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.

Negative predictive value of procalcitonin to rule out bacterial respiratory co-infection in critical covid-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Procalcitonin (PCT) and C-Reactive Protein (CRP) are useful biomarkers to differentiate bacterial from viral or fungal infections, although the association between them and co-infection or mortality in COVID-19 remains unclear. METHODS: The study represents a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted for COVID-19 pneumonia to 84 ICUs from ten countries between (March 2020-January 2021). Primary outcome was to determine whether PCT or CRP at admission could predict community-acquired bacterial respiratory co-infection (BC) and its added clinical value by determining the best discriminating cut-off values. Secondary outcome was to investigate its association with mortality. To evaluate the main outcome, a binary logistic regression was performed. The area under the curve evaluated diagnostic performance for BC prediction. RESULTS: 4635 patients were included, 7.6% fulfilled BC diagnosis. PCT (0.25[IQR 0.1-0.7] versus 0.20[IQR 0.1-0.5]ng/mL, p<0.001) and CRP (14.8[IQR 8.2-23.8] versus 13.3 [7-21.7]mg/dL, p=0.01) were higher in BC group. Neither PCT nor CRP were independently associated with BC and both had a poor ability to predict BC (AUC for PCT 0.56, for CRP 0.54). Baseline values of PCT<0.3ng/mL, could be helpful to rule out BC (negative predictive value 91.1%) and PCT≥0.50ng/mL was associated with ICU mortality (OR 1.5,p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These biomarkers at ICU admission led to a poor ability to predict BC among patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Baseline values of PCT<0.3ng/mL may be useful to rule out BC, providing clinicians a valuable tool to guide antibiotic stewardship and allowing the unjustified overuse of antibiotics observed during the pandemic, additionally PCT≥0.50ng/mL might predict worsening outcomes.

Mortality comparison between the first and second/third waves among 3,795 critical COVID-19 patients with pneumonia admitted to the ICU: A multicentre retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the changes in critical care throughout the pandemic have improved the outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in adults with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to 73 ICUs from Spain, Andorra and Ireland between February 2020 and March 2021. The first wave corresponded with the period from February 2020 to June 2020, whereas the second/third waves occurred from July 2020 to March 2021. The primary outcome was ICU mortality between study periods. Mortality predictors and differences in mortality between COVID-19 waves were identified using logistic regression. FINDINGS: As of March 2021, the participating ICUs had included 3795 COVID-19 pneumonia patients, 2479 (65·3%) and 1316 (34·7%) belonging to the first and second/third waves, respectively. Illness severity scores predicting mortality were lower in the second/third waves compared with the first wave according with the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation system (median APACHE II score 12 [IQR 9-16] vs 14 [IQR 10-19]) and the organ failure assessment score (median SOFA 4 [3-6] vs 5 [3-7], p<0·001). The need of invasive mechanical ventilation was high (76·1%) during the whole study period. However, a significant increase in the use of high flow nasal cannula (48·7% vs 18·2%, p<0·001) was found in the second/third waves compared with the first surge. Significant changes on treatments prescribed were also observed, highlighting the remarkable increase on the use of corticosteroids to up to 95.9% in the second/third waves. A significant reduction on the use of tocilizumab was found during the study (first wave 28·9% vs second/third waves 6·2%, p<0·001), and a negligible administration of lopinavir/ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and interferon during the second/third waves compared with the first wave. Overall ICU mortality was 30·7% (n = 1166), without significant differences between study periods (first wave 31·7% vs second/third waves 28·8%, p = 0·06). No significant differences were found in ICU mortality between waves according to age subsets except for the subgroup of 61-75 years of age, in whom a reduced unadjusted ICU mortality was observed in the second/third waves (first 38·7% vs second/third 34·0%, p = 0·048). Non-survivors were older, with higher severity of the disease, had more comorbidities, and developed more complications. After adjusting for confounding factors through a multivariable analysis, no significant association was found between the COVID-19 waves and mortality (OR 0·81, 95% CI 0·64-1·03; p = 0·09). Ventilator-associated pneumonia rate increased significantly during the second/third waves and it was independently associated with ICU mortality (OR 1·48, 95% CI 1·19-1·85, p<0·001). Nevertheless, a significant reduction both in the ICU and hospital length of stay in survivors was observed during the second/third waves. INTERPRETATION: Despite substantial changes on supportive care and management, we did not find significant improvement on case-fatality rates among critical COVID-19 pneumonia patients. FUNDING: Ricardo Barri Casanovas Foundation (RBCF2020) and SEMICYUC.

How to use echocardiography to manage patients with shock? / ¿Cuál es la utilidad de la ecocardiografía en el 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. (AU)

La ecocardiografía permite al intensivista valorar al paciente con fallo circulatorio agudo. Esta técnica ayuda a identificar, rápidamente y de una manera no invasiva, el tipo y la causa del shock para instaurar una estrategia terapéutica. La realización de exámenes ecocardiográficos precoces y repetidos es una valiosa herramienta para el manejo del shock en la unidad de cuidados intensivos. La mayoría de patologías responsables del shock pueden ser identificadas con un nivel básico de ecocardiografía en 2D y modo M. En la actualidad, las competencias en ecocardiografía básica se consideran mandatorias en la formación de los profesionales de Medicina Intensiva. Los cuatro tipos básicos de shock (cardiogénico, hipovolémico, obstructivo y séptico) pueden ser adecuadamente identificados con la ecocardiografía. Además, la ecografía puede diferenciar las diferentes patologías que pueden ser la causa de cada uno de los tipos de shock. Es importante señalar que, dada la complejidad y la edad avanzada de muchos pacientes críticos, el shock puede ser multifactorial (p.ej.: combinación de shock séptico y cardiogénico), lo que enfatiza el valor añadido de la ecocardiografía transtorácica (ETT) en esta población de pacientes. En esta revisión, queremos proporcionar a los clínicos una estrategia, a pie de cama, del uso de los parámetros obtenidos con la ETT para manejo de los pacientes en shock. En la primera parte de este artículo, se detallan los diferentes parámetros ecocardiográficos y cómo pueden utilizarse para identificar los tipos de shock. En la segunda parte, se expone el uso de estos parámetros para evaluar el efecto de los tratamientos en los diferentes tipos de shock. (AU)