Arntfield, Robert

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS)-guided resuscitation on clinical outcomes in adult patients with shock. DATA SOURCE: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and unpublished sources from inception to December 2023. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the use of POCUS to guide resuscitation in patients with shock. DATA EXTRACTION: We collected data regarding study and patient characteristics, POCUS protocol, control group interventions, and outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 18 eligible RCTs. POCUS slightly influences physicians’ plans for IV fluid (IVF) and vasoactive medication prescription (moderate certainty), but results in little to no changes in the administration of IVF (low to high certainty) or inotropes (high certainty). POCUS may result in no change in the number of CT scans performed (low certainty) but probably reduces the number of diagnostic echocardiograms performed (moderate certainty). POCUS-guided resuscitation probably reduces 28-day mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78–0.99), the duration of vasoactive medication (mean difference –0.73 d; 95% CI, –1.16 to –0.30), and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63–1.02) (low to moderate certainty evidence), and lactate clearance (high certainty evidence). POCUS-guided resuscitation may results in little to no difference in ICU or hospital admissions, ICU and hospital length of stay, and the need for mechanical ventilation (MV) (low to moderate certainty evidence). There is an uncertain effect on the risk of acute kidney injury and the duration of MV or RRT (very low certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: POCUS-guided resuscitation in shock may yield important patient and health system benefits. Due to lack of sufficient evidence, we were unable to explore how the thresholds of operator competency, frequency, and timing of POCUS scans impact patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the development and initial results of an examination and certification process assessing competence in critical care echocardiography. DESIGN: A test writing committee of content experts from eight professional societies invested in critical care echocardiography was convened, with the Executive Director representing the National Board of Echocardiography. Using an examination content outline, the writing committee was assigned topics relevant to their areas of expertise. The examination items underwent extensive review, editing, and discussion in several face-to-face meetings supervised by National Board of Medical Examiners editors and psychometricians. A separate certification committee was tasked with establishing criteria required to achieve National Board of Echocardiography certification in critical care echocardiography through detailed review of required supporting material submitted by candidates seeking to fulfill these criteria. SETTING: The writing committee met twice a year in person at the National Board of Medical Examiner office in Philadelphia, PA. SUBJECTS: Physicians enrolled in the examination of Special Competence in Critical Care Electrocardiography (CCEeXAM). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 524 physicians sat for the examination, and 426 (81.3%) achieved a passing score. Of the examinees, 41% were anesthesiology trained, 33.2% had pulmonary/critical care background, and the majority had graduated training within the 10 years (91.6%). Most candidates work full-time at an academic hospital (46.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The CCEeXAM is designed to assess a knowledge base that is shared with echocardiologists in addition to that which is unique to critical care. The National Board of Echocardiography certification establishes that the physician has achieved the ability to independently perform and interpret critical care echocardiography at a standard recognized by critical care professional societies encompassing a wide spectrum of backgrounds. The interest shown and the success achieved on the CCEeXAM by practitioners of critical care echocardiography support the standards set by the National Board of Echocardiography for testamur status and certification in this imaging specialty area.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We recommend that ultrasound guidance should be used for paracentesis to reduce the risk of serious complications, the most common being bleeding. We recommend that ultrasound guidance should be used to avoid attempting paracentesis in patients with an insufficient volume of intraperitoneal free fluid to drain. We recommend that ultrasound guidance should be used with paracentesis to improve the success rates of the overall procedure. We recommend that ultrasound should be used to assess the volume and location of intraperitoneal free fluid to guide clinical decision making of where paracentesis can be safely performed. We recommend that ultrasound should be used to identify a needle insertion site based on size of the fluid collection, thickness of the abdominal wall, and proximity to abdominal organs. We recommend that the needle insertion site should be evaluated using color flow Doppler ultrasound to identify and avoid abdominal wall blood vessels along the anticipated needle trajectory. We recommend that a needle insertion site should be evaluated in multiple planes to ensure clearance from underlying abdominal organs and detect any abdominal wall blood vessels along the anticipated needle trajectory. We recommend that a needle insertion site should be marked with ultrasound immediately before performing the procedure, and the patient should remain in the same position between marking the site and performing the procedure. We recommend that using real‐time ultrasound guidance for paracentesis should be considered when the fluid collection is small or difficult to access. We recommend that dedicated training sessions, including didactics, supervised practice on patients, and simulation‐based practice, should be used to teach novices how to perform ultrasound‐guided paracentesis. We recommend that simulation‐based practice should be used, when available, to facilitate acquisition of the required knowledge and skills to perform ultrasound‐ guided paracentesis. We recommend that competence in performing ultrasound‐guided paracentesis should be demonstrated prior to independently performing the procedure on patients.