs, combined with the fact that pulmonary vascular permeability is increased in sepsis as well). Given this, I think in distributive shock, we should fix the lack of MSP by an earlier vasopressor therapy approach, both to supplement and decrease the crystalloid load to the patient, which is un-natural and contrary to their deranged septic physiology.

Agree.

Also, could the type of crystalloid given be important? NS gives a considerable sodium load compared to LR, and this likely promotes/sustains fluid retention that is difficult to remove during de-resuscitation. The high chloride levels of NS will promote an increase afferent arteriolar vasoconstriction and thus decrease GFR, making it more difficult to diuresis the patient later on, and contribute to AKI beyond the iatrogenic interstitial kidney edema caused by the crystalloids we gave.

Absolutely. NS is given by medical peeps only by cultural habit. Most do not know the pH (zero SID due to chloride) of  a solution they give by the buckets. RL is the best option I have available.

If you are involved in the early phase of resuscitation of a shocked patient, consider the downstream consequences of your fluid strategy that you give your patient that may give you a temporary comfort because they will look better in the short term.

Dr. Maitland and the FEAST study corroborates exactly this.

This is not to say that an aggressive and upfront resuscitation is not critical–it surely is. I’m saying resuscitate smarter, not wetter. Look for stop points for crystalloids–E/e’ ratios, consider PVPI, RV dilation/TAPSE, hepatic vein doppler, IVC dynamics, portal vein pulsatility, intra-renal venous Doppler patterns and renal resistive index. Fix the hemodynamics from an approach of the root of their problem, rather than pushing fluids for every hypotensive patient (whether you are taking care of them early, or late in the time frame of their illness). Fluids do have their place, but be careful and cognizant of their real down side. Look at your patient, think it through, and make the best actions for them.

Ok, now I don’t even get to have a punchline. Thanks Korbin!

So if this interests you, tune in to The Great Fluid Debate at H&R2018, and I look forward to meeting both Kylie and Korbin who will be in attendance and, I’m sure, putting us all on the spot!

And yes, there will be a POCUS workshop on portal and hepatic vein POCUS.

click here if you want to take part: H&R2018

cheers!

Philippe

 

December 7, 2017

Fluid Stop Points! More POCUS goodness from Korbin Haycock. #FOAMed, #FOAMcc

I am really enjoying this exchange, and I think it is in the true spirit of #FOAMed to foster these discussions, as we have the opportunity to combine and fine tune our understanding of a topic from several really bright people’s view and experience. 

Korbin:

Jon-Emile, excellent points and insight. I should clarify a couple of my comments. To be specific, by “renal vein flow” I am referring to intra-renal venous flow. Apologies for my imprecision! Thanks for pointing that out.

Yes, a lot of these renal and portal Doppler patterns are surrogates of CVP. But I don’t think any of us would use CVP in isolation these days to make any decision what-so-ever on whether fluids were indicated in our patient.

Also, to clarify, I am not using intra-renal venous flow or renal resistive index as measures of non-fluid responsiveness. Rather, I use these measures as a stop point for attempting to solve the patient’s hemodynamic dysfunction with crystalloid regardless of whether or not my straight leg test tells me the patient is still fluid responsive.

And that is a key re-iteration to me. It is important to set these stop points and not only look at whether the cardiac output can be maximized. This has been tried. And failed. Let’s remember that sepsis is not inherently a disease of low flow. It isn’t cardiogenic or hypovolemic shock at the core.

My rationale for the strategy of using intra-renal Doppler, E/e’, and Lung US (now, I can include portal vein pulsatility) as a stop point for IVF administration is that I think the patient is best served to avoid iatrogenic edema of the upstream organs, primarily the lungs and the kidneys. These are the two organs (maybe you could put the endothelium in this category as well–glycocalyx being a whole other can of worms!) most easily damaged by the chase for optimizing every bit of fluid responsiveness. We have good evidence that getting wet lungs and swollen, congested kidneys is a bad thing, and we have these tools to hopefully warn us when we are pushing things too far.

Absolutely. And the whole glycocalyx is something to keep in mind, even if only to me mindful to disrupt it as little as possible.

Of course renal resistive index, intra-renal venous flow, portal vein pulsativity, and whatever else you like will have limitations and confounders. As long as you understand what can cause abnormalities with these tools, you can make an educated guess as to what’s going on. If our creatinine is off and our RRI is high, but intra-renal venous flow and portal vein flow is normal, perhaps the RRI is caused by something other than renal congestion, like ATN. If the portal vein is pulsatile, but the Doppler patterns of the hepatic vein, kidney and the heart look ok, maybe something else is wrong with the liver. But, if all our modalities are in agreement and pointing to congestion, we should perhaps believe that it’s congestion and stop the fluids. 

That is an awesome approach to integrating RRI. I’ve been toying with it for the last couple of days, and much thanks to Korbin, I think that the limitations of RRI can be overcome by using the rest of our clinical and POCUS data.

It isn’t a hard technique, though in some patients getting a good signal can be tricky.

I think that the kidney, being an encapsulated organ, and the fact that much of our crystalloid ends up as interstitial edema, the kidney will develop sub-optimal flow patterns before CVP would cause congestion. The same is true regarding the lung, except that it’s just related to increased pulmonary permeability due to inflammation. Regardless, the idea is to save organs, and the earlier you can detect the problem, the sonner you can stop battering the more delicate organs with fluid.

As I think we have all mentioned, you really have to look at the whole picture, and put it together to tell the story of what is wrong, so we can logically and thoughtfully treat our patients.

I really appreciate this discussion. Thanks!

 

 

Thanks to Andre, Jon and Korbin for making this very educative for all!

Cheers

 

Philippe

 

ps don’t miss the POCUS Workshops on venous assessment at  !!!