Share this article on:

Guidelines for the Appropriate Use of Bedside General and Cardiac Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Critically Ill Patients—Part II: Cardiac Ultrasonography

Levitov, Alexander MD, FCCM, FCCP, RDCS; Frankel, Heidi L. MD, FACS, FCCM, FCCP; Blaivas, Michael MD, FACEP, FAIUM; Kirkpatrick, Andrew W. MD, MHSC, FRCSC, FACS; Su, Erik MD; Evans, David MD, RDMS; Summerfield, Douglas T. MD; Slonim, Anthony MD, DrPH, FCCM; Breitkreutz, Raoul MD; Price, Susanna MD, PhD, MRCP, EDICM, FFICM, FESC; McLaughlin, Matthew DO; Marik, Paul E. MD, FCCM, FCCP; Elbarbary, Mahmoud MD, PhD, MSc, EDIC

doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001847
Special Article
Editor's Choice
SCCM Podcast

Objective: To establish evidence-based guidelines for the use of bedside cardiac ultrasound, echocardiography, in the ICU and equivalent care sites.

Methods: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system was used to rank the “levels” of quality of evidence into high (A), moderate (B), or low (C) and to determine the “strength” of recommendations as either strong (strength class 1) or conditional/weak (strength class 2), thus generating six “grades” of recommendations (1A–1B–1C–2A–2B–2C). Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used for all questions with clinically relevant outcomes. RAND Appropriateness Method, incorporating the modified Delphi technique, was used in formulating recommendations related to terminology or definitions or in those based purely on expert consensus. The process was conducted by teleconference and electronic-based discussion, following clear rules for establishing consensus and agreement/disagreement. Individual panel members provided full disclosure and were judged to be free of any commercial bias.

Results: Forty-five statements were considered. Among these statements, six did not achieve agreement based on RAND appropriateness method rules (majority of at least 70%). Fifteen statements were approved as conditional recommendations (strength class 2). The rest (24 statements) were approved as strong recommendations (strength class 1). Each recommendation was also linked to its level of quality of evidence and the required level of echo expertise of the intensivist. Key recommendations, listed by category, included the use of cardiac ultrasonography to assess preload responsiveness in mechanically ventilated (1B) patients, left ventricular (LV) systolic (1C) and diastolic (2C) function, acute cor pulmonale (ACP) (1C), pulmonary hypertension (1B), symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) (1C), right ventricular (RV) infarct (1C), the efficacy of fluid resuscitation (1C) and inotropic therapy (2C), presence of RV dysfunction (2C) in septic shock, the reason for cardiac arrest to assist in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (1B–2C depending on rhythm), status in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) (1C), the presence of pericardial effusion (1C), cardiac tamponade (1B), valvular dysfunction (1C), endocarditis in native (2C) or mechanical valves (1B), great vessel disease and injury (2C), penetrating chest trauma (1C) and for use of contrast (1B–2C depending on indication). Finally, several recommendations were made regarding the use of bedside cardiac ultrasound in pediatric patients ranging from 1B for preload responsiveness to no recommendation for RV dysfunction.

Conclusions: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding several class 1 recommendations for the use of bedside cardiac ultrasound, echocardiography, in the ICU. Evidence-based recommendations regarding the appropriate use of this technology are a step toward improving patient outcomes in relevant patients and guiding appropriate integration of ultrasound into critical care practice.

1Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA.

2Los Angeles, CA.

3Department of Emergency Medicine, St Francis Hospital, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbus, GA.

4Foothills Medical Centre and the University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.

5Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.

6Emergency Ultrasound, Department of Emergency Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA.

7Aerospace and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.

8Renown Health Reno, Nevada.

9Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital of the Sarrland, Homburg-Saar, Germany.

10Clinics of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Therapy, Hospital of the Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.

11Royal Brompton Hospital, London, United Kingdom.

12Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA.

13King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Saudi Arabia.

14Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s website (http://journals.lww.com/ccmjournal).

Dr. Blaivas disclosed a relationship with healthcare product makers (GE and Analogic consultant), healthcare service providers (Sonosim consultant), and participation in other healthcare professional organizations (AIUM and ACEP member). Dr. Kirkpatrick disclosed a relationship with healthcare products makers, a relationship with healthcare service providers, and having received grant funding (he consulted for the Innovative Trauma Care, Acelity, and LifeCell Corporations. He consulted for the Canadian Space Agency and serves in a Reserve Force Capacity in the Canadian Forces Medical Services. The Acelity Corporation sponsored an RCT on Open Abdomen Management that he was the PI on). He disclosed other healthcare professional organization activities (he is on the Executive and Scientific Advisory Committees of the World International Network Focused on Critical Ultrasound and is the President of the Abdominal Compartment Society). Dr. Slonim disclosed a relationship with healthcare services providers (healthcare consultant on healthcare reform for pharma) and participation in other healthcare professional organizations (AAPL Board of Directors). Dr. Price disclosed other healthcare professional organization activities (European Society of Cardiology [committee member for Press, Education, CPC, MQC professional standards, chair of Acute Cardiac Care Association] and the Resuscitation Council UK [chair of FEEL committee, member of ALS subcommittee]). Dr. McLaughlin disclosed a relationship with a maker of healthcare products (Stockholder Pfizer). Dr. Elbarbary disclosed other healthcare professional organization activities (Winfocus organization [member of Board of Directors and chairman of Guideline committee]). The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.

For information regarding this article, E-mail: levitoab@evms.edu

Although a number of technologies including pulse contour analysis (1), transpulmonary thermodilution (2), and bioreactance (3) have shown promise in evaluation of critically ill patients, bedside cardiac ultrasound (BCU) is an established technique to evaluate cardiac function. BCU evaluation in the ICU is undertaken by a healthcare provider who serves as both the operator performing the study and the interpreter of the images captured in the context of their clinical significance. The purpose of the ultrasound evaluation is to obtain diagnostic information relevant to the immediate care of the critically ill patient in real time. BCU may also be used to reevaluate a patient after a significant change in condition or therapeutic intervention.

Those who perform BCU can have varying levels of expertise and training, which is why the present recommendations are both broad and tiered. The two-tiered levels of expertise (basic and expert) generally parallel American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association conventions but with different prerequisites as appropriate for the scope and skills necessary for the BCU. We have omitted the intermediate level of expertise when compared with American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (echocardiography, 1–3) (4). A basic level can be achieved by noncardiologists after a 12-hour training program (blending didactics, interactive clinical cases, and tutored hands-on sessions) that has been shown to provide students with the BCU skills capable of improving patient care (5–9). This basic skill set will allow the provider to recognize the presence of pericardial effusion, severe right and LV failure, regional wall motion abnormalities (signifying coronary artery disease [CAD]), gross anatomical valvular abnormalities, and assess the size and collapsibility of the inferior vena cava (IVC).

In addition to these basic skills, the expert level physician is expected to competently utilize transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) techniques. Similarly, American College of Chest Physicians/La Société de Réanimation de Langue Française Statement on Competence in Critical Care Ultrasonography divides echocardiography skills into two competency levels: basic and advanced (10). BCU is performed as a goal-directed examination using transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) or TEE 2D imaging to identify specific findings and to answer focused clinical questions. ICU providers may readily achieve competence in basic BCU. Competence in advanced BCU allows the intensivist to perform a comprehensive evaluation of cardiac anatomy and function including hemodynamic assessment using TTE or TEE, 2D, and Doppler echocardiography. Competence in advanced BCU requires a high level of skill in all aspects of image acquisition and interpretation. When compared with basic BCU, advanced-level competence requires far more extensive training and experience. We, however, believe that TEE is beyond the basic skill level of an average North American intensivist and recommend that TEE is performed by only those with advanced-level training. Exceptions to this may be anesthesiology-trained intensivists (particularly cardiac anesthesia-based intensivists) and European intensivists with advanced echocardiography training. TEE requires dedicated training and competency that can be achieved through specific training programs (11). In progression from basic to advanced skill level, practitioners will obtain intermediate levels of expertise that are not easily definable. For that reason, the workgroup decided not to define an intermediate level of expertise.

This document also provides recommendations regarding the use of cardiac sonography in adult and pediatric patients. For the latter, these recommendations refer to usage in neonates, infants, and older children, unless otherwise specified. The committee that authored these guidelines was tasked by the Society of Critical Care Medicine to use evidence-based medicine to create a document to assist providers in determining the optimal use of BCU in ICU patients. The committee representation is multiprofessional and multidisciplinary and most, but not all, members personally perform BCU in a clinical setting.

It is anticipated that BCU will continue to expand and evolve as more practitioners become competent with this technology and utilize it as a tool to care for their patients. Many professional societies including the Society of Critical Care Medicine offer programs for physicians who desire training in BCU. These programs are in a state of flux to accommodate both evolving technology and the changing needs of practicing intensivists. Emergence of new technologies such as minimally invasive TEE and automatic assessment of cardiac output may enable those with lower levels of expertise to utilize more sophisticated parameters. The workgroup was composed entirely of physicians proficient in the use of ultrasound, thus, its view point may not be shared by novice or nonusers of the technology. We believe, however, that the unprecedented expansion of bedside ultrasonography as a bedside tool will increase the number of clinicians utilizing this technology who might benefit from these guidelines. These guidelines are not intended to endorse a specific type of BCU—complete or focused—nor the use of specific ultrasound systems—portable versus full sized. Instead, these guidelines attempt to provide the rationale for intensivists with different levels of expertise and training to perform bedside examination or to seek expert consultation and guidance.

Back to Top | Article Outline

METHODS

Disclosures

There were no members of the committee from industry nor was there industry input into the development of the guidelines or industry presence at any meetings. No member of the guideline committee received honoraria for participation. Full disclosure of all committee members’ potential conflicts of interest at the time of deliberation and publication was provided.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Approach

There were two plenary sessions of the writing committee group leaders to establish the content. Then, the guidelines process followed combined Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and RAND appropriateness methodology (RAM). RAM included the modified Delphi method, multiple teleconferences, and several subsequent meetings (including electronically) of subgroups.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Scientific Questions

Clinical questions related to the use of BCU for cardiac diagnoses were established by the writing group for subsequent discussion, grading of evidence by a methodologist, and then voting on the overall appropriateness of the recommendation.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Systematic Evidence Search

A thorough systematic evidence search was done for each question. This included English and translated literature. Literature related to the use of ultrasound in the ICU setting was the primary focus. If high-quality evidence was present (i.e., randomized controlled trials with large number of patients and no significant downgrading factors), then lower level evidence (i.e., case series) was not included. If no appropriate literature with ICU patients was available, that involving patients in all other appropriate areas such as the emergency department was considered, if patients were considered equivalent. After the comprehensive literature search, the methodologist performed a secondary search, and additional relevant articles were included as appropriate. Literature support for individual questions was reviewed by a minimum of two members of the committee in addition to the methodologist.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Expert Panel Formulation

Members were selected to represent the different constituencies of the Society of Critical Care Medicine—i.e., surgical, medical, pediatric, and anesthesia intensivists. A methodologist and intensivist (M.E.) supported the group.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Development of Consensus and Clinical Recommendations

Multiple electronic and teleconferencing discussions and meetings occurred among subgroup members to generate the draft recommendations (statements) presented. GRADE methodology was used to develop these evidence-based recommendations (12). The process involves two phases: determining the level of quality of evidence (phase I) and developing the recommendation (phase II). Relevant articles with clinical outcomes were classified into three levels of quality (A–B–C) based on the criteria of the GRADE methodology (Tables 1 and 2). RAM was used within the GRADE steps that required panel judgment and decisions/consensus. RAM was also used in formulating the recommendations based purely on experts’ consensus. Recommendation strength was assigned to one of two classes: strong (strength class 1) or weak/conditional (strength class 2) based on the GRADE criteria. The implication of a strong versus conditional recommendation is described in Table 3.

The transformation of evidence into a recommendation depends on the panel evaluation of several factors referred to as “evidence-to-recommendation or evidence-to decision factors” as listed in section C of Table 2 as the “5 transformers.” Among these factors are the quality of evidence level, outcome/problem importance, balance of benefit to burden and benefit to harm, and degree of certainty about feasibility, accessibility, equity, and the expected similarity in values/preferences across an average patient population. The voting on the five transformers and on the total appropriateness of the statement (draft recommendation) was done using nine-points Likert’s scale, where one denotes extremely inappropriate and nine extremely appropriate. The scale has three zones: 1–3 inappropriate zone, 4–6 uncertain zone, and 7–9 appropriate zone. The voting results are then interpreted based on preset rules that defined the panel consensus/agreement and its degree (Fig. 1). RAM helps to generate the strength of recommendations in a well-structured statistically analyzable methodology for panel voting/decisions. The GRADE methodology (with or without RAM) ultimately creates six “grades” of recommendations (1A–1B–1C–2A–2B–2C). The explanation and implication of each of the six grades is well described in a table format freely accessible on the internet (http://www.uptodate.com/home/grading-guide).

A strong recommendation is worded as “we recommend,” whereas a conditional/weak recommendation as “we suggest” (Table 4). The list of the most relevant literature references is provided for each recommendation and is limited to no more than 10 articles. Differences in opinion were resolved using a set of rules previously described in development of the Surviving Sepsis guidelines (13). Recommendations rendered required more than 70% of the committee to be in support. Strong recommendations required at least an 80% majority following the previously validated RAND algorithm as shown in Figure 1 (14).

Guidelines are based on the notion that any bedside ultrasound information is complimentary to the physical examination and intensivist clinical judgment and therefore organized around most common suspected ICU diagnoses. Repeat examinations are predicated on significance of the change in patient condition or to follow the outcome of a therapeutic intervention.

Back to Top | Article Outline

RESULTS

Fourteen domains containing 45 statements (draft recommendations) were considered. Among these statements, six did not achieve agreement based on RAM rules (majority of at least 70%). Fifteen statements were approved as conditional recommendations (strength class 2). The rest (24 statements) were approved as strong recommendations (strength class 1). Each recommendation was also linked to its level of quality of evidence and to the required level of echocardiography expertise of the intensivist. These results are summarized in Table 5. Table 6 shows a detailed statistical analysis of two recommendations as an example of applying the agreement/disagreement rules and degree of consensus based on the median score and the dispersion of voting around the median. Table 7 is an example of the summary of findings (SoF) tables. The remainder of the SoF tables can be found in the digital supplement (Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/CCM/B909). The detailed explanation of the domains and subdomains, the recommendations, their GRADE, required expertise, and rationales are fully listed below.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Preload Responsiveness

In Mechanically Ventilated Patients About to Undergo Fluid Resuscitation (Recommended for All Levels of Training).

* We recommend critical care practitioners consider measuring IVC collapsibility in patients on positive pressure ventilation by BCU to assess fluid responsiveness prior to undergoing large volume fluid resuscitation. Any patient who has more than 15% change in vena caval diameter should be considered preload responsive. Patients with a smaller change in IVC diameter may not respond favorably to fluid resuscitation. Grade 1B

* Rationale: Recent data have suggested that central venous pressure (CVP) does not correlate with fluid responsiveness (27, 28). In addition, overly aggressive crystalloid-based resuscitation may result in untoward outcomes (29). Echocardiographic functional or dynamic assessments of fluid responsiveness can be performed on the venous or arterial side. Venous measures include superior and IVC collapsibility. Various studies have examined the relationship between changes in IVC diameter during respiration and fluid responsiveness. A cutoff value of 15% change in IVC diameter between inspiration and expiration in mechanically ventilated patients was found to accurately separate responders and nonresponders (27, 30–32). However, several limitations of this method should be noted. Among these limitations, the standardization and measurement technique specifically the distance distal to hepatic veins (1–2 cm) and the movement of point of measurement during lung inflation can be overlooked when using M-mode. Using cine-loop and manually measuring a fixed anatomical point may overcome this common mistake. RV function and RV to LV coupling are presumed to be normal. Patients should be ventilated in a flow-limited (volume-control) mode with 8 mL/kg ideal body weight tidal volume and not display ventilator dyssynchrony. Simultaneous assessment of LV end-diastolic diameter and RV function while the patient is in sinus rhythm and echocardiographic and clinical reassessment after the intervention is strongly encouraged (33).

There are less data on functional arterial side measurements using echocardiography to predict fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients although the assessment of stroke volume variation by velocity time integral (VTI) methodology, described below, is not complicated. However, operator error particularly in selecting VTI sample site can significantly alter calculations.

Back to Top | Article Outline

In Spontaneously Breathing Patients About to Undergo Fluid Resuscitation.

Back to Top | Article Outline

In Patients With Intra-Abdominal Hypertension About to Undergo Fluid Resuscitation.

* We make no recommendation regarding the method of assessment of fluid responsiveness either by IVC diameter and collapsibility or other methods to assist with shock resuscitation of the spontaneously breathing patient.

* We make no recommendation regarding the method of assessment of fluid responsiveness in those with abdominal compartment syndrome.

* Rationale: Making no recommendation does not mean that functional assessment of fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients is without merit, rather the group could not come to consensus regarding the appropriate methodology. Furthermore, as large recent clinical trials emphasize, resuscitation targeted to established endpoints, whether echocardiographic, should not be a substitute for sound clinical judgment (34, 35). Taking the time to determine fluid responsiveness by echocardiographic measures in a patient with obvious clinical signs and symptoms of hypovolemia may be detrimental. However, determining volume status and responsiveness is a daunting clinical task in most critically ill and the dangers of overresuscitation, including increased mortality, are real. To be sure, the panel recognized the substantial data underscoring the inability of static measures of volume status to predict fluid responsiveness (36–45).

It is difficult to assess volume status in the spontaneously breathing patient; however, the passive leg raise has been validated in many studies. This technique quickly mobilizes approximately 300 mL of blood from the lower extremities to the thorax increasing preload without changing the patient’s intravascular volume. An increase in stroke volume (as assessed by the VTI multiplied by the aortic cross-sectional area) of more than 12% during passive leg raise was found to be highly predictive of fluid responsiveness (36–45). Finally, passive leg raising was unable to predict fluid responsiveness in patients with intra-abdominal hypertension and IVC collapsibility was also of limited use (46).

Back to Top | Article Outline

In Patients Unable to Obtain Adequate Images With TTE (Recommended for Expert Levels of Training).

* We recommend that TEE presents a reliable, low-risk, and timely solution to help the practitioner evaluate a patient’s preload responsiveness when TTE cannot be performed. Grade 1C

* Rationale: Various authors have examined the usefulness of TEE in predicting fluid responsiveness. Respiratory changes in diameter of the IVC, SVC, and LV stroke area measured by TEE can help predict fluid responsiveness (33, 47, 48). The limitation of TEE is that it requires additional training, presents additional risks, and is more time consuming than TTE. Finally, TEE transducers can add considerable expense to a point-of-care ultrasound budget.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Assessment of the LV Function

Assessment of LV Systolic Function (Recommended for All Levels).

* We recommend that assessment of LV systolic function should be attempted in all patients with either preexistent or ICU-acquired cardiac disease to better understand limitations of fluid resuscitation and choice of inotropic and vasoactive medications. Grade 1C

* Rationale: Up to one-third of all critically ill patients have reduced LV systolic function during their ICU stay (49). In the past, systolic function and particularly assessment of LV ejection fraction (LVEF) was overstated at the expense of diastolic function and fluid responsiveness. However, LVEF assessment is still an important part of the point-of-care cardiac evaluation. Assessment of LV systolic function and its changes over time are helpful in therapeutic decision making for the critically ill patient.

The most important and commonly used method of assessing LV global and focal wall motion is by a qualitative assessment in multiple views. This method is extremely effective, rapid, and consistent with quantitative echocardiographic assessment and nuclear scanning studies. It can be used by a bedside operator with basic training. Alternatively, the American Society of Echocardiography recommends the volumetric-modified Simpson’s method (50). This method calculates end-systolic volume, end-diastolic volume, stroke volume, and EF in two planes (apical four- and two-chamber views) and averages them. This method is well suited for experienced (advanced level) operators and nonemergent situations (50, 51).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Assessment of LV Diastolic Function (Suggested for an Expert Level).

* We suggest that assessment of LV diastolic function may be considered in all patients with either preexistent or ICU-acquired cardiac disease to better understand limitations of fluid resuscitation and choice of inotropic and vasoactive medications. Grade 2C

* Rationale: Some reports indicate that no less than 23% of critically ill have pure LV diastolic dysfunction during their stay in the ICU. In addition to that, more than 40% of all ICU patients may have both systolic and diastolic dysfunction present (49). In critical care practice, the assessment of left heart filling pressures has clinical utility, as an elevated left atrial (LA) pressure is associated with cardiogenic or hydrostatic pulmonary edema. As these measurements require skill with Doppler, the intensivist with skill at advanced critical care ultrasound can identify and grade diastolic function using standard techniques in cardiac echocardiography (52, 53).

Back to Top | Article Outline

RV Dysfunction

ACP (Recommended for All Levels of Training).

* We recommend that BCU be used to evaluate for signs of acute RV failure due to pressure or volume overload. Grade 1C

* Rationale: ACP is defined as the clinical setting in which the RV experiences a sudden increase in afterload. It has been shown that ACP in the ICU setting increases mortality and that BCU can help direct management to reduce related mortality (54, 55). BCU provides a rapid means of diagnosing RV failure, and it provides the critical care physician the ability to evaluate several types of associated conditions that may be accompanied by subtle clinical signs and symptoms (56). Systemic venous congestion that may induce ascites/effusion may be present. During systole, special attention should be paid to septal flattening, paradoxical motion, and dyskinesia, whereas during diastole, the ratio of RV end-diastolic area (EDA) should be compared with LV EDA (57).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Pulmonary Hypertension (Recommended for Expert Level of Training).

* We recommend that BCU should be used to measure pulmonary arterial pressures in all patients with suspected primary or secondary pulmonary hypertension provided that operator has the required training for this. Grade 1B

* Rationale: BCU allows the critical care physician not only to estimate pulmonary artery (PA) pressure but also to evaluate valvular, primary myocardial and congenital causes of elevated right-sided pressures (56–60). It also helps the physician to prognosticate outcome as elevated PA pressures carry a significant short-term and long-term mortality risk (60). However, it should be noted that BCU allows only an estimation of PA pressures, and that there have been studies that question the accuracy of these measurements (61).

* We make no recommendation regarding the measurement of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) to assess RV motion in pulmonary hypertension, RV function, and to provide prognostic information.

* Rationale: RV function is an important determinant of prognosis in pulmonary hypertension. TAPSE may be a useful measure of RV function and may provide prognostic significance in pulmonary hypertension (61–63). However, the group could not reach consensus on whether this should be a component of a basic evaluation of the RV.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Symptomatic PE (Recommended for All Levels of Training).

* We recommend that in unstable patients with suspected PE, bedside cardiac ultrasonography and a venous examination of the proximal bilateral lower extremities, described in part 1 of the guidelines (64), should be considered prior to the consideration of CT. Grade 1C

* Rationale: Although the rates of symptomatic PE in the ICU have been shown to be low, PE carries a significant mortality and a high propensity for delayed treatment (65). Although less sensitive than other modalities, BCU is rapid and specific and reduces both delays in treatment and cost in diagnostic testing (66). In emergent cases involving patients with hemodynamic instability, the European Society of Cardiology recommends that therapy with thrombolysis may be justified on the basis of echocardiographic evidence if further testing would result in a delay of treatment (67). BCU and proximal lower extremity venous examinations were found to be useful in the diagnosis of suspected PE (68–71). Disproportionate sparing of the RV apex (McConnell’s Sign) is considered by some to be highly suggestive of acute PE in the appropriate clinical setting (72). However, other etiologies such as RV infarct have been shown to have a similar echocardiographic pattern (73).

Back to Top | Article Outline

RV Infarct (Recommended for All Levels of Training).

* We recommend that any patient suspected of RV infarction should undergo BCU. Grade 1C

* Rationale: RV infarction as a cause of RV dysfunction is important to be detected early as it carries with it increased hospital mortality (74). BCU evaluation of RV to LV end-diastolic volumes (75), wall motion abnormalities especially in the subcostal short axes view (76), and intra-atrial septum bowing into the LA (77) are important findings for the diagnosis of RV infarction (78, 79). In the absence of an adequate subcostal short-axis view, an apical four-chamber view may be substituted.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Septic Shock

Fluid Resuscitation in Sepsis (Recommended for All Levels of Training).

* We recommend that BCU should be performed in patients with sepsis and septic shock to assess fluid responsiveness. Grade 1C

* Rationale: By the time most septic patients arrive in the ICU, one must decide whether to continue volume resuscitation or that the patient is adequately volume resuscitated. Fluid overload prolongs ICU stay in ARDS and has been shown to contribute to increased morbidity and mortality (80). BCU allows the critical care provider to guide volume resuscitation in both mechanically ventilated and spontaneously breathing patients (see Preload Responsiveness section) In fact, the National Quality Forum and Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services now assess compliance with the sepsis resuscitation 6-hour bundle and have determined that echocardiographic assessment of fluid responsiveness is an acceptable tool.

Back to Top | Article Outline

LV Dysfunction in Sepsis (Suggested for All Levels of Training).

* We suggest that all patients admitted for sepsis may receive BCU to evaluate for signs of LV dysfunction to help guide inotropic therapy. Grade 2C

* Rationale: It is common for septic patients to develop either systolic or diastolic LV dysfunction (49, 81–91). ICU cardiomyopathy can be either nonspecific or present itself as an apical ballooning syndrome, Takutsobo cardiomyopathy. Either will usually resolve spontaneously as the patient’s condition improves. Early recognition of LV dysfunction by BCU can help the critical care provider augment decreased cardiac output and stroke volume with inotropic support. Fluid resuscitation of the septic patient is an important component of the initial management. However, excessive fluid resuscitation in the presence of LV dysfunction is likely to aggravate adverse consequences.

Back to Top | Article Outline

RV Dysfunction in Sepsis (Suggested for All Levels of Training).

* We suggest that BCU may be performed to assess RV dysfunction in patients with sepsis to guide therapy. Grade 2C

* Rationale: There is growing evidence that RV dysfunction can occur in up to 30% of septic patients (92–94). Septic shock may cause RV dysfunction by both direct and indirect depressions of RV function. Early identification of acute RV dysfunction can help the intensivist manage fluids, inotropes, and vasopressor therapy in order to minimize dysfunction.

Back to Top | Article Outline

ACLS (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Advanced Cardiac Life Support)

Electrocardiographic Asystole (Suggested for All Levels of Training).

* We suggest that BCU may be performed during asystole to guide further resuscitative efforts. Grade 2C

* Rationale: The American Heart Association (AHA) Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS), and European Resuscitation Council and International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation guidelines emphasize detection and treatment of potentially reversible causes of pulseless cardiac arrest. These are referred to as the “six H’s and T’s” and include hypovolemia, hypoxia, hydrogen (acidosis), hypo/hyperkalemia, hypoglycemia, hypothermia, toxins, tamponade, tension pneumothorax, thrombosis (coronary or pulmonary), and trauma (95, 96). However, prior to detecting potential secondary etiologies and subsequent continuation of a “Pulseless Arrest” algorithm the correct diagnosis that a pulse is indeed absent needs to be made. However, this seemingly simple physical examination finding is often interpreted incorrectly when applied during the emergent evaluation of an arrested patient (97–99). Bedside echocardiography has been shown to be very useful at detecting whether true cardiac contractility is occurring (100, 101). Patients found to be in true cardiac standstill on BCU have a nearly 100% mortality rate (102, 103). This information may be important in deciding if continued resuscitative efforts are useful after oxygenation and other treatment modalities are optimized (104–106).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Pulseless Electrical Activity (Suggested for All Levels of Training).

* We suggest that BCU may be performed in patients with pulseless electrical activity (PEA) to diagnose PEA and to identify potential causes of PEA and to differentiate a pseudo-PEA state with wall motion. Grade 2C

* Rationale: PEA is a challenging diagnosis. The ability to diagnose it by palpation of the carotid artery has recently been disputed (107–109). The key issue is the description of “pulseless.” BCU enables one to accurately diagnose true PEA arrest (107), evaluate for potential causes such as hypovolemia, pericardial effusion/tamponade, PE, and tension pneumothorax, and potentially make prognostic conclusions based on the presence of cardiac activity (108). There are different techniques that have been described to attain cardiac views during ACLS, which have minimal interruption of chest compressions. This is especially important as new AHA, ACLS, and ERC guidelines emphasize increased duration of and early use of high-quality chest compressions. Any approach to evaluate cardiac activity and function should not come at the cost of decreased chest compressions that are necessary to maintain end-organ perfusion and must not take longer than 10 seconds, with a protocolized approach preferable (106–121).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Ventricular Tachycardia/Fibrillation Arrest (Recommended for All Levels of Training).

* We recommend that BCU should be performed in patients with ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation arrest following return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) to look for segmental wall motion abnormalities as a surrogate for CAD being the primary cause of cardiac arrest. Grade 1B

* Rationale: BCU can immediately reveal regional wall motion abnormalities indicative of myocardial ischemia (122, 123). Patients with cardiac arrest and ROSC have a high propensity for coronary lesions and tend to do better if they are taken for early coronary angiography and revascularization (124, 125). Structural abnormalities like prior infarction with healed scar, cardiomyopathies, RV dysplasia, and valvular anomalies are frequent causes of ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation arrest. The use of BCU can help identify these conditions. In cases where wall motion abnormality is documented, CAD would be suspected as the primary cause of the arrest and early revascularization would be suggested.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Use of TEE During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (Suggested for Expert Levels of Training).

* We suggest that TEE may be helpful when performed during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, especially during intraoperative cardiac arrest (in cardiac surgery patients). Grade 1C

* Rationale: Some of the initial literature investigating the use of ultrasound in the ICU and even during CPR used transesophageal probes although the transthoracic approach was also used (114, 126, 127). For patients in cardiac arrest, TEE has been shown to change management in over 30% of cases (107). According to the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, life-threatening hemodynamic disturbances are classified as a category I indication for the intraoperative use of TEE (128).

Back to Top | Article Outline

ACS

ACS and Acute Myocardial Infarction (Recommended for All Levels of Training).

* We recommend that patients with suspected ACS and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) should undergo BCU. Grade 1C

* Rationale: BCU has been shown to improve diagnostic accuracy for ACS, especially when used in combination with other standard diagnostic tools. BCU is useful to evaluate for segmental wall motion abnormalities, to assess LV function (LVEF), transient mitral valvular dysfunction, and in case of inferior wall myocardial infarction to rule out RV involvement. BCU can also be used for evaluation of mechanical complications of AMI such as acute VSD and papillary muscle rupture (123, 129–132). It can be used to raise suspicion of these conditions to decrease time to formal echocardiography and to decrease clinical uncertainty to the cause of shock to aid in prompt diagnosis and management.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Pericardial Effusion/Cardiac Tamponade

Cardiac Tamponade (Recommended for Expert Levels of Training).

* We recommend that BCU should be performed to diagnose cardiac tamponade and to increase the effectiveness and safety of pericardiocentesis and guide performance of the procedure. Grade 1B

* Rationale: Classic physical examination findings of cardiac tamponade such as jugular venous distention, hypotension, and diminished heart sounds are usually absent (133); furthermore, symptoms of pericardial effusion/early tamponade are absent or mistaken for congestive heart failure (134–136). BCU can successfully identify this phenomenon even if not suspected clinically (15, 108, 137) and can guide and assess effectiveness of pericardiocentesis (16, 17), especially if contrast-enhanced ultrasound is used (18–20). Chest ultrasound should also be performed in such patients to assist with differential diagnosis of pericardial and left pleural effusions.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Pericardial Effusion (Recommended for All Levels of Training).

* We recommend that BCU should be performed to accurately diagnose pericardial effusion and to identify underlying causes. Grade 1C

* Rationale: Patients develop pericardial effusions in the ICU setting due to a variety of conditions. BCU can detect the presence of pericardial effusion and identify signs of tamponade (16, 21–23). The diagnosis may be difficult in the early post–cardiac surgery period. Ultrasound of the chest should also be performed in such patients to assist with differential diagnosis of pericardial and left pleural effusions by orienting the collection relative to the position of the aorta.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Hemodynamic Instability

Undifferentiated Hemodynamic Instability (Recommended for All Levels of Training).

* We recommend that BCU should be performed in patients with hemodynamic instability to identify underlying treatable causes and to help guide fluid resuscitation. Grade 1B

* Rationale: The differential diagnosis for hemodynamic instability is broad. BCU is effective in quickly identifying mechanical etiologies of shock that include valve dysfunction, PE, tamponade, and aortic dissection. The use of goal-directed ultrasound allows clinicians to narrow the differential diagnosis and to decrease the amount of time to diagnose patients with nontraumatic, symptomatic hypotension. Performing BCU in all hemodynamically unstable patients helps to guide real-time decisions regarding fluids status and to evaluate for treatable underlying causes of shock. Extended focused assessment by sonography in trauma examination should also be considered in such patients to exclude thoracoabdominal causes of hemodynamic instability (24, 25).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Valvular Dysfunction

Murmur (Recommended for All Levels of Training).

* We recommend that BCU should be performed in all patients with new murmurs. Grade 1C

* Rationale: The intensivist should screen patients with new murmurs for clinically significant valvular lesions that could potentially change management. Studies differ in the accuracy of BCU to evaluate valvular lesions such as aortic regurgitation/stenosis, and even mitral regurgitation. Kobal et al (26) demonstrated that medical students with no prior clinical experience could accurately detect the etiology of systolic murmur 93% of the time and of diastolic murmur 75% of the time with BCU. They contrasted this to the physical exam findings of a fellowship trained cardiologist who could only diagnose these lesions 62% and 16% of the time, respectively. Further studies support the use of hand-carried ultrasound (HCU) to evaluate suspected valvular lesions (138, 139). However, a few studies have reported inaccuracies of this method (140–142). Martin et al (141) reported that the use of HCU and physical examination by hospitalists was actually inferior to physical examination. BCU can be used to raise suspicion of valvular lesions to decrease time to formal echocardiography and to decrease clinical uncertainty to aid in prompt diagnosis and management. Stable murmurs should be evaluated by those with expert level of training only.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Mechanical Valve Dysfunction (Recommended for Expert Levels of Training).

* We recommend that BCU should be performed in patients with hemodynamic instability with suspected mechanical valve dysfunction to identify other contributing causes of hemodynamic instability. Routine evaluation of mechanical valve dysfunction should best be performed by experts. Grade 1C

* Rationale: The echocardiographic evaluation of mechanical and bioprosthetic valves is difficult and out of the scope of most critical care physicians; therefore, routine evaluation should be left to trained cardiologists. Preferably this should be accomplished by TEE, especially in the setting of suspected endocarditis (143–145). If the patient is hemodynamically unstable, a screening BCU should be performed to evaluate for contributing causes of hemodynamic instability.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Endocarditis (Suggested for All Levels of Training).

* We suggest that patients with suspected endocarditis may be screened with BCU. Grade 2C

* Rationale: Combining clinical assessment with the echocardiographic results is essential for establishing the diagnosis of infective endocarditis. The intensivist with basic-level training may be able to recognize obvious vegetations. In low-risk patients, BCU could lead the physician to pursue alternative diagnoses, and in high-risk patients, it could help to identify large lesions quickly.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis (Recommended for Expert Levels of Training).

* We recommend that the evaluation for prosthetic valve endocarditis should best be performed by a trained cardiologist. A TEE can be performed in the ICU by the critical care physician if the physician has advanced training in echocardiography and is adept at performing TEE. Grade 1B

* Rationale: Both mechanical and bioprosthetic valves are difficult to image via TTE. Multiple studies have shown benefit of early TEE in these cases (143–146).

A major disadvantage of TEE is that it often requires the presence of a cardiologist or a trained specialist.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Diseases of Large Vessels

Great Vessel Disease and Injury (Suggested for All Levels of Training in the Hemodynamically Unstable Patient, With Clinical Suspicion of Aortic Dissection or Disruption).

* We suggest that a screening bedside TTE may be performed to evaluate the proximal aortic arch, the aortic valve, and a portion of the thoracic descending aorta in patients with suspected great vessel disease or injury if other diagnostic modalities are not immediately available. Grade 2C

* Rationale: TEE is very accurate in the identification of aortic rupture and other great vessel injuries (147–149). Ninety percent of aortic ruptures occurs at the aortic isthmus, a region that cannot be visualized with a TTE. However, in the proper clinical scenario, bedside TTE can be performed to evaluate the proximal aortic arch, aortic root, the aortic valve, and a portion of the thoracic descending aorta, especially if used in strategies that augment other imaging such as CT (150–155). Even an advanced operator cannot reliably exclude aortic injury, so other diagnostic modalities should also be used. However, if great vessel injury is suspected on BCU, this can heighten awareness and facilitate further timely diagnostic testing and clinical management. Patients with suspected dissection of the thoracic aorta should also be evaluated for the presence of pericardial effusion and should undergo chest ultrasound for evaluation of possible pleural effusion.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Chest Trauma

Blunt Chest Trauma (Suggested for All Levels of Training).

* We suggest bedside TTE to exclude the presence of a significant pericardial effusion in hemodynamically unstable patients with blunt chest trauma. Grade 2C

* Rationale: The use of BCU in hemodynamically unstable patients with blunt chest trauma is directed at the diagnosis of aortic transection, valvular disruption, cardiac laceration, and significant concussive cardiac injury. Timely discovery and intervention may be lifesaving in such cases. The use of BCU for aortic and valvular injury has been discussed in prior recommendations, and the diagnosis of concussive cardiac injury will be discussed below.

Cardiac laceration or rupture after blunt chest trauma is rare. It may result in pericardial effusion and tamponade that cause hemodynamic instability and may progress to death. Free rupture into the hemithorax, as would occur with concomitant pericardial laceration, is even less common, and is generally associated with death at the scene. Nonetheless, laceration of the atrium or atrial appendage may occur and promote hemodynamic instability by the presence of a pericardial effusion causing tamponade. This is readily apparent on BCU in the hands of critical care providers. In addition, BCU in such patients may lead to a decrease in unnecessary procedures such as emergency thoracotomy (156).

* BCU is of limited value to diagnose blunt cardiac injury (previously referred to as cardiac contusion). Grade 2C

* Rationale: BCU lacks accuracy for cardiac contusion diagnosis and should be reserved for patients with hemodynamic instability of unclear etiology, an abnormal ECG, or cardiac arrhythmias with documented risk of blunt cardiac injury (155, 157–163). A recent published literature analysis of 35 studies showed electrocardiogram (ECG) and troponin to be of greater utility than BCU although even the significance of elevated enzymes or an abnormal ECG is unclear. Blunt cardiac injury may result in dysrhythmias that may be of little consequence and systolic contractile failure that, although rare, would be of clinical significance. Casting a wide net by imaging asymptomatic blunt injured patients has not been shown to improve outcome and would potentially increase cost.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Penetrating Trauma (Recommended for All Levels of Training).

* We recommend that BCU should be performed in hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating chest trauma. Grade 1C

* Rationale: Penetrating cardiac injuries are highly lethal injuries that can present with normal hemodynamic parameters or cardiac arrest. A hemodynamically unstable patient should undergo emergent thoracotomy. In hemodynamically stable patients, BCU has proven to be a useful tool in the diagnosis of occult cardiac injury following penetrating chest trauma and can direct the critical care physician to take immediate lifesaving actions (164–169). One caveat is the presence of a cardiac injury decompressing into the hemithorax through a pericardial rent that may result in a large (usually left) hemothorax with a false-negative pericardial view.

Back to Top | Article Outline

TEE (Recommended for Expert Level of Training)

Poor Visualization of Cardiac Structures.

* We recommend that a trained physician should perform TEE in patients with poor visualization of cardiac structures with TTE. Grade 1B

* Rationale: Suboptimal imaging is common in the ICU during TEE, especially in mechanically ventilated patients, if this occurs TEE should be performed. With training, the critical care physician can perform TEE safely in the ICU setting, and it has been shown to lead to major therapeutic interventions (170–172) In patients at high risk for infective endocarditis, TEE can also be considered if TTE is negative.

Back to Top | Article Outline

The Use of Contrast (Suggested for Expert Level of Training)

RV Microbubbles

* We suggest that RV agitated normal saline contrast be used in all patients where cardiac source of embolic cerebrovascular accident is suspected to rule out paradoxical emboli. Grade 2C

* Rationale: Agitated normal saline solution can be administered into central or peripheral veins and used as the RV contrast when intracardiac shunting is suspected (173, 174).

Back to Top | Article Outline

LV Contrast 2D

* We recommend that LV ultrasound contrast be used under specific circumstances to improve image quality and diagnostic capability of echocardiography. Grade 1C

* Rationale: Despite its potential for harm, many studies have shown LV (microbubble) ultrasound contrast administration to be safe (175, 176). The use of LV contrast has also been shown to improve image quality and diagnostic capability of echocardiography for septal defects, infarction, intraventricular clot, and great vessel injury (177–179).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Diagnosis of Hepatopulmonary Syndrome in Patients Under Consideration for Liver Transplantation.

* We recommend that a bubble echocardiography study with agitated saline be used in favor of nuclear scintigraphy to diagnose intrapulmonary shunting in hypoxic patients with chronic liver disease to evaluate hepatopulmonary disease. Grade 1C

* Rationale: Normal saline is transferred very quickly between two syringes utilizing a stopcock to create bubbles of greater than 10 μm. Under normal conditions, these microbubbles do not pass through pulmonary capillaries with a normal diameter of 8–15 μm. With intracardiac shunting, microbubbles opacification of the LA occurs within three heartbeats after saline administration (180, 181). With microbubble passage through abnormally dilated pulmonary capillaries (transpulmonary shunting-hepatopulmonary syndrome), opacification of the LA occurs three to six beats after administration (182). This test is more sensitive than injection of technetium-99m-labeled albumin microaggregates with subsequent measurement of radioisotope uptake in the brain, requires no ionized radiation or patient transport to the nuclear medicine department (180, 183–187).

Back to Top | Article Outline

The Use of BCU in Pediatric Patients

The panel addressed several key issues related to BCU in pediatric patients. This is not a comprehensive pediatric BCU guidelines statement and literature review, but recognizes several fundamental questions germane to pediatrics and predicates ongoing efforts in generating a pediatric BCU guidelines statement. These recommendations are for intensivists with competency to care for pediatric patients and basic ultrasonography skills unless indicated otherwise.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Cardiac Arrest—Reversible Causes.

* We recommend that BCU be performed to exclude reversible causes of cardiac arrest in critically ill children. Grade 1B

* Rationale: The 2010 international pediatric basic and advanced life support recommendations state that “bedside cardiac echocardiography may be considered to identify potentially treatable causes of a cardiac arrest when appropriately skilled personnel are available, but the benefits must be carefully weighed against the known deleterious consequences of interrupting chest compressions.” (188) Pediatric BCU may detect significant cardiac pathology in children, such as pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, severe hypovolemia, marked chamber enlargement, and disproportion in cardiac chamber size. Based on work by Spurney et al (189) pericardial effusion, LV function and diameter can be determined by a pediatric intensivist with only 2 hours of training with 93%, 96%, and 96% concordance to pediatric echocardiographers using traditional diagnostic equipment. This suggests these causes can be readily identified at the bedside in a cardiac arrest. The use of pediatric BCU in cardiac arrest has been described by Tsung and Blaivas (190) in a 14 patient series of pediatric patients, supporting its feasibility in practice.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Cardiac Arrest—Irreversible Causes.

* We recommend that pediatric BCU alone is insufficient to diagnose irreversible pulseless cardiac activity in cardiac arrest in critically ill children. Grade 1C

* Rationale: Although cardiac standstill and true PEA can be identified on BCU at the bedside, children are known to have several attributes that permit recovery from cardiac standstill. Severe myocardial stun is known to occur in young children after extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) cannulation and absence of function may be present for several days following severe cardiac insult (191). Myocardial function slowly recovers following this. This suggests that the injured pediatric heart that appears akinetic initially may be ultimately recoverable. Children experience cardiac arrest primarily from respiratory causes and a rapid restoration of oxygen delivery may lead to a different outcome than adult cardiac standstill. Accurate assessment of cardiac standstill with a sufficient amount of time spent visualizing the heart requires operator efficiency and safety at the bedside during arrest. At this time, efficiency is compromised by a low level of BCU penetrance and low number of expert operators in pediatric critical care.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Preload Responsiveness.

* We recommend that pediatric BCU be used in the assessment and management of hypovolemic shock to determine preload responsiveness in critically ill children. Grade 1B

* Rationale: BCU is useful for assessing preload responsiveness. There is some existing evidence that suggests evaluation of the IVC in spontaneously breathing pediatric cardiac (192) and neonatal patients (193) correlates with CVP. However, the work by Ng et al (194) shows that IVC collapsibility index and IVC/aorta ratio do not correlate with CVP in a cohort of 51 critically ill children. However, CVP is not an accurate measure of volume status and sonographic assessment of volume status in pediatrics requires further investigation in larger series (195–199). A different assessment technique, peak systolic aortic blood flow variability through the respiratory cycle, has been found to predict preload responsiveness in a meta-analysis of pediatric studies (200). Dynamic transthoracic echocardiographic measurements that account for changes through the cardiac cycle are likely more sensitive than static indicators of preload status. Similar to aortic peak systolic velocity variability, LV outflow tract flow VTI variability assessed in patients undergoing cardiac or neurological surgery predicts fluid responsiveness in a manner superior to CVP (201, 202). SVC flow and collapsibility index have been studied in neonates (and adults) but its utility in critically ill children is not well described (203–205).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Suspected Cardiogenic Shock.

* We suggest that pediatric BCU may be used in the assessment of cardiogenic shock in critically ill children. Grade 2C

* Rationale: Accuracy of pediatric intensivists in qualitatively assessing LV function and diameter has been demonstrated in a series of pediatric intensivists and emergency medicine specialists examining the heart in good concordance with pediatric cardiology specialists (194, 207).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Suspected Septic Shock.

* We make no recommendations in support of or against using pediatric BCU in the assessment of septic shock in critically ill children.

* Rationale: With reassuring pediatric BCU evaluation of intravascular volume status and cardiac contractility, as well as sonographic and clinical signs of shock with high cardiac output/tachycardia, distributive shock could potentially be suspected. However, no specific data on this have been published to allow the panel to formulate a recommendation for or against its use.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Patent Ductus Arteriosus.

* We suggest that practitioners with advanced levels of training may use pediatric BCU to diagnose and evaluate neonatal patent ductus arteriosus (PDA). Grade 2C

* Rationale: Lee et al (208) have demonstrated in the neonatal population a sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 71% in detecting PDA in the hands of neonatologists with limited training. El-Khuffash et al (209, 210) have described use of BCU to characterize PDA at the bedside though without correlation with observers from imaging specialties. Nonetheless, pediatric intensivists will only have episodic practice of imaging and diagnosing this infrequent pathology. The American Society of Echocardiography recommendations on targeted neonatal echocardiography recommend that PDA should be assessed in the neonate by clinicians experienced in the technique and always be accompanied/followed by a comprehensive study (211, 212).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Congenital Heart Disease.

* We suggest that pediatric BCU not to be used to evaluate or definitively diagnose congenital heart disease (CHD) in pediatric patients. Grade 2C

* Rationale: Functional assessment of hemodynamic issues in CHD is best performed with an understanding of complex patient physiology. For this reason, evaluation and management of CHD patients are best done in concert with a pediatric cardiology specialist. Definitive CHD diagnosis in children benefits from precise reproducible assessments that can be readily reviewed by pediatric cardiologists trained to diagnosing CHD. In this sense, definitive diagnosis of CHD is best facilitated with involvement of pediatric cardiology specialists.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Acquired Valvular Disease.

* We suggest that pediatric BCU not be used in the evaluation of acquired valvular heart disease. Grade 2C

* Rationale: Colquhoun et al (213) have demonstrated the feasibility of focused echocardiography evaluations performed by two nurses in resource poor areas of Fiji to identify rheumatic mitral and aortic valve disease, though their quantitative data on mitral regurgitation tended to demonstrate false positives in comparison with data obtained by pediatric cardiology. Due to the risk of having false-positive or false-negative results in this setting, a comprehensive echocardiography by a pediatric cardiologist is necessary for accurate evaluation of valvular heart diseases in this population.

Back to Top | Article Outline

RV Dysfunction.

* We make no recommendation supporting or against using pediatric BCU in the assessment of patients with suspected RV dysfunction.

* Rationale: RV failure is frequently seen in the perinatal and early childhood period as a complication of a difficult transition from neonatal circulation, and also as an effect of lung or cardiac disease. Metrics of RV function include morphologic changes of the heart, septal position relative to the center of the LV, elevated regurgitant jet velocity across the tricuspid valve, pressure gradients assessed across the pulmonic valve or septal defects, TAPSE, as well as distention and pulsatility of central venous structures. These can be potentially detected using pediatric BCU. Despite the relatively easy technique for assessing pulmonary hypertension, the pediatric BCU assessment of the right heart by pediatric intensivist has not been well evaluated in the medical literature in children.

Back to Top | Article Outline

ECMO.

* We make no recommendations supporting or against using BCU in the assessment of pediatric patients on ECMO.

* Rationale: Assessment of the heart on venoarterial and venovenous ECMO is possible with recommendations published in the literature for diagnostic echocardiography (214). Assessments of cardiac function and chamber size on ECMO are possible and relevant. Cannulas may be visualized in the right atrium using multiple views. Post–cardiac surgery dressings and invasive devices may compromise available windows.

Back to Top | Article Outline

CONCLUSION

A panel of international experts rendered several class 1 recommendations for the use of BCU in the ICU. The most robust of these recommendations includes the use of BCU for the assessment of fluid responsiveness in the mechanically ventilated adult and child and for the detection of pericardial tamponade. Recommendations regarding the assessment of cardiac function of the left and RV were strong, but supported by less robust evidence, undoubtedly related to the dearth of well-trained practitioners at this time.

We recognize that the panel of adult and pediatric intensivists who practice in a wide variety of clinical settings are all trained in the use of ultrasound. Full and appropriate implementation of the technology will require similarly trained practitioners. Furthermore, as noted by the recent guidelines of the American Society of Echocardiography, training, accreditation and credentialing should depend on competency-based, and not volume-based, assessment (215). Evidence-based recommendations regarding the appropriate use of this technology are a step toward improving outcomes in relevant patients.

The heart undergoes dynamic changes in the ICU as a result of time and therapy. The BCU should be thought of as an extension of the critical care physician’s physical examination and should be repeated just as the physical exam is repeated.

We are now at the forefront of the “ultrasound revolution.” We believe that the BCU and general ultrasound recommendations will evolve rapidly with the field that undergoes remarkable and unprecedented transformation. As noted in part one and two of these guidelines (64), BCU performed and interpreted in real time is appropriate in many clinical settings and should be considered an important part of the clinician’s armamentarium. Training to competency in relevant areas and ready availability of ultrasound machines is vital to provide contemporary care of the critically ill and injured patient.

We believe that this set of guidelines will help to establish a new pattern of care in the ICU with greater use of bedside ultrasonography. With more time, this will inevitably result in more outcome centered data on the usefulness of bedside ultrasonography. This, in turn, will result in better acceptance and education that will lead to the generation of more data with the ultimate result of maturation of the field of bedside ultrasonography that will transform the care of patients in the ICU.

Back to Top | Article Outline

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We acknowledge the tremendous effort done by the SCCM staff during the process of developing of these guidelines particularly Ms. Sarah A. Kraus, MPH, the Quality and Guidelines Specialist in the SCCM.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Marik PE, Cavallazzi R, Vasu T, et al: Dynamic changes in arterial waveform derived variables and fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: A systematic review of the literature. Crit Care Med 2009; 37:2642–2647
2. Boussat S, Jacques T, Levy B, et al: Intravascular volume monitoring and extravascular lung water in septic patients with pulmonary edema. Intensive Care Med 2002; 28:712–718
3. Benomar B, Ouattara A, Estagnasie P, et al: Fluid responsiveness predicted by noninvasive bioreactance-based passive leg raise test. Intensive Care Med 2010; 36:1875–1881
4. Quiñones MA, Douglas PS, Foster E, et al; American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association; American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine; American Society of Echocardiography; Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists; Society of Pediatric Echocardiography: ACC/AHA clinical competence statement on echocardiography: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine Task Force on Clinical Competence. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 41:687–708
5. Vignon P, Mücke F, Bellec F, et al: Basic critical care echocardiography: Validation of a curriculum dedicated to noncardiologist residents. Crit Care Med 2011; 39:636–642
6. Vignon P, Dugard A, Abraham J, et al: Focused training for goal-oriented hand-held echocardiography performed by noncardiologist residents in the intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med 2007; 33:1795–1799
7. Manasia AR, Nagaraj HM, Kodali RB, et al: Feasibility and potential clinical utility of goal-directed transthoracic echocardiography performed by noncardiologist intensivists using a small hand-carried device (SonoHeart) in critically ill patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2005; 19:155–159
8. Melamed R, Sprenkle MD, Ulstad VK, et al: Assessment of left ventricular function by intensivists using hand-held echocardiography. Chest 2009; 135:1416–1420
9. Vignon P, Chastagner C, François B, et al: Diagnostic ability of hand-held echocardiography in ventilated critically ill patients. Crit Care 2003; 7:R84–R91
10. Mayo PH, Beaulieu Y, Doelken P, et al: American College of Chest Physicians/La Société de Réanimation de Langue Française statement on competence in critical care ultrasonography. Chest 2009; 135:1050–1060
11. Charron C, Prat G, Caille V, et al: Validation of a skills assessment scoring system for transesophageal echocardiographic monitoring of hemodynamics. Intensive Care Med 2007; 33:1712–1718
12. Guyatt G, Gutterman D, Baumann MH, et al: Grading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines: Report from an american college of chest physicians task force. Chest 2006; 129:174–181
13. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM, et al; International Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines Committee; American Association of Critical-Care Nurses; American College of Chest Physicians; American College of Emergency Physicians; Canadian Critical Care Society; European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases; European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; European Respiratory Society; International Sepsis Forum; Japanese Association for Acute Medicine; Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine; Society of Critical Care Medicine; Society of Hospital Medicine; Surgical Infection Society; World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine: Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Crit Care Med 2008; 36:296–327
14. Fitch K, Bernstein SJ, Aguilar MD, et al: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User’s Manual. 2001Arlington, VA, RAND Corporation
15. Maisch B, Seferović PM, Ristić AD, et al; Task Force on the Diagnosis and Management of Pricardial Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology: Guidelines on the diagnosis and management of pericardial diseases executive summary; The Task force on the diagnosis and management of pericardial diseases of the European society of cardiology. Eur Heart J 2004; 25:587–610
16. Tsang TS, Barnes ME, Hayes SN, et al: Clinical and echocardiographic characteristics of significant pericardial effusions following cardiothoracic surgery and outcomes of echo-guided pericardiocentesis for management: Mayo Clinic experience, 1979–1998. Chest 1999; 116:322–331
17. Tsang TS, Oh JK, Seward JB, et al: Diagnostic value of echocardiography in cardiac tamponade. Herz 2000; 25:734–740
18. Ainsworth CD, Salehian O: Echo-guided pericardiocentesis: Let the bubbles show the way. Circulation 2011; 123:e210–e211
19. Schussler JM, Grayburn PA: Contrast guided two-dimensional echocardiography for needle localization during pericardiocentesis: A case report. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2010; 23:683.e1–683.e2
20. Salazar M, Mohar D, Bhardwaj R, et al: Use of contrast echocardiography to detect displacement of the needle during pericardiocentesis. Echocardiography 2012; 29:E60–E61
21. Luo H, Chen M, Trento A, et al: Usefulness of a hand-carried cardiac ultrasound device for bedside examination of pericardial effusion in patients after cardiac surgery. Am J Cardiol 2004; 94:406–407
22. Mandavia DP, Hoffner RJ, Mahaney K, et al: Bedside echocardiography by emergency physicians. Ann Emerg Med. 2001; 38:377–382
23. Tsang T, Enriquez-Sarano M, WiFreeman W, et al: Consecutive 1127 Therapeutic Echocardiographically Guided Pericardiocenteses: Clinical Profile, Practice Patterns, and Outcomes Spanning 21 Years. Mayo Clin Proc 2002; 77:429–436
24. Jones AE, Tayal VS, Sullivan DM, et al: Randomized, controlled trial of immediate versus delayed goal-directed ultrasound to identify the cause of nontraumatic hypotension in emergency department patients. Crit Care Med 2004; 32:1703–1708
25. Atkinson PR, McAuley DJ, Kendall RJ, et al: Abdominal and Cardiac Evaluation with Sonography in Shock (ACES): An approach by emergency physicians for the use of ultrasound in patients with undifferentiated hypotension. Emerg Med J 2009; 26:87–91
26. Kobal SL, Trento L, Baharami S, et al: Comparison of effectiveness of hand-carried ultrasound to bedside cardiovascular physical examination. Am J Cardiol 2005; 96:1002–1006
27. Marik PE, Baram M, Vahid B: Does central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? A systematic review of the literature and the tale of seven mares. Chest 2008; 134:172–178
28. Kumar A, Anel R, Bunnell E, et al: Pulmonary artery occlusion pressure and central venous pressure fail to predict ventricular filling volume, cardiac performance, or the response to volume infusion in normal subjects. Crit Care Med 2004; 32:691–699
29. Boyd JH, Forbes J, Nakada TA, et al: Fluid resuscitation in septic shock: A positive fluid balance and elevated central venous pressure are associated with increased mortality. Crit Care Med 2011; 39:259–265
30. Schefold JC, Storm C, Bercker S, et al: Inferior vena cava diameter correlates with invasive hemodynamic measures in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients with sepsis. J Emerg Med 2010; 38:632–637
31. Barbier C, Loubières Y, Schmit C, et al: Respiratory changes in inferior vena cava diameter are helpful in predicting fluid responsiveness in ventilated septic patients. Intensive Care Med 2004; 30:1740–1746
32. Feissel M, Michard F, Faller JP, et al: The respiratory variation in inferior vena cava diameter as a guide to fluid therapy. Intensive Care Med 2004; 30:1834–1837
33. Cannesson M, Slieker J, Desebbe O, et al: Prediction of fluid responsiveness using respiratory variations in left ventricular stroke area by transoesophageal echocardiographic automated border detection in mechanically ventilated patients. Crit Care 2006; 10:R171
34. The ProCESS Investigators: A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock. N Engl J Med, 2014;370:1683–1693
35. The Australasian Resuscitation in Sepsis Evaluation (ARISE) Study Group: Goal-directed resuscitation for patients with early septic shock. N Engl J Med, 2014;371:1496–506
36. Maizel J, Airapetian N, Lorne E, et al: Diagnosis of central hypovolemia by using passive leg raising. Intensive Care Med 2007; 33:1133–1138
37. Préau S, Saulnier F, Dewavrin F, et al: Passive leg raising is predictive of fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients with severe sepsis or acute pancreatitis. Crit Care Med 2010; 38:819–825
38. Thiel SW, Kollef MH, Isakow W: Non-invasive stroke volume measurement and passive leg raising predict volume responsiveness in medical ICU patients: An observational cohort study. Crit Care 2009; 13:R111
39. Biais M, Vidil L, Sarrabay P, et al: Changes in stroke volume induced by passive leg raising in spontaneously breathing patients: Comparison between echocardiography and Vigileo/FloTrac device. Crit Care 2009; 13:R195
40. Lamia B, Ochagavia A, Monnet X, et al: Echocardiographic prediction of volume responsiveness in critically ill patients with spontaneously breathing activity. Intensive Care Med 2007; 33:1125–1132
41. Lafanechère A, Pène F, Goulenok C, et al: Changes in aortic blood flow induced by passive leg raising predict fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients. Crit Care 2006; 10:R132
42. Monnet X, Rienzo M, Osman D, et al: Passive leg raising predicts fluid responsiveness in the critically ill. Crit Care Med 2006; 34:1402–1407
43. Jardin F, Fourme T, Page B, et al: Persistent preload defect in severe sepsis despite fluid loading: A longitudinal echocardiographic study in patients with septic shock. Chest 1999; 116:1354–1359
44. Michard F, Teboul JL: Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: A critical analysis of the evidence. Chest 2002; 121:2000–2008
45. Cavallaro F, Sandroni C, Marano C, et al: Diagnostic accuracy of passive leg raising for prediction of fluid responsiveness in adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies. Intensive Care Med 2010; 36:1475–1483
46. Mahjoub Y, Touzeau J, Airapetian N, et al: The passive leg-raising maneuver cannot accurately predict fluid responsiveness in patients with intra-abdominal hypertension. Crit Care Med 2010; 38:1824–1829
47. Arthur ME, Landolfo C, Wade M, et al: Inferior vena cava diameter (IVCD) measured with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) can be used to derive the central venous pressure (CVP) in anesthetized mechanically ventilated patients. Echocardiography 2009; 26:140–149
48. Vieillard-Baron A, Chergui K, Rabiller A, et al: Superior vena caval collapsibility as a gauge of volume status in ventilated septic patients. Intensive Care Med 2004; 30:1734–1739
49. Vieillard-Baron A, Caille V, Charron C, et al: Actual incidence of global left ventricular hypokinesia in adult septic shock. Crit Care Med 2008; 36:1701–1706
50. Lang RM, Bierig M, Devereux RB, et al: Recommendations for Chamber Quantification: A Report from the American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Chamber Quantification Writing Group, Developed in Conjunction with the European Association of Echocardiography, a Branch of the European Society of Cardiology. J Am Soc Echocardiogr, 2005;18:1440–1463
51. Picard MH, Popp RL, Weyman AE: Assessment of left ventricular function by echocardiography: A technique in evolution. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2008; 21:14–21
52. Nagueh SF, Appleton CP, Gillebert TC, et al. Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr, 2009;22:107–133
53. Bouhemad B, Nicolas-Robin A, Arbelot C, et al: Acute left ventricular dilatation and shock-induced myocardial dysfunction. Crit Care Med 2009; 37:441–447
54. Brinker JA, Weiss JL, Lappé DL, et al: Leftward septal displacement during right ventricular loading in man. Circulation 1980; 61:626–633
55. Piazza G, Goldhaber SZ: The acutely decompensated right ventricle: Pathways for diagnosis and management. Chest 2005; 128:1836–1852
56. Vieillard-Baron A, Prin S, Chergui K, et al: Echo-Doppler demonstration of acute cor pulmonale at the bedside in the medical intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 166:1310–1319
57. Jardin F, Dubourg O, Bourdarias JP: Echocardiographic pattern of acute cor pulmonale. Chest 1997; 111:209–217
58. Jessup M, Sutton MS, Weber KT, et al: The effect of chronic pulmonary hypertension on left ventricular size, function, and interventricular septal motion. Am Heart J 1987; 113:1114–1122
59. Nef HM, Möllmann H, Hamm C, et al: Pulmonary hypertension: Updated classification and management of pulmonary hypertension. Heart 2010; 96:552–559
60. Kjaergaard J, Akkan D, Iversen KK, et al: Prognostic importance of pulmonary hypertension in patients with heart failure. Am J Cardiol 2007; 99:1146–1150
61. Rich J, Shah S, Swamy R, et al: Inaccuracy of Doppler Echocardiographic estimates of pulmonary artery pressures in patients with pulmonary hypertension: Implications for clinical practice. Chest 2011; 139:998–993
62. Paul R, Forfia MR, Fisher SC, et al. Tricuspid annular displacement predicts survival in pulmonary hypertension. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2006; 174:1034–1041
63. Ghio S, Recusani F, Klersy C,Prognostic usefulness of the tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion in patients with congestive heart failure secondary to idiopathic or ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy. Am J Cardiol 2000; 85:837–842
64. Frankel HL, Kirkpatrick AW, Elbarbary M, et al: Guidelines for the appropriate use of bedside general and cardiac ultrasonography in the evaluation of critically ill patients-part I: General ultrasonography. Crit Care Med 2015; 43:2479–2502
65. Bahloul M, Chaari A, Kallel H, et al: Pulmonary embolism in intensive care unit: Predictive factors, clinical manifestations and outcome. Ann Thorac Med 2010; 5:97–103
66. Bova C, Greco F, Misuraca G, et al: Diagnostic utility of echocardiography in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Am J Emerg Med 2003; 21:180–183
67. Guidelines on Diagnosis and Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Task Force on Pulmonary Embolism, European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2000; 21:1301–1336
68. Stawicki SP, Seamon MJ, Kim PK, et al: Transthoracic echocardiography for pulmonary embolism in the ICU: Finding the “right” findings. J Am Coll Surg 2008; 206:42–47
69. Grifoni S, Olivotto I, Cecchini P, et al: Utility of an integrated clinical, echocardiographic, and venous ultrasonographic approach for triage of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Am J Cardiol 1998; 82:1230–1235
70. Mansencal N, Vieillard-Baron A, Beauchet A, et al: Triage patients with suspected pulmonary embolism in the emergency department using a portable ultrasound device. Echocardiography 2008; 25:451–456
71. Torbicki A, Perrier A, Konstantinides S, et al; ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG): Guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2008; 29:2276–2315
72. McConnell MV, Solomon SD, Rayan ME, et al: Regional right ventricular dysfunction detected by echocardiography in acute pulmonary embolism. Am J Cardiol 1996; 78:469–473
73. Casazza F, Bongarzoni A, Capozi A, et al: Regional right ventricular dysfunction in acute pulmonary embolism and right ventricular infarction. Eur J Echocardiogr 2005; 6:11–14
74. Zehender M, Kasper W, Kauder E, et al: Right ventricular infarction as an independent predictor of prognosis after acute inferior myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993; 328:981–988
75. Sharpe DN, Botvinick EH, Shames DM, et al: The noninvasive diagnosis of right ventricular infarction. Circulation 1978; 57:483–490
76. Bellamy GR, Rasmussen HH, Nasser FN, et al: Value of two-dimensional echocardiography, electrocardiography, and clinical signs in detecting right ventricular infarction. Am Heart J 1986; 112:304–309
77. Lopez-Sendon J, Garcia-Fernandez MA, Coma-Canella I, et al: Segmental right ventricular function after acute myocardial infarction: Two-dimensional echocardiographic study in 63 patients. Am J Cardiol 1983; 51:390–396
78. Kinch JW, Ryan TJ: Right ventricular infarction. N Engl J Med 1994; 330:1211–1217
79. Gemayel CY, Fram DB, Fowler L, et al: The importance of using multiple windows for echocardiographic identification of right ventricular infarction. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2001; 37(Suppl 2):1110–1147
80. Bouchard J, Mehta RL: Fluid balance issues in the critically ill patient. Contrib Nephrol 2010; 164:69–78
81. Ognibene FP, Parker MM, Natanson C, et al: Depressed left ventricular performance. Response to volume infusion in patients with sepsis and septic shock. Chest 1988; 93:903–910
82. Krishnagopalan S, Kumar A, Parrillo JE, et al: Myocardial dysfunction in the patient with sepsis. Curr Opin Crit Care 2002; 8:376–388
83. Jardin F, Brun-Ney D, Auvert B, et al: Sepsis-related cardiogenic shock. Crit Care Med 1990; 18:1055–1060
84. Parker MM, Shelhamer JH, Bacharach SL, et al: Profound but reversible myocardial depression in patients with septic shock. Ann Intern Med 1984; 100:483–490
85. Etchecopar-Chevreuil C, François B, Clavel M, et al: Cardiac morphological and functional changes during early septic shock: A transesophageal echocardiographic study. Intensive Care Med 2008; 34:250–256
86. Pulido JN, Afessa B, Masaki M, et al: Clinical spectrum, frequency, and significance of myocardial dysfunction in severe sepsis and septic shock. Mayo Clin Proc 2012; 87:620–628
87. Bouhemad B, Nicolas-Robin A, Arbelot C, et al: Isolated and reversible impairment of ventricular relaxation in patients with septic shock. Crit Care Med 2008; 36:766–774
88. Landesberg G, Gilon D, Meroz Y, et al: Diastolic dysfunction and mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock. Eur Heart J 2012; 33:895–903
89. Mahjoub Y, Benoit-Fallet H, Airapetian N, et al: Improvement of left ventricular relaxation as assessed by tissue Doppler imaging in fluid-responsive critically ill septic patients. Intensive Care Med 2012; 38:1461–1470
90. Brown SM, Pittman JE, Hirshberg EL, et al: Diastolic dysfunction and mortality in early severe sepsis and septic shock: A prospective, observational echocardiography study. Crit Ultrasound J 2012; 4:8
91. Mourad M, Chow-Chine L, Faucher M, et al: Early diastolic dysfunction is associated with intensive care unit mortality in cancer patients presenting with septic shock. Br J Anaesth 2014; 112:102–109
92. Hoffman MJ, Greenfield LJ, Sugerman HJ, et al: Unsuspected right ventricular dysfunction in shock and sepsis. Ann Surg 1983; 198:307–319
93. Mitsuo T, Shimazaki S, Matsuda H: Right ventricular dysfunction in septic patients. Crit Care Med 1992; 20:630–634
94. Vieillard Baron A, Schmitt JM, Beauchet A, et al: Early preload adaptation in septic shock? A transesophageal echocardiographic study. Anesthesiology 2001; 94:400–406
95. Neumar RW, Otto CQ, Link MSAdult Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support:2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation 2010:S737–S741
96. Stapleton ER, Aufderheide TP, Hazinski MF, et al: Adult CPR. BLS Healthcare Providers. 2001; 75
97. Ochoa FJ, Ramalle-Gómara E, Carpintero JM, et al: Competence of health professionals to check the carotid pulse. Resuscitation 1998; 37:173–175
98. Flesche CW, Brewer S, Mandel LP: The ability of health professionals to check the carotid pulse. Circulation,1994;90:
99. Eberle B, Dick WF, Schneider T, et al: Checking the carotid pulse check: Diagnostic accuracy of first responders in patients with and without a pulse. Resuscitation 1996; 33:107–116
100. Bocka JJ, Overton DT, Hauser A: Electromechanical dissociation in human beings: An echocardiographic evaluation. Ann Emerg Med 1988; 17:450–452
101. Paradis NA, Martin GB, Goetting MG, et al: Aortic pressure during human cardiac arrest. Identification of pseudo-electromechanical dissociation. Chest 1992; 101:123–128
102. Salen P, Melniker L, Chooljian C, et al: Does the presence or absence of sonographically identified cardiac activity predict resuscitation outcomes of cardiac arrest patients? Am J Emerg Med 2005; 23:459–462
103. Blaivas M, Fox JC: Outcome in cardiac arrest patients found to have cardiac standstill on the bedside emergency department echocardiogram. Acad Emerg Med 2001; 8:654–657
104. Breitkreutz R, Price S, Steiger HV, et al; Emergency Ultrasound Working Group of the Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University Hospital, Frankfurt am Main: Focused echocardiographic evaluation in life support and peri-resuscitation of emergency patients: A prospective trial. Resuscitation 2010; 81:1527–1533
105. Chardoli M, Heidari F, Rabiee H, et al: Echocardiography integrated ACLS protocol versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with pulseless electrical activity cardiac arrest. Chin J Traumatol 2012; 15:284–287
106. Hayhurst C, Lebus C, Atkinson PR, et al: An evaluation of echo in life support (ELS): Is it feasible? What does it add? Emerg Med J 2011; 28:119–121
107. Varriale P, Maldonado JM: Echocardiographic observations during in hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Crit Care Med 1997; 25:1717–1720
108. Tayal VS, Kline JA: Emergency echocardiography to detect pericardial effusion in patients in PEA and near-PEA states. Resuscitation 2003; 59:315–318
109. Price S, Ilper H, Uddin S, et al: Peri-resuscitation echocardiography: Training the novice practitioner. Resuscitation 2010; 81:1534–1539
110. Neri L, Storti E, Lichtenstein D: Toward an ultrasound curriculum for critical care medicine. Crit Care Med 2007; 35:S290–S304
111. Testa A, Cibinel GA, Portale G, et al: The proposal of an integrated ultrasonographic approach into the ALS algorithm for cardiac arrest: The PEA protocol. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2010; 14:77–88
112. Via G, Breitkreutz R, Price S, et al: Detailed echocardiography (echo) protocols for the critical patient. J Trauma 2009; 66:589–590author reply 591
113. Blaivas M: Transesophageal echocardiography during cardiopulmonary arrest in the emergency department. Resuscitation 2008; 78:135–140
114. van der Wouw PA, Koster RW, Delemarre BJ, et al: Diagnostic accuracy of transesophageal echocardiography during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997; 30:780–783
115. Breitkreutz R, Walcher F, Seeger FH: Focused echocardiographic evaluation in resuscitation management: Concept of an advanced life support-conformed algorithm. Crit Care Med 2007; 35:S150–S161
116. Schuster KM, Lofthouse R, Moore C, et al: Pulseless electrical activity, focused abdominal sonography for trauma, and cardiac contractile activity as predictors of survival after trauma. J Trauma 2009; 67:1154–1157
117. Aichinger G, Zechner PM, Prause G, et al: Cardiac movement identified on prehospital echocardiography predicts outcome in cardiac arrest patients. Prehosp Emerg Care 2012; 16:251–255
118. Blyth L, Atkinson P, Gadd K, et al: Bedside focused echocardiography as predictor of survival in cardiac arrest patients: A systematic review. Acad Emerg Med 2012; 19:1119–1126
119. Prosen G, Križmarić M, Završnik J, et al: Impact of modified treatment in echocardiographically confirmed pseudo-pulseless electrical activity in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with constant end-tidal carbon dioxide pressure during compression pauses. J Int Med Res 2010; 38:1458–1467
120. Cureton EL, Yeung LY, Kwan RO, et al: The heart of the matter: Utility of ultrasound of cardiac activity during traumatic arrest. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2012; 73:102–110
121. Tomruk O, Erdur B, Cetin G, et al: Assessment of cardiac ultrasonography in predicting outcome in adult cardiac arrest. J Int Med Res 2012; 40:804–809
122. Horowitz RS, Morganroth J, Parrotto C, et al: Immediate diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction by two-dimensional echocardiography. Circulation 1982; 65:323–329
123. Peels CH, Visser CA, Kupper AJ, et al: Usefulness of two-dimensional echocardiography for immediate detection of myocardial ischemia in the emergency room. Am J Cardiol 1990; 65:687–691
124. Spaulding CM, Joly LM, Rosenberg A, et al: Immediate coronary angiography in survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med 1997; 336:1629–1633
125. Dumas F, Cariou A, Manzo-Silberman S, et al: Immediate percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with better survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: Insights from the PROCAT (Parisian Region Out of hospital Cardiac ArresT) registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2010; 3:200–207
126. Hwang JJ, Shyu KG, Chen JJ, et al: Usefulness of transesophageal echocardiography in the treatment of critically ill patients. Chest 1993; 104:861–866
127. Heidenreich PA, Stainback RF, Redberg RF, et al: Transesophageal echocardiography predicts mortality in critically ill patients with unexplained hypotension. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995; 26:152–158
128. Memtsoudis SG, Rosenberger P, Loffler M, et al: The usefulness of transesophageal echocardiography during intraoperative cardiac arrest in noncardiac surgery. Anesth Analg 2006; 102:1653–1657
129. Atar S, Feldman A, Darawshe A, et al: Utility and diagnostic accuracy of hand-carried ultrasound for emergency room evaluation of chest pain. Am J Cardiol 2004; 94:408–409
130. Weston P, Alexander JH, Patel MR, et al: Hand-held echocardiographic examination of patients with symptoms of acute coronary syndromes in the emergency department: The 30-day outcome associated with normal left ventricular wall motion. Am Heart J 2004; 148:1096–1101
131. Autore C, Agati L, Piccininno M, et al: Role of echocardiography in acute chest pain syndrome. Am J Cardiol 2000; 86:41G–42G
132. Di Pasquale P, Cannizzaro S, Scalzo S, et al: Sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of the echocardiography and troponin-T test combination in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2004; 20:37–46
133. Sternbach G: Claude Beck: Cardiac compression triads. J Emerg Med 1988; 6:417–419
134. Eisenberg MJ, de Romeral LM, Heidenreich PA, et al: The diagnosis of pericardial effusion and cardiac tamponade by 12-lead ECG. A technology assessment. Chest 1996; 110:318–324
135. Guberman BA, Fowler NO, Engel PJ, et al: Cardiac tamponade in medical patients. Circulation 1981; 64:633–640
136. Jacob S, Sebastian JC, Cherian PK, et al: Pericardial effusion impending tamponade: A look beyond Beck’s triad. Am J Emerg Med 2009; 27:216–219
137. Joseph MX, Disney PJ, Da Costa R, et al: Transthoracic echocardiography to identify or exclude cardiac cause of shock. Chest 2004; 126:1592–1597
138. Jakobsen CJ, Torp P, Sloth E: Perioperative feasibility of imaging the heart and pleura in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing aortic valve replacement. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2007; 24:589–595
139. Tsutsui JM, Maciel RR, Costa JM, et al: Hand-carried ultrasound performed at bedside in cardiology inpatient setting - a comparative study with comprehensive echocardiography. Cardiovasc Ultrasound 2004; 2:24
140. Vignon P, Frank MB, Lesage J, et al: Hand-held echocardiography with Doppler capability for the assessment of critically-ill patients: Is it reliable? Intensive Care Med 2004; 30:718–723
141. Martin LD, Howell EE, Ziegelstein RC, et al: Hand-carried ultrasound performed by hospitalists: Does it improve the cardiac physical examination? Am J Med 2009; 122:35–41
142. Goodkin GM, Spevack DM, Tunick PA, et al: How useful is hand-carried bedside echocardiography in critically ill patients? J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37:2019–2022
143. Alam M: Transesophageal echocardiography in critical care units: Henry Ford Hospital experience and review of the literature. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 1996; 38:315–328
144. Vered Z, Mossinson D, Peleg E, et al: Echocardiographic assessment of prosthetic valve endocarditis. Eur Heart J 1995; 16(Suppl B):63–67
145. Lengyel M: The impact of transesophageal echocardiography on the management of prosthetic valve endocarditis: Experience of 31 cases and review of the literature. J Heart Valve Dis 1997; 6:204–211
146. Beynon RP, Bahl VK, Prendergast BD: Infective endocarditis. BMJ 2006; 333:334–339
147. Vignon P, Boncoeur MP, François B, et al: Comparison of multiplane transesophageal echocardiography and contrast-enhanced helical CT in the diagnosis of blunt traumatic cardiovascular injuries. Anesthesiology 2001; 94:615–622discussion 5A
148. Cinnella G, Dambrosio M, Brienza N, et al: Transesophageal echocardiography for diagnosis of traumatic aortic injury: An appraisal of the evidence. J Trauma 2004; 57:1246–1255
149. Shiga T, Wajima Z, Apfel CC, et al: Diagnostic accuracy of transesophageal echocardiography, helical computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging for suspected thoracic aortic dissection: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:1350–1356
150. Evangelista A, Carro A, Moral SImaging modalities for the early diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome. Nat Rev Cardiol 2013; 10:477–486
151. Ince H, Nienaber CA: Diagnosis and management of patients with aortic dissection. Heart 2007; 93:266–270
152. Subramaniam B, Talmor D: Echocardiography for management of hypotension in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2007; 35:S401–S407
153. Khalil A, Helmy T, Tarik T, et al: Aortic pathology: Aortic trauma, debris, dissection, and aneurysm. Crit Care Med 2007; 35:S392–S400
154. Meredith EL, Masani ND: Echocardiography in the emergency assessment of acute aortic syndromes. Eur J Echocardiogr 2009; 10:i31–i39
155. Chirillo F, Totis O, Cavarzerani A, et al: Usefulness of transthoracic and transoesophageal echocardiography in recognition and management of cardiovascular injuries after blunt chest trauma. Heart 1996; 75:301–306
156. Ferrada P, Wolfe L, Anand RJ, et al: Use of limited transthoracic echocardiography in patients with traumatic cardiac arrest decreases the rate of nontherapeutic thoracotomy and hospital costs. J Ultrasound Med 2014; 33:1829–1832
157. Cachecho R, Grindlinger GA, Lee VW: The clinical significance of myocardial contusion. J Trauma 1992; 33:68–71discussion 71–63
158. Karalis DG, Victor MF, Davis GA, et al: The role of echocardiography in blunt chest trauma: A transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiographic study. J Trauma 1994; 36:53–58
159. Hiatt JR, Yeatman LA Jr, Child JS: The value of echocardiography in blunt chest trauma. J Trauma 1988; 28:914–922
160. Beggs CW, Helling TS, Evans LL, et al: Early evaluation of cardiac injury by two-dimensional echocardiography in patients suffering blunt chest trauma. Ann Emerg Med 1987; 16:542–545
161. Rozycki GS, Feliciano DV, Schmidt JA, et al: The role of surgeon-performed ultrasound in patients with possible cardiac wounds. Ann Surg 1996; 223:737–744discussion 744–736
162. Ferrada P, Vanguri P, Anand RJ, et al: A, B, C, D, echo: Limited transthoracic echocardiogram is a useful tool to guide therapy for hypotension in the trauma bay–a pilot study. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2013; 74:220–223
163. Clancy K, Velopulos C, Bilaniuk JW, et al; Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma: Screening for blunt cardiac injury: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma practice management guideline. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2012; 73:S301–S306
164. Sisley AC, Rozycki GS, Ballard RB, et al: Rapid detection of traumatic effusion using surgeon-performed ultrasonography. J Trauma 1998; 44:291–296discussion 296–297
165. Meyer DM, Jessen ME, Grayburn PA: Use of echocardiography to detect occult cardiac injury after penetrating thoracic trauma: A prospective study. J Trauma 1995; 39:902–907discussion 907–909
166. Freshman SP, Wisner DH, Weber CJ: 2-D echocardiography: Emergent use in the evaluation of penetrating precordial trauma. J Trauma 1991; 31:902–905discussion 905–906
167. Nagy KK, Lohmann C, Kim DO, et al: Role of echocardiography in the diagnosis of occult penetrating cardiac injury. J Trauma 1995; 38:859–862
168. Plummer D, Brunette D, Asinger R, et al: Emergency department echocardiography improves outcome in penetrating cardiac injury. Ann Emerg Med 1992; 21:709–712
169. Rozycki GS, Ochsner MG, Jaffin JH, et al: Prospective evaluation of surgeons’ use of ultrasound in the evaluation of trauma patients. J Trauma, 1993; 34:516–526discussion 526–517
170. Hüttemann E: Transoesophageal echocardiography in critical care. Minerva Anestesiol 2006; 72:891–913
171. Hüttemann E, Schelenz C, Kara F, et al: The use and safety of transoesophageal echocardiography in the general ICU – a minireview. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2004; 48:827–836
172. Vignon P, Mentec H, Terré S, et al: Diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic impact of transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography in mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU. Chest 1994; 106:1829–1834
173. Meerbaum S. Meerbaum S, Meltzer R. Introduction and general background. Myocardial Contrast Two- Dimensional Echocardiography, 1989, Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2–12
174. Attaran RR, Ata I, Kudithipudi V, et al: Protocol for optimal detection and exclusion of a patent foramen ovale using transthoracic echocardiography with agitated saline microbubbles. Echocardiography 2006; 23:616–622
175. Main ML, Ryan AC, Davis TE, et al: Acute mortality in hospitalized patients undergoing echocardiography with and without an ultrasound contrast agent (multicenter registry results in 4,300,966 consecutive patients). Am J Cardiol 2008; 102:1742–1746
176. Exuzides A, Main ML, Colby C, et al: A retrospective comparison of mortality in critically ill hospitalized patients undergoing echocardiography with and without an ultrasound contrast agent. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2010; 3:578–585
177. Chelliah R, Senior R: An update on contrast echocardiography. Minerva Cardioangiol 2009; 57:483–493
178. Becher H: Contrast echocardiography: Clinical applications and future prospects. Herz 2002; 27:201–216
179. Schneider M: Design of an ultrasound contrast agent for myocardial perfusion. Echocardiography 2000; 17:S11–S16
180. Lenci I, Alvior A, Manzia TM, et al: Saline contrast echocardiography in patients with hepatopulmonary syndrome awaiting liver transplantation. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2009; 22:89–94
181. Krowka MJ, Tajik AJ, Dickson ER, et al: Intrapulmonary vascular dilatations (IPVD) in liver transplant candidates: Screening by two-dimensional contrast-enhanced echocardiography. Chest, 1990; 97:1165–1170
182. Rodríguez-Roisin R, Krowka MJ: Hepatopulmonary syndrome–a liver-induced lung vascular disorder. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:2378–2387
183. Abrams GA, Jaffe CC, Hoffer PB, et al: Diagnostic utility of contrast echocardiography and lung perfusion scan in patients with hepatopulmonary syndrome. Gastroenterology 1995; 109:1283–1288
184. Rollán MJ, Muñoz AC, Pérez T, et al: Value of contrast echocardiography for the diagnosis of hepatopulmonary syndrome. Eur J Echocardiogr 2007; 8:408–410
185. Velthuis S, Buscarini E, Gossage JR, et al: Clinical implications of pulmonary shunting on saline contrast echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2015; 28:255–263
186. Velthuis S, Buscarini E, Mager JJ, et al: Predicting the size of pulmonary arteriovenous malformations on chest computed tomography: A role for transthoracic contrast echocardiography. Eur Respir J 2014; 44:150–159
187. Brugts JJ, Michels M, den Uil CA: A cardiac diagnosis by contrast echocardiography. Heart 2014; 100:657–661
188. Kleinman ME, de Caen AR, Chameides L, et al; Pediatric Basic and Advanced Life Support Chapter Collaborators: Part 10: Pediatric basic and advanced life support: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Circulation 2010; 122:S466–S515
189. Spurney CF, Sable CA, Berger JT, et al: Use of a hand-carried ultrasound device by critical care physicians for the diagnosis of pericardial effusions, decreased cardiac function, and left ventricular enlargement in pediatric patients. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2005; 18:313–319
190. Tsung JW, Blaivas M: Feasibility of correlating the pulse check with focused point-of-care echocardiography during pediatric cardiac arrest: A case series. Resuscitation 2008; 77:264–269
191. Steinhorn DM: Termination of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiac support. Artif Organs 1999; 23:1026–1030
192. Iwamoto Y, Tamai A, Kohno K, et al: Usefulness of respiratory variation of inferior vena cava diameter for estimation of elevated central venous pressure in children with cardiovascular disease. Circ J 2011; 75:1209–1214
193. Sato Y, Kawataki M, Hirakawa A, et al: The diameter of the inferior vena cava provides a noninvasive way of calculating central venous pressure in neonates. Acta Paediatr 2013; 102:e241–e246
194. Ng L, Khine H, Taragin BH, et al: Does bedside sonographic measurement of the inferior vena cava diameter correlate with central venous pressure in the assessment of intravascular volume in children? Pediatr Emerg Care 2013; 29:337–341
195. Amoozgar H, Zare K, Ajami G, et al: Estimation of right atrial pressure from the inspiratory collapse of the inferior vena cava in pediatric patients. Iran J Pediatr 2010; 20:206–210
196. Chen L, Kim Y, Santucci KA: Use of ultrasound measurement of the inferior vena cava diameter as an objective tool in the assessment of children with clinical dehydration. Acad Emerg Med 2007; 14:841–845
197. Chen L, Hsiao A, Langhan M, et al: Use of bedside ultrasound to assess degree of dehydration in children with gastroenteritis. Acad Emerg Med 2010; 17:1042–1047
198. Kosiak W, Swieton D, Piskunowicz M: Sonographic inferior vena cava/aorta diameter index, a new approach to the body fluid status assessment in children and young adults in emergency ultrasound–preliminary study. Am J Emerg Med 2008; 26:320–325
199. Krause I, Birk E, Davidovits M, et al: Inferior vena cava diameter: A useful method for estimation of fluid status in children on haemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001; 16:1203–1206
200. Gan H, Cannesson M, Chandler JR, et al: Predicting fluid responsiveness in children: A systematic review. Anesth Analg 2013; 117:1380–1392
201. Durand P, Chevret L, Essouri S, et al: Respiratory variations in aortic blood flow predict fluid responsiveness in ventilated children. Intensive Care Med 2008; 34:888–894
202. Byon HJ, Lim CW, Lee JH, et al: Prediction of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated children undergoing neurosurgery. Br J Anaesth 2013; 110:586–591
203. Lee A, Liestøl K, Nestaas E, et al: Superior vena cava flow: Feasibility and reliability of the off-line analyses. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2010; 95:F121–F125
204. Holberton JR, Drew SM, Mori R, et al: The diagnostic value of a single measurement of superior vena cava flow in the first 24 h of life in very preterm infants. Eur J Pediatr 2012; 171:1489–1495
205. Groves AM, Kuschel CA, Knight DB, et al: Echocardiographic assessment of blood flow volume in the superior vena cava and descending aorta in the newborn infant. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2008; 93:F24–F28
206. Kluckow M, Evans N: Superior vena cava flow in newborn infants: A novel marker of systemic blood flow. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2000; 82:F182–F187
207. Pershad J, Myers S, Plouman C, et al: Bedside limited echocardiography by the emergency physician is accurate during evaluation of the critically ill patient. Pediatrics 2004; 114:e667–e671
208. Lee HC, Silverman N, Hintz SR: Diagnosis of patent ductus arteriosus by a neonatologist with a compact, portable ultrasound machine. J Perinatol 2007; 27:291–296
209. El-Khuffash AF, McNamara PJ: Neonatologist-performed functional echocardiography in the neonatal intensive care unit. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2011; 16:50–60
210. El-Khuffash A, Herbozo C, Jain A, et al: Targeted neonatal echocardiography (TnECHO) service in a Canadian neonatal intensive care unit: A 4-year experience. J Perinatol 2013; 33:687–690
211. Jain A, Sahni M, El-Khuffash A, et al: Use of targeted neonatal echocardiography to prevent postoperative cardiorespiratory instability after patent ductus arteriosus ligation. J Pediatr 2012; 160:584–589.e1
212. Mertens L, Seri I, Marek J, et al; Writing Group of the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE); European Association of Echocardiography (EAE); Association for European Pediatric Cardiologists (AEPC): Targeted neonatal echocardiography in the neonatal intensive care unit: Practice guidelines and recommendations for training:. Eur J Echocardiogr 2011; 12:715–736
213. Colquhoun SM, Carapetis JR, Kado JH, et al: Pilot study of nurse-led rheumatic heart disease echocardiography screening in Fiji–a novel approach in a resource-poor setting. Cardiol Young 2013; 23:546–552
214. Platts DG, Sedgwick JF, Burstow DJ, et al: The role of echocardiography in the management of patients supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2012; 25:131–141
215. Via G, Hussain A, Wells M, et al; International Liaison Committee on Focused Cardiac UltraSound (ILC-FoCUS); International Conference on Focused Cardiac UltraSound (IC-FoCUS): International evidence-based recommendations for focused cardiac ultrasound. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2014; 27:683.e1–683.e33
216. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood MEQUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155:529–536

echocardiography; evidence-based medicine; Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria; guidelines; RAND Appropriateness Method; sonography; ultrasound

Supplemental Digital Content

Back to Top | Article Outline
Copyright © by 2016 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.