FUSIC HD. Comprehensive haemodynamic assessment with ultrasound.

FUSIC haemodynamics (HD) - the latest Focused Ultrasound in Intensive Care (FUSIC) module created by the Intensive Care Society (ICS) - describes a complete haemodynamic assessment with ultrasound based on ten key clinical questions: 1. Is stroke volume abnormal? 2. Is stroke volume responsive to fluid, vasopressors or inotropes? 3. Is the aorta abnormal? 4. Is the aortic valve, mitral valve or tricuspid valve severely abnormal? 5. Is there systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve? 6. Is there a regional wall motion abnormality? 7. Are there features of raised left atrial pressure? 8. Are there features of right ventricular impairment or raised pulmonary artery pressure? 9. Are there features of tamponade? 10. Is there venous congestion? FUSIC HD is the first system of its kind to interrogate major cardiac, arterial and venous structures to direct time-critical interventions in acutely unwell patients. This article explains the rationale for this accreditation, outlines the training pathway and summarises the ten clinical questions. Further details are included in an online supplementary appendix.

The PRICES statement: an ESICM expert consensus on methodology for conducting and reporting critical care echocardiography research studies.

PURPOSE: Echocardiography is a common tool for cardiac and hemodynamic assessments in critical care research. However, interpretation (and applications) of results and between-study comparisons are often difficult due to the lack of certain important details in the studies. PRICES (Preferred Reporting Items for Critical care Echocardiography Studies) is a project endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and conducted by the Echocardiography Working Group, aiming at producing recommendations for standardized reporting of critical care echocardiography (CCE) research studies. METHODS: The PRICE panel identified lists of clinical and echocardiographic parameters (the "items") deemed important in four main areas of CCE research: left ventricular systolic and diastolic functions, right ventricular function and fluid management. Each item was graded using a critical index (CI) that combined the relative importance of each item and the fraction of studies that did not report it, also taking experts' opinion into account. RESULTS: A list of items in each area that deemed essential for the proper interpretation and application of research results is recommended. Additional items which aid interpretation were also proposed. CONCLUSION: The PRICES recommendations reported in this document, as a checklist, represent an international consensus of experts as to which parameters and information should be included in the design of echocardiography research studies. PRICES recommendations provide guidance to scientists in the field of CCE with the objective of providing a recommended framework for reporting of CCE methodology and results.

Pharmacodynamic Analysis of a Fluid Challenge.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the pharmacodynamics of a fluid challenge over a 10-minute period in postoperative patients. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: General and cardiothoracic ICU, tertiary hospital. PATIENTS: Twenty-six postoperative patients. INTERVENTION: Two hundred and fifty-milliliter fluid challenge performed over 5 minutes. Data were recorded over 10 minutes after the end of fluid infusion MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Cardiac output was measured with a calibrated LiDCOplus (LiDCO, Cambridge, United Kingdom) and Navigator (Applied Physiology, Sydney, Australia) to obtain the Pmsf analogue (Pmsa). Pharmacodynamics outcomes were modeled using a Bayesian inferential approach and Markov chain Monte Carlo estimation methods. Parameter estimates were summarized as the means of their posterior distributions, and their uncertainty was assessed by the 95% credible intervals. Bayesian probabilities for groups' effect were also derived. The predicted maximal effect on cardiac output was observed at 1.2 minutes (95% credible interval, -0.6 to 2.8 min) in responders. The probability that the estimated area under the curve of central venous pressure was smaller in nonresponders was 0.12. (estimated difference, -4.91 mm Hg·min [95% credible interval, -13.45 to 3.3 mm Hg min]). After 10 minutes, there is no evidence of a difference between groups for any hemodynamic variable. CONCLUSIONS: The maximal change in cardiac output should be assessed 1 minute after the end of the fluid infusion. The global effect of the fluid challenge on central venous pressure is greater in nonresponders, but not the change observed 10 minutes after the fluid infusion. The effect of a fluid challenge on hemodynamics is dissipated in 10 minutes similarly in both groups.