Updates on the clinical integration of point-of-care ultrasound in pediatric emergency medicine.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There is expanding evidence for point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) use in pediatric emergency medicine - this review highlights the benefits and challenges in the clinical integration of high-yield POCUS applications. Specifically, it will delve into POCUS applications during resuscitations, controversies of Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) in pediatric trauma, POCUS-guided procedures, and examples of clinical pathways where POCUS can expedite definitive care. RECENT FINDINGS: POCUS can enhance diagnostic accuracy and aid in management of pediatric patients in shock and help identify reversible causes during cardiac arrest. The use of the FAST in pediatric blunt abdominal trauma remains nuanced - its proper use requires an integration with clinical findings and an appreciation of its limitations. POCUS has been shown to enhance safety and efficacy of procedures such as nerve blocks, incision & drainage, and intravenous access. Integrating POCUS into pathways for conditions such as intussusception and testicular torsion expedites downstream care. SUMMARY: POCUS enhances diagnostic efficiency and management in pediatric patients arriving at the ED with undifferentiated shock, cardiac arrest, or trauma. Additionally, POCUS improves procedural success and safety, and is integral to clinical pathways for expediting definitive care for various pediatric emergencies. Future research should continue to focus on the impact of POCUS on patient outcomes, ensuring user competency, and the expansion of POCUS into diverse settings.

The use of whole body computed tomography does not lead to increased 24-h mortality in severely injured patients in circulatory shock.

The Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) approach is generally accepted as the standard of care for the initial management of severely injured patients. While whole body computed tomography (WBCT) is still considered a contraindication in haemodynamically unstable trauma patients, there is a growing amount of data indicating the absence of harm from cross sectional imaging in this patient group. Our study aimed to compare the early mortality of unstable trauma patients undergoing a WBCT during the initial workup with those who did not. Single-center retrospective observational study based on the local trauma registry including 3525 patients with an ISS > 15 from January 2008 to June 2020. We compared the 24-h mortality of injured patients in circulatory shock undergoing WBCT with a control group undergoing standard workup only. Inclusion criteria were the simultaneous presence of a systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg, lactate > 2.2 mmol/l and base excess < - 2 mmol/l as surrogate markers for circulatory shock. To control for confounding, a propensity score matched analysis with conditional logistic regression for adjustment of residual confounders and a sensitivity analysis using inverse probability weighting (IPW) with and without adjustment were performed. Of the 3525 patients, 161 (4.6%) fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Of these, 132 (82%) underwent WBCT and 29 (18%) standard work-up only. In crude and matched analyses, no difference in early (24 h) mortality was observed (WBCT, 23 (17.4%) and no-WBCT, 8 (27.6%); p = 0.21). After matching and adjustment for main confounders, the odds ratio for the event of death at 24 h in the WBCT group was 0.36 (95% CI 0.07-1.73); p = 0.20. In the present study, WBCT did not increase the risk of death at 24 h among injured patients in shock. This adds to the growing data indicating that WBCT may be offered to trauma patients in circulatory shock without jeopardizing early survival.

How to use echocardiography to manage patients with shock?

Echocardiography enables the intensivist to assess the patient with circulatory failure. It allows the clinician to identify rapidly the type and the cause of shock in order to develop an effective management strategy. Important characteristics in the setting of shock are that it is non-invasive and can be rapidly applied. Early and repeated echocardiography is a valuable tool for the management of shock in the intensive care unit. Competency in basic critical care echocardiography is now regarded as a mandatory part of critical care training with clear guidelines available. The majority of pathologies found in shocked patients are readily identified using basic level 2D and M-mode echocardiography. The four core types of shock (cardiogenic, hypovolemic, obstructive, and septic) can readily be identified by echocardiography. Echocardiography can differentiate the different pathologies that may be the cause of each type of shock. More importantly, as a result of more complex and elderly patients, the shock may be multifactorial, such as a combination of cardiogenic and septic shock, which emphasises on the added value of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in such population of patients. In this review we aimed to provide to clinicians a bedside strategy of the use of TTE parameters to manage patients with shock. In the first part of this overview, we detailed the different TTE parameters and how to use them to identify the type of shock. And in the second part, we focused on the use of these parameters to evaluate the effect of treatments, in different types of shock.

Evaluation of parameters used in echocardiography and ultrasound protocol for the diagnosis of shock etiology in emergency setting.

BACKGROUND: Early recognition and appropriate treatment has shown to decrease morbidity and mortality in patients with undifferentiated shock. There are many ultrasound protocols in shock; each protocol combines core ultrasound elements such as IVC and cardiac assessment which includes detection of cardiac tamponade, left ventricular function and right ventricular strain.Valvular assessment is absent in majority of ultasound protocols, while lung ultrasound is included in some of them. OBJECTIVE: In this study we investigated which parameters used in Echo - US protocol help differentiate shock types. METHODS: This cross sectional study was conducted on 150 patients with shock (140 patients were included while, 10 patients were excluded).Sensitivity and specificity of different parameters used in the Echo-US protocol were analyzed to detect which parameters can diffentiate shock types. RESULTS: Velocity time integral of Aorta and IVC maximum diameter were good discriminators for distributive shock, with area under the ROC curve (AUC) = 0.8885 (95% CI 0.8144 to 0.9406) and 0.7728 (95% CI 0.6832 to 0.8473) (Z = 10.256 p < 0.0001) and (Z = 5.079 p < 0.0001) respectively. Left ventricular systolic function, presence of pneumonia, pneumothorax or valve vegetations were of great value in differentiating shock types, while CUST, FAST, TAPSE and RV diameter were not useful in differentiating shock types. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound and echocardiography are powerful tools that can be used to identify shock etiology when the clinical picture overlaps.

Critical Care Echocardiography-A Driven Approach to Undifferentiated Shock.

The clinical approach to undifferentiated shock in critically ill patients should be revised to use modern, point-of-care tools that are readily available. With the increasing availability of 2-dimensional ultrasonography and advanced Doppler capabilities, a quick, simplified, and integrated stepwise approach to shock using critical care echocardiography is proposed. Evidence supports the feasibility and usefulness of critical care echo-cardiography in enhancing diagnostic accuracy for shock, but there is a lack of systematic application of the technology in patients with undifferentiated shock. The proposed approach begins with the use of noninvasive ultrasonography with pulsed-wave Doppler capability to determine the flow state by measuring the velocity time integral of the left ventricular outflow tract. This narrative review explores the use left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral, velocity time integral variation, limited visceral organ Doppler, and lung ultrasonography as a systematic approach for patients with undifferentiated shock.

Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound for shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Circulatory failure is classified into four types of shock (obstructive, cardiogenic, distributive, and hypovolemic) that must be distinguished as each requires a different treatment. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is widely used in clinical practice for acute conditions, and several diagnostic protocols using POCUS for shock have been developed. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS in identifying the etiology of shock. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, Clinicaltrial.gov, European Union Clinical Trials Register, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR) until June 15, 2022. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Meta-analysis was conducted to pool the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS for each type of shock. The study protocol was prospectively registered in UMIN-CTR (UMIN 000048025). RESULTS: Of the 1553 studies identified, 36 studies were full-text reviewed, and 12 studies with 1132 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-0.91] and 0.98 [95% CI 0.92-0.99] for obstructive shock, 0.78 [95% CI 0.56-0.91] and 0.96 [95% CI 0.92-0.98] for cardiogenic shock, 0.90 [95% CI 0.84-0.94] and 0.92 [95% CI 0.88-0.95] for hypovolemic shock, and 0.79 [95% CI 0.71-0.85] and 0.96 [95% CI 0.91-0.98] for distributive shock, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for each type of shock was approximately 0.95. The positive likelihood ratios for each type of shock were all greater than 10, especially 40 [95% CI 11-105] for obstructive shock. The negative likelihood ratio for each type of shock was approximately 0.2. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of the etiology for each type of shock using POCUS was characterized by high sensitivity and positive likelihood ratios, especially for obstructive shock.

Echocardiography in shock.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this study was to illustrate the varying roles of echocardiography in all phases of shock ranging from a rapid, diagnostic tool at the bedside, to a tool for monitoring the adequacy and effects of shock treatment and finally for identification of patients suitable for de-escalation of therapy. RECENT FINDINGS: Echocardiography has become an indispensable tool for establishing diagnosis in patients with shock. It is also important for assessing the adequacy of treatment such as fluid resuscitation, vasopressors and inotropes by providing integrated information on cardiac contractility and systemic flow conditions, particularly when used in conjunction with other methods of advanced haemodynamic monitoring. Apart from a traditional, diagnostic role, it may be used as an advanced, albeit intermittent, monitoring tool. Examples include the assessment of heart-lung interactions in mechanically ventilated patients, fluid responsiveness, vasopressor adequacy, preload dependence in ventilator-induced pulmonary oedema and indications for and monitoring during extracorporeal life support. Emerging studies also illustrate the role of echocardiography in de-escalation of shock treatment. SUMMARY: This study provides the reader with a structured review on the uses of echocardiography in all phases of shock treatment.

Perioperative Point of Care Ultrasound for Hemodynamic Assessment: A Narrative Review.

While transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) has traditionally been used in perioperative care, there is growing evidence supporting point of care ultrasound (POCUS) for the anesthesiologist in guiding patient care. It is a quick way to non-invasively evaluate hemodynamically unstable patients and ascertain their state of shock, determine volume status, and guide resuscitation in cardiac arrest. In addition, through use of POCUS, the anesthesiologist is able to identify signs of chronic heart disease to provide a more tailored and safer approach to perioperative care.

Multiorgan evaluation of perfusion and congestion using ultrasound in patients with shock.

There is increasing evidence on the role of ultrasound in the evaluation of multiorgan hypoperfusion and congestion in patients with cardiocirculatory shock both to identify the underlying pathophysiological mechanism and to drive and monitor the treatment. The cardiac and lung ultrasound is included as an integrated multiparametric approach to the very early phase of patients with haemodynamic instability/cardiogenic shock. Splanchnic ultrasound has been mainly applied in heart failure and predominant circulatory failure. Although poorly validated in the critically ill, many ultrasound parameters have a strong physiological background to support their use in the acute setting those that apply either for heart/lung and for splanchnic organ evaluation. This review summarizes the ultrasonographic parameters that have shown evidence in literature in the diagnostic/therapeutic pathway to define the congestion/perfusion profile of the organs that are involved in the pathophysiological cascade of cardiocirculatory shock.

CT signs of hypovolemic shock complex in patients with non-traumatic shock.

PURPOSE: To assess the frequency of hypovolemic shock complex (HSC) signs on CT in patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) with undifferentiated non-traumatic shock. Secondary aim was to assess the correlation between HSC signs and all-cause mortality. METHODS: This retrospective, single-center study included 100 patients who underwent contrast-enhanced thoraco-abdominal CT in the ED to evaluate the etiology for non-traumatic undifferentiated shock. All patients were retrospectively assigned a shock subtype (i.e., distributive, cardiogenic, hypovolemic, obstructive, multifactorial, and unknown) based on medical records. Patients' demographics and time to all-cause mortality up to 90 days were collected. All CT studies were re-assessed for the presence of HSC signs. Correlation between HSC signs, mortality and shock subtype was assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 58% (58/100) of all patients had at least one HSC sign. Flattened inferior vena cava and adrenal hyper-enhancement were the most common HSC signs (27.3%, 27/99; in both). Overall mortality was 59% (59/100). When evaluated separately, shock liver was the only HSC sign to significantly correlate with increased mortality (84.6% vs. 55.2%, p = .04). However, patients with at least two HSC signs had a significantly higher mortality rate compared to patients without any HSC signs (73.5% vs. 45.2%, p = .017). CONCLUSION: Most patients with non-traumatic shock had at least one HSC sign. Mortality rates were significantly higher in patients with two or more HSC signs compared to patients without any signs. Patients with shock liver sign had significantly higher mortality rates.

Does point-of-care ultrasonography improve diagnostic accuracy in emergency department patients with undifferentiated hypotension? An international randomized controlled trial from the SHOC-ED investigators.

PURPOSE: Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) is an established tool in the management of hypotensive patients in the emergency department (ED). We compared the diagnostic accuracy of a POCUS protocol versus standard assessment without POCUS in patients with undifferentiated hypotension. METHODS: This was an international, multicenter randomized controlled trial included three EDs in North America and three in South Africa from September 2012 to December 2016. Hypotensive patients were randomized to early POCUS protocol plus standard care (POCUS group) or standard care without POCUS (control group). Initial and secondary diagnoses were recorded at 0 and 60 min. The main outcome was measures of diagnostic accuracy of a POCUS protocol in differentiating between cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic shock. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic performance for shock sub-types, as well as changes in perceived category of shock and overall diagnosis. RESULTS: Follow-up was completed for 270 of 273 patients. For cardiogenic shock, the POCUS-based diagnostic approach (POCUS) performed similarly to the non-POCUS approach (control) for specificity [95.5% (89.9-98.5) vs.93.8% (87.7-97.5)]; positive likelihood ratio (17.92 vs 14.80); negative likelihood ratio (0.21 vs 0.09) and diagnostic odds ratio (85.6 vs 166.57), with a similar overall diagnostic accuracy between the two approaches [93.7% (88-97.2) vs 93.6% (87.8-97.2)]. Diagnostic performance measures were similar across sub-categories of shock. CONCLUSION: This is the first randomized controlled trial to compare diagnostic performance of a POCUS protocol to standard care without POCUS in undifferentiated hypotensive ED patients. POCUS performed well diagnostically in undifferentiated hypotensive patients, especially as a rule-in test; however, performance did not differ meaningfully from standard assessment.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'échographie au point d'intervention (POCUS) est un outil bien établi dans la gestion des patients hypotendus dans le service des urgences. Nous avons comparé la précision diagnostique d'un protocole POCUS par rapport à une évaluation standard sans POCUS chez des patients présentant une hypotension indifférenciée. MéTHODES: Il s'agissait d'un essai contrôlé randomisé international multicentrique incluant 3 services d'urgence en Amérique du Nord et 3 en Afrique du Sud de septembre 2012 à décembre 2016. Les patients hypotenseurs ont été répartis par randomisation selon le protocole POCUS précoce plus les soins standard (groupe POCUS) ou les soins standard sans POCUS (groupe témoin). Les diagnostics initiaux et secondaires ont été enregistrés à 0 et 60 minutes. Le principal résultat était la mesure de la précision diagnostique d'un protocole POCUS pour différencier le choc cardiogénique du choc non cardiogénique. Les résultats secondaires étaient la performance diagnostique pour les sous-types de chocs, ainsi que les changements dans la perception de la catégorie de choc et du diagnostic global. RéSULTATS: Le suivi a été complété pour 270 des 273 patients. Pour le choc cardiogénique, l'approche diagnostique basée sur le POCUS (POCUS) a donné des résultats similaires à l'approche non-POCUS (Contrôle) pour la spécificité (95,5 % (89,9­98,5) vs 93,8 % (87,7­97,5)) ; Rapport de vraisemblance positif (17,92 vs 14,80) ; Le rapport de vraisemblance négatif (0,21 vs 0,09) et le rapport de cotes diagnostiques (85,6 vs 166,57), avec une précision diagnostique globale similaire entre les deux approches (93,7 % (88­97,2) vs 93,6 % (87,8­97,2). Les mesures de performance diagnostique étaient similaires dans toutes les sous-catégories de choc. CONCLUSION: Il s'agit du premier essai contrôlé randomisé visant à comparer la performance diagnostique d'un protocole POCUS aux soins standard sans POCUS chez des patients hypotendus indifférenciés aux urgences. La POCUS a donné de bons résultats diagnostiques chez les patients hypotendus indifférenciés, surtout en tant que test de référence ; cependant, les performances ne diffèrent pas de manière significative de l'évaluation standard.

POCUS in dyspnea, nontraumatic hypotension, and shock; a systematic review of existing evidence.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has been adopted as a powerful tool in acute medicine. This systematic review aims to critically appraise the existing literature on point-of-care ultrasound in respiratory or circulatory deterioration. METHODS: Original studies on POCUS and dyspnea, nontraumatic hypotension, and shock from March 2002 until March 2022 were assessed in the PubMed and Embase Databases. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies using an established checklist. RESULTS: We included 89 articles in this review. Point-of-care ultrasound in the initial workup increases the diagnostic accuracy in patients with dyspnea, nontraumatic hypotension and shock in the ED, ICU and medical ward setting. No improvement is found in patients with severe sepsis in the ICU setting. POCUS is capable of narrowing the differential diagnoses and is faster, and more feasible in the acute setting than other diagnostics available. Results on outcome measures are heterogenous. The quality of the included studies is considered low most of the times, mainly because of performance and selection bias and absence of a gold standard as the reference test. CONCLUSION: We conclude that POCUS contributes to a higher diagnostic accuracy in dyspnea, nontraumatic hypotension, and shock. It aides in narrowing the differential diagnoses and shortening the time to correct diagnosis and effective treatment. TRIAL REGISTRY: INPLASY; Registration number: INPLASY202220020; URL: https://inplasy.com/.

Accuracy of echocardiography and ultrasound protocol to identify shock etiology in emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis and appropriate management of shock aimed at prevention of prolonged hypoperfusion has shown to decrease morbidity and mortality in patients with undifferentiated shock. However, there is often a challenge in emergency department (ED) - where diagnosis is mainly based on clinical signs and standard monitoring parameters. Early use of point of care ultrasound could reduce the diagnostic time and improve diagnostic accuracy. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to investigate the accuracy of echocardiography - ultrasound protocol to identify the cause of shock in ED. METHOD: The study was conducted on 150 shocked patients admitted to emergency department of Alexandria Main University Hospital from December 2018 to December 2020. The study was conducted to reach initial impression about shock etiology which was then compared to final diagnosis to determine accuracy, agreement, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: One hundred forty patients were included in the study (10 patients were excluded). The protocol was 100% accurate for diagnosing cases with obstructive and mixed obstructive distributive shock. It showed excellent rule- out characteristics for cardiogenic shock (sensitivity and NPV = 100%). There was almost perfect agreement between provisional and final shock type for mixed distributive cardiogenic shock (kappa 0.915). Echo- US protocol had lowest agreement and PPV for patients with hypovolemic shock Kappa 0.48 and 35% respectively. CONCLUSION: The Echo- US protocol showed a high accuracy in identifying shock etiology in ED and is likely a promising diagnostic tool in emergency care.

Echocardiography in a critical care unit: a contemporary review.

INTRODUCTION: Echocardiography is a rapid, noninvasive, and complete cardiac assessment tool for patients with hemodynamic instability. Relevant articles were extracted after searching on databases by two reviewers and incorporated in this review in anarrative style. AREAS COVERED: his review provides an overview of the evidence for current practices in critical care units (CCUs), incorporating the use of echocardiography in different etiologies of shock. EXPERT OPINION: In an acute scenario, a basic echocardiographic study yields prompt diagnosis, allowing for the initiation of treatment. The most common pathologies in shocked patients are identified promptly using two-dimensional (2D) and M-mode echocardiography. A more comprehensive assessment can follow after patients have been stabilized. There are four types of shock: (i) cardiogenic shock, (ii) hypovolemic shock, (iii) obstructive shock, and (iv) septic shock. All of them can be readily identified by echocardiography. As echocardiography is increasingly being used in an intensive care setting, its applications and evidence base should be expanded by randomized controlled trials to demonstrate patient outcomes in critical care.

Focused Cardiac Ultrasound Findings in Children Presenting With Shock to a Tertiary Care Hospital in Rwanda.

OBJECTIVES: Shock remains a leading proximate cause of death in children. Children in sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries present with shock from a wide range of pathologies. Routine physiologic parameters may not reflect underlying physiology. No previous work has systematically described ultrasound findings in children with shock in an SSA country. We set out to perform focused cardiac ultrasound (FOCUS) on children with shock in Rwanda and describe the findings in this pilot study. METHODS: In a prospective descriptive study, we trained pediatric residents to perform FOCUS on children presenting with shock to an urban tertiary care pediatric emergency department in Kigali, Rwanda. Images were transmitted via cellphone network and reviewed by experts. Primary outcome was expert's description of the FOCUS findings. Secondary outcomes included mortality at 48-hour, change in assessment and treatment after FOCUS, and agreement of FOCUS findings between residents and experts. RESULTS: Between January 2020 and April 2020, 25 subjects were enrolled by 8 residents. Eleven of 25 (44%) were newly diagnosed with acquired or congenital heart disease. The 48-hour mortality rate was higher in this group compared with those without heart disease (8 of 11 vs 1 of 14). The resident reported changing assessment and treatment based on FOCUS findings in 60% of patients (15 of 25). There was good to excellent agreements between residents and FOCUS experts on left ventricle function, pericardial effusion, and intravascular volume. CONCLUSIONS: In children presenting with signs and symptoms of shock in SSA, one could perform a screening FOCUS to distinguish between hypovolemic and cardiogenic shock.

Left ventricular longitudinal strain variations assessed by speckle-tracking echocardiography after a passive leg raising maneuver in patients with acute circulatory failure to predict fluid responsiveness: A prospective, observational study.

BACKGROUND: An association was reported between the left ventricular longitudinal strain (LV-LS) and preload. LV-LS reflects the left cardiac function curve as it is the ratio of shortening over diastolic dimension. The aim of this study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of LV-LS variations after a passive leg raising (PLR) maneuver to predict fluid responsiveness in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with acute circulatory failure (ACF). METHODS: Patients with ACF were prospectively included. Preload-dependency was defined as a velocity time integral (VTI) variation greater than 10% between baseline (T0) and PLR (T1), distinguishing the preload-dependent (PLD+) group and the preload-independent (PLD-) group. A 7-cycles, 4-chamber echocardiography loop was registered at T0 and T1, and strain analysis was performed off-line by a blind clinician. A general linear model for repeated measures was used to compare the LV-LS variation (T0 to T1) between the two groups. RESULTS: From June 2018 to August 2019, 60 patients (PLD+ = 33, PLD- = 27) were consecutively enrolled. The VTI variations after PLR were +21% (±8) in the PLD+ group and -1% (±7) in the PLD- group (p<0.01). Mean baseline LV-LS was -11.3% (±4.2) in the PLD+ group and -13.0% (±4.2) in the PLD- group (p = 0.12). LV-LS increased in the whole population after PLR +16.0% (±4.0) (p = 0.04). The LV-LS variations after PLR were +19.0% (±31) (p = 0.05) in the PLD+ group and +11.0% (±38) (p = 0.25) in the PLD- group, with no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.08). The area under the curve for the LV-LS variations between T0 and T1 was 0.63 [0.48-0.77]. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms that LV-LS is load-dependent; however, the variations in LV-LS after PLR is not a discriminating criterion to predict fluid responsiveness of ICU patients with ACF in this cohort.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A systematic review of 133 Children that presented with Kawasaki-like multisystem inflammatory syndrome.

Kawasaki-like disease (KLD) and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) are considered as challenges for pediatric patients under the age of 18 infected with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A systematic search was performed on July 2, 2020, and updated on December 1, 2020, to identify studies on KLD/MIS-C associated with COVID-19. The databases of Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scholar were searched. The hospitalized children with a presentation of Kawasaki disease (KD), KLD, MIS-C, or inflammatory shock syndromes were included. A total number of 133 children in 45 studies were reviewed. A total of 74 (55.6%) cases had been admitted to pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). Also, 49 (36.8%) patients had required respiratory support, of whom 31 (23.3%) cases had required mechanical ventilation/intubation, 18 (13.5%) cases had required other oxygen therapies. In total, 79 (59.4%) cases had been discharged from hospitals, 3 (2.2%) had been readmitted, 9 (6.7%) had been hospitalized at the time of the study, and 9 (6.7%) patients had expired due to the severe heart failure, shock, brain infarction. Similar outcomes had not been reported in other patients. Approximately two-thirds of the children with KLD associated with COVID-19 had been admitted to PICUs, around one-fourth of them had required mechanical ventilation/intubation, and even some of them had been required readmissions. Therefore, physicians are strongly recommended to monitor children that present with the characteristics of KD during the pandemic as they can be the dominant manifestations in children with COVID-19.

Fifteen-minute consultation: Point of care ultrasound in the management of paediatric shock.

The use of point of care ultrasound (POCUS) in the assessment of the acutely shocked adult patient has been well established for over a decade. Comparatively, its use in paediatrics has been limited, but this is starting to change with the recent introduction of Children's Acute Ultrasound training. This article highlights the pathophysiology of shock in children and demonstrates how bedside ultrasound can be used to assist decision making in the clinical assessment of the neonate, infant or older child presenting with undifferentiated shock. We discuss a structured protocol to use when performing the POCUS examination and explain how this could lead to a more rapid correlation of the ultrasound findings with the underlying cause of shock.