OBJECTIVE: To describe current use and diagnostic and therapeutic impacts of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in the intensive care unit (ICU). BACKGROUND: POCUS is of growing importance in the ICU. Several guidelines recommend its use for procedural guidance and diagnostic assessment. Nevertheless, its current use and clinical impact remain unknown. METHODS: Prospective multicentric study in 142 ICUs in France, Belgium, and Switzerland. All the POCUS procedures performed during a 24-h period were prospectively analyzed. Data regarding patient condition and the POCUS procedures were collected. Factors associated with diagnostic and therapeutic impacts were identified. RESULTS: Among 1954 patients hospitalized during the study period, 1073 (55%) POCUS/day were performed in 709 (36%) patients. POCUS served for diagnostic assessment in 932 (87%) cases and procedural guidance in 141 (13%) cases. Transthoracic echocardiography, lung ultrasound, and transcranial Doppler accounted for 51, 17, and 16% of procedures, respectively. Diagnostic and therapeutic impacts of diagnostic POCUS examinations were 84 and 69%, respectively. Ultrasound guidance was used in 54 and 15% of cases for central venous line and arterial catheter placement, respectively. Hemodynamic instability, emergency conditions, transthoracic echocardiography, and ultrasounds performed by certified intensivists themselves were independent factors affecting diagnostic or therapeutic impacts. CONCLUSIONS: With regard to guidelines, POCUS utilization for procedural guidance remains insufficient. In contrast, POCUS for diagnostic assessment is of extensive use. Its impact on both diagnosis and treatment of ICU patients seems critical. This study identified factors associated with an improved clinical value of POCUS.
OBJECTIVE: To describe current use and diagnostic and therapeutic impacts of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in the intensive care unit (ICU). BACKGROUND: POCUS is of growing importance in the ICU. Several guidelines recommend its use for procedural guidance and diagnostic assessment. Nevertheless, its current use and clinical impact remain unknown. METHODS: Prospective multicentric study in 142 ICUs in France, Belgium, and Switzerland. All the POCUS procedures performed during a 24-h period were prospectively analyzed. Data regarding patient condition and the POCUS procedures were collected. Factors associated with diagnostic and therapeutic impacts were identified. RESULTS: Among 1954 patients hospitalized during the study period, 1073 (55%) POCUS/day were performed in 709 (36%) patients. POCUS served for diagnostic assessment in 932 (87%) cases and procedural guidance in 141 (13%) cases. Transthoracic echocardiography, lung ultrasound, and transcranial Doppler accounted for 51, 17, and 16% of procedures, respectively. Diagnostic and therapeutic impacts of diagnostic POCUS examinations were 84 and 69%, respectively. Ultrasound guidance was used in 54 and 15% of cases for central venous line and arterial catheter placement, respectively. Hemodynamic instability, emergency conditions, transthoracic echocardiography, and ultrasounds performed by certified intensivists themselves were independent factors affecting diagnostic or therapeutic impacts. CONCLUSIONS: With regard to guidelines, POCUS utilization for procedural guidance remains insufficient. In contrast, POCUS for diagnostic assessment is of extensive use. Its impact on both diagnosis and treatment of ICU patients seems critical. This study identified factors associated with an improved clinical value of POCUS.
Authors: Christopher A Troianos; Gregg S Hartman; Kathryn E Glas; Nikolaos J Skubas; Robert T Eberhardt; Jennifer D Walker; Scott T Reeves Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Paul H Mayo; Yannick Beaulieu; Peter Doelken; David Feller-Kopman; Christopher Harrod; Adolfo Kaplan; John Oropello; Antoine Vieillard-Baron; Olivier Axler; Daniel Lichtenstein; Eric Maury; Michel Slama; Philippe Vignon Journal: Chest Date: 2009-02-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: L Zieleskiewicz; A Cornesse; E Hammad; M Haddam; C Brun; C Vigne; B Meyssignac; A Remacle; K Chaumoitre; F Antonini; C Martin; M Leone Journal: Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Eduardo Bossone; Bruno DiGiovine; Sara Watts; Pamela A Marcovitz; Louise Carey; Charles Watts; William F Armstrong Journal: Chest Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Belaïd Bouhemad; Hélène Brisson; Morgan Le-Guen; Charlotte Arbelot; Qin Lu; Jean-Jacques Rouby Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: P Mayo; R Arntfield; M Balik; P Kory; G Mathis; G Schmidt; M Slama; G Volpicelli; N Xirouchaki; A McLean; A Vieillard-Baron Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-03-07 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Igor Barjaktarevic; William E Toppen; Scott Hu; Elizabeth Aquije Montoya; Stephanie Ong; Russell Buhr; Ian J David; Tisha Wang; Talayeh Rezayat; Steven Y Chang; David Elashoff; Daniela Markovic; David Berlin; Maxime Cannesson Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 7.598