Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 Nov 1;52(11):1661-1673.
doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000006399. Epub 2024 Sep 18.

The Impact of Point-of-Care Ultrasound-Guided Resuscitation on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

John Basmaji  1 , Robert Arntfield  1 , Karishma Desai  1 , Vincent I Lau  2 , Kim Lewis  3   4 , Bram Rochwerg  3   4 , Kyle Fiorini  1 , Kimia Honarmand  5 , Marat Slessarev  1 , Aleks Leligdowicz  1 , Brian Park  1 , Ross Prager  1 , Michelle Y S Wong  1 , Philip M Jones  6 , Ian M Ball  1 , Nicolas Orozco  7   8 , Maureen Meade  4 , Lehana Thabane  4 , Gordon Guyatt  4
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

The Impact of Point-of-Care Ultrasound-Guided Resuscitation on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

John Basmaji et al. Crit Care Med. .

Abstract

Objective: To determine the impact of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS)-guided resuscitation on clinical outcomes in adult patients with shock.

Data source: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and unpublished sources from inception to December 2023.

Study selection: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the use of POCUS to guide resuscitation in patients with shock.

Data extraction: We collected data regarding study and patient characteristics, POCUS protocol, control group interventions, and outcomes.

Data synthesis: We identified 18 eligible RCTs. POCUS slightly influences physicians' plans for IV fluid (IVF) and vasoactive medication prescription (moderate certainty), but results in little to no changes in the administration of IVF (low to high certainty) or inotropes (high certainty). POCUS may result in no change in the number of CT scans performed (low certainty) but probably reduces the number of diagnostic echocardiograms performed (moderate certainty). POCUS-guided resuscitation probably reduces 28-day mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99), the duration of vasoactive medication (mean difference -0.73 d; 95% CI, -1.16 to -0.30), and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.02) (low to moderate certainty evidence), and lactate clearance (high certainty evidence). POCUS-guided resuscitation may results in little to no difference in ICU or hospital admissions, ICU and hospital length of stay, and the need for mechanical ventilation (MV) (low to moderate certainty evidence). There is an uncertain effect on the risk of acute kidney injury and the duration of MV or RRT (very low certainty evidence).

Conclusions: POCUS-guided resuscitation in shock may yield important patient and health system benefits. Due to lack of sufficient evidence, we were unable to explore how the thresholds of operator competency, frequency, and timing of POCUS scans impact patient outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Slessarev’s institution received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) project grant for randomized controlled trial related to ICU sedation; he received support for article research from the CIHR. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Lipcsey M, Castegren M, Bellomo R: Hemodynamic management of septic shock. Minerva Anestesiol 2015; 81:1262–1272
    1. 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
    1. Guyatt GH, Tugwell PX, Feeny DH, et al.: A framework for clinical evaluation of diagnostic technologies. CMAJ 1986; 134:587–594
    1. Schandelmaier S, Briel M, Varadhan R, et al.: Development of the instrument to assess the credibility of effect modification analyses (ICEMAN) in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. CMAJ 2020; 192:E901–E906
    1. Higgins JPT, Savović J, Page MJ, et al.: Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. (Eds). Cochrane, 2023. Available at: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook . Accessed September 6, 2024