Sinha, Sharmili

ABSTRACT Objective To describe the practice patterns of point‐of‐care ultrasound (POCUS) and compare its usage across subgroups (adult vs. paediatric practitioners, physicians vs. nurse practitioners [NPs], high income [HI] vs. low and middle ‐income [LMI] countries). Methods Survey distributed via the Society of Critical Care Medicine in May–June 2024. Respondents reported the percentage of eligible patients in the past year for whom POCUS was used for vascular access and diagnostic purposes. Responses (0%, < 25%, 25%–50%, 50%–75%, > 75%) were converted into binary categories (> 50% use) and compared across subgroups using logistic regression. Results The survey was completed by 503 respondents from 39 countries (6% response rate): 77.7% from HI countries, 20.9% paediatric practitioners and 18.3% Nurse Practitioner (NPs)/Physician assistants (PAs). POCUS was commonly used for vascular access, and similar usage was found among NP/PAs, physicians, and adult and paediatric practitioners. Practitioners from LMI countries were less likely to use POCUS for vascular access. Basic diagnostic applications, such as assessing pleural effusion (72.5%) and left ventricular function (69.2%), were more commonly used than advanced applications like pulmonary artery pressure measurement (22%). Physicians were more likely than NPs (for some indications), and adult practitioners were more likely than paediatric practitioners (for most indications) to use POCUS for diagnostic purposes. Practitioners in LMI countries reported higher use of diagnostic applications than practitioners in HI countries. Conclusions POCUS is widely adopted in critical care but is less accepted for diagnostic use among paediatric practitioners and NP/PAs. Diagnostic utilisation is higher in LMI countries, while procedural use is lower. Impact Statement Point‐of‐care ultrasound (POCUS) is increasingly used in intensive care units to guide diagnosis and procedures. Despite its importance, little is known about how consistently it is used by different types of clinicians around the world. This international survey of critical care practitioners from 39 countries shows that POCUS is widely used, particularly for procedures, but diagnostic use remains uneven. Paediatric clinicians and advanced practice providers report lower diagnostic use, while clinicians in low‐ and middle‐income countries report higher diagnostic adoption. These findings highlight opportunities to improve access to training and support broader, more equitable use of POCUS in critical care.

Rationale: Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) show potential benefits on mortality and other complications of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in adult patients. Evidence-based decisions and processes ensure appropriate use of neuromuscular blockade in adult patients with ARDS. Objectives: The objective of these guidelines was to develop evidence-based recommendations for the administration of NMBAs in critically ill adult patients with ARDS. Design: The American College of Critical Care Medicine Board convened a 21-member multidisciplinary panel of experts in critical care medicine, nursing, respiratory therapy, pharmacology, surgery, neurology, and anesthesiology. The panel included two expert methodologists specialized in developing evidence-based recommendations in alignment with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Conflict-of-interest policies were strictly followed during all phases of guidelines development including task force selection and voting. Methods: The panel members identified and formulated five Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome questions. We conducted a systematic review for each question to identify the best available evidence, statistically analyzed the evidence, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology. We used the GRADE evidence-to-decision framework to formulate the recommendations. Results: The panel generated two conditional recommendations. One recommendation is to use NMBAs in adults with ARDS with Pa o 2 /F io 2 less than 150. For the other recommendations, there was equipoise in the recommendation for and against using titratable vs. fixed-dose NMBA dosing, a monitoring-based strategy for assessing depth of sedation and analgesia in adults with ARDS before initiating or while receiving neuromuscular blockade, and administration of NMBAs for patients who are proned, due to overall lack of evidence in critically ill patients and due to considerations of patient safety and experience concerns. Conclusions: These guidelines provide additional perspectives on the use of NMBA in patients with ARDS, recognizing that institutional and patient-specific considerations must help to guide the decision-making process.