Applications of critical ultrasonography in hemodynamic therapy

0
0
0

Applications of critical ultrasonography in hemodynamic therapy
Imagine a tool that lets doctors “see” how blood flows through the body in real time—helping them fix life-threatening issues faster than ever before. That tool is critical ultrasonography (CUS), a game-changer in intensive care medicine that’s transforming how we manage hemodynamic (blood flow) therapy. This article is based on research by Wei Huang, Da-Wei Liu, Xiao-Ting Wang, and the Chinese Critical Ultrasound Study Group (CCUSG) from the Department of Critical Care Medicine at Peking Union Medical College Hospital, part of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences.

CUS Turns Blood Flow Theory Into Visible Data

Hemodynamics is the science of how blood moves through the heart and vessels—and CUS makes abstract rules tangible. For example, the inferior vena cava (a large vein carrying blood to the heart) acts as a “fluid gauge”: its size and how it collapses during breathing reveal whether a patient has too much or too little fluid. This aligns with central venous pressure, a key measure of heart function, as shown in a 2009 study in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (Stawicki et al.).

CUS also maps the heart’s position on the Starling curve—a principle stating the heart pumps more when filled with more blood. By measuring how blood flow (velocity-time integral) increases after fluid infusion, doctors can tell if the heart will respond to more fluid or is already overloaded. And when the heart’s filling volume (end-diastolic volume) changes, CUS tracks the E/A ratio (a marker of diastolic function)—letting doctors “watch” how the heart relaxes in real time.

CUS Expands Our Understanding of Blood Flow Limits

Before CUS, doctors relied on the Starling curve—but it only works if the right ventricle (heart’s pumping chamber) is healthy. If the right heart fails, the left heart can’t receive enough blood to pump, rendering the curve useless. CUS lets doctors check right heart function first, so they avoid treatments that won’t help.

It also redefines “volume responsiveness”—whether a patient benefits from more fluids. Instead of just measuring fluid levels, CUS evaluates the whole picture: right and left heart function, biventricular (both chambers) dysfunction, and blood vessel tension. This helps doctors choose the right test for each patient—because what works for one might harm another.

CUS Makes Hemodynamic Therapy Faster and Smarter

CUS is a lifeline for high-risk patients. For example, people with chronic heart disease or diastolic dysfunction (poor relaxation) are prone to fluid overload. CUS spots these issues early, giving doctors an “early warning” to prevent complications.

It’s critical for cardiomyopathy (heart muscle disease). Dynamic left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO)—a blockage in the heart’s main pumping chamber—is common in ICUs, but inotropic drugs (which strengthen heartbeats) can worsen it. CUS is mandatory for diagnosing LVOTO in shock patients. For septic cardiomyopathy (heart failure from infection), CUS classifies four types (e.g., isolated left heart relaxation failure or biventricular dysfunction)—so doctors tailor treatment. And for Takotsubo (stress) cardiomyopathy (temporary heart failure from stress), CUS shows which heart parts are damaged, helping prevent complications.

For shock patients, CUS cuts misdiagnosis rates from 50% to 5% when used immediately—far better than delayed testing (Jones et al., 2004). It’s also key for ARDS, a severe lung condition highlighted during COVID-19. Lung ultrasound matches CT scans for spotting fluid buildup and collapsed tissue—and it’s portable, so doctors use it at the bedside. It even tells doctors if treatments like prone positioning (lying on the stomach) work by showing changes in lung aeration.

CUS optimizes organ blood flow. For kidneys, it checks blood flow via the renal resistive index (a measure of vessel resistance)—ensuring kidneys get enough oxygen (Lahmer et al., 2016). For the brain, measuring the optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) with CUS hints at high intracranial pressure—a silent threat—and a 2015 meta-analysis in the Journal of Ultrasound Medicine found ONSD works nearly as well as CT scans (Ohle et al.). In the abdomen, CUS tracks gut blood flow (via the superior mesenteric artery) to maintain digestion.

CUS Guides ECMO (Life Support for Heart and Lungs)

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)—a machine that takes over for failing hearts and lungs—relies on CUS at every step. Before ECMO, CUS checks if a patient is eligible and picks the right mode. During ECMO, daily CUS monitors heart recovery, tube placement, and blood clots. When weaning off ECMO, CUS shows if the heart is strong enough. After ECMO, it spots post-decannulation clots or obstructions. A CUS-trained doctor is essential for ECMO teams.

TEECC: Clearer Images for Tricky Cases

Surface ultrasound (transthoracic echocardiography, TTE) fails in obese patients or those with bandages. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEECC)—a tiny probe down the throat—provides clearer images. A 1994 study in the American Heart Journal found TEECC alone changed treatment plans for 48% of critically ill patients (Khoury et al.). New mini-probes stay in the esophagus for hours without side effects—opening doors to long-term monitoring (Begot et al., 2015).

Limitations to Consider

CUS has gaps: it depends on operator skill—poor technique leads to wrong data. And while it shows macro-circulation (large vessels), more research is needed on microcirculation (tiny vessels). Standardizing CUS training and techniques will make it more reliable for critical care.

The Bottom Line

CUS bridges structure (heart anatomy) and function (blood flow), combining qualitative (visual) and quantitative (measurable) data to make treatments purposeful. The researchers call this “echodynamics”—a standard CUS protocol for hemodynamics that could revolutionize critical care.

For ICU patients, CUS means faster diagnoses, smarter treatments, and better outcomes. As technology improves, it will keep saving lives—one real-time image at a time.

References (original research):

  1. Stawicki SP, Braslow BM, Panebianco NL, Kirkpatrick JN, Gracias VH, Hayden GE, et al. Intensivist use of hand-carried ultrasonography to measure IVC collapsibility in estimating intravascular volume status: correlations with CVP. J Am Coll Surg 2009;209:55–61. doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.02.062
  2. Zengin S, Al B, Genc S, Yildirim C, Ercan S, Dogan M, et al. Role of inferior vena cava and right ventricular diameter in assessment of volume status: a comparative study: ultrasound and hypovolemia. Am J Emerg Med 2013;31:763–767. doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2012.10.013
  3. Dipti A, Soucy Z, Surana A, Chandra S. Role of inferior vena cava diameter in assessment of volume status: a meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med 2012;30:1414–1419.e1. doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2011.10.017
  4. Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Crit Care Med 2017;45:486–552. doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000002255
  5. Jones AE, Tayal VS, Sullivan DM, Kline JA. Randomized, controlled trial of immediate versus delayed goal-directed ultrasound to identify the cause of nontraumatic hypotension in emergency department patients. Crit Care Med 2004;32:1703–1708. doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000133017.34137.82
  6. Lahmer T, Rasch S, Schnappauf C, Schmid RM, Huber W. Influence of volume administration on Doppler-based renal resistive index, renal hemodynamics and renal function in medical intensive care unit patients with septic-induced acute kidney injury: a pilot study. Int Urol Nephrol 2016;48:1327–1334. doi.org/10.1007/s11255-016-1312-1
  7. Ohle R, McIsaac SM, Woo MY, Perry JJ. Sonography of the optic nerve sheath diameter for detection of raised intracranial pressure compared to computed tomography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Ultrasound Med 2015;34:1285–1294. doi.org/10.7863/ultra.34.7.1285
  8. Douflé G, Roscoe A, Billia F, Fan E. Echocardiography for adult patients supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Crit Care 2015;19:326. doi.org/10.1186/s13054-015-1042-2
  9. Hüttemann E, Schelenz C, Kara F, Chatzinikolaou K, Reinhart K. The use and safety of transoesophageal echocardiography in the general ICU – a minireview. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2004;48:827–836. doi.org/10.1111/j.0001-5172.2004.00423.x
  10. Khoury AF, Afridi I, Quiñones MA, Zoghbi WA. Transesophageal echocardiography in critically ill patients: feasibility, safety, and impact on management. Am Heart J 1994;127:1363–1371. doi.org/10.1016/0002-8703(94)90057-4
  11. Vignon P, Merz TM, Vieillard-Baron A. Ten reasons for performing hemodynamic monitoring using transesophageal echocardiography. Intensive Care Med 2017;43:1048–1051. doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-4716-1
  12. Begot E, Dalmay F, Etchecopar C, Clavel M, Pichon N, Francois B, et al. Hemodynamic assessment of ventilated ICU patients with cardiorespiratory failure using a miniaturized multiplane transesophageal echocardiography probe. Intensive Care Med 2015;41:1886–1894. doi.org/10.1007/s00134-015-3998-4

Was this helpful?

0 / 0