Tag Archive: US


I have had a few readers ask questions about the use of ultrasound for the difficult epidural – usually in the labour ward context, but we sometimes run into this in the OT for combined spinal-epidural blocks.  Now I  love all things ultrasound – but looking at the literature it is tough to get a read on the utility of US in the often troublesome area of epidurals.  All those bones – can we see anything useful?  So I have asked an expert, and gotten a few handy, practical pointers.

Dr Chris Mitchell is a Consultant Anaesthestist at King Edward  Memorial Hospital for Women in Perth, Western Australia. But Mitch is more than an Anaesthetist – before he went into specialist training Chris was a rural GP-Anaesthetist in NW WA.  In fact my first job after my training in Anaesthesia I actually replaced Chris!

Now onto the meat of the post – here are Chris’s tips in beautifully illustrated form – click here [US for Epidurals]

I think it should be said – epidurals in the labour ward are an elective procedure.  There is a risk : benefit pay off.  If you are increasing the risk side of the equation as a result of a difficult insertion, then you need to discuss that with the patient – so before calling for he US machine I think it is worth a pause to consider if this is worth a try – I am sure that for the occasional operator this technique wil help, but is no magic bullet!

We usually try and avoid the patients with really tough anatomy – if the BMI is over 35 we usually start to strongly consider referral to a larger institution for a whole raft of safety reasons.

Huge thanks to Dr Mitch for his pearls on epidurals and US.  I would love to hear your experiences and if you have any questions for Chris I will pass them along.  Comments please

Casey

 

Had a few problematic ascitic taps recently in our place – so I thought I would have a look at the evidence around paracentesis, what is new and what works.  There are a few medical “rules” out there for this procedure, but are they supported by the data?

Click to see my review of each of these questions:

Ultrasound has many advantages in this procedure – reduces the rate of failed taps, the number of “unecessary” taps for dry belly and I find it really helps to map out the best place, the depth and location of your needle. I would never do another one blind after doing a lot under US-guidance.  This retrospective case review series from the Journ of Med Economics 2012 showed benefits alround to using US guidance.  There was decrease in adverse events, infection and a drop in the budget costs associated with these outcomes.

Oh, and using an US is cool – you get great pics, practice you FAST technique with real collections to find.

here is how I do it – no evidence, just experience….

  1. Do a scout scan to identify the deepest pocket of fluid and where the organs are that you want to miss- liver, spleen, bowel…
  2. Pick a spot – I don’t mind if it is left or right, as long as it is clear on the US
  3. Roll the patient with a pillow under one buttock (procedure side-down) and leave them for 15 minutes
  4. Rescan to confirm you have a clear space, measure the depth to the peritoneum and the depth of fluid beyond that.
  5. Prep / aseptic technique.  Inject some local with adren. into your spot and infiltrate to the peritoneum
  6. I use a suprapubic catheter kit, but a central line or dedicated kit is fine
  7. Put the probe anteriorly, insert the needle lateral to the probe in plane so you can watch the tip.  In you go
  8. Drain as much as you think / need. Send your samples.  Leave the drain in if you want to remove big volumes
  9. Monitor the patient for circulatory failure, and use albumin – especially for the sicker patient / big volume taps.

I remember being an intern on the Gastro unit, and being growled at by the boss because the INR wasn’t done on a patient due to have a belly tap. OK, I might have been an imperfect intern – but was my boss justified in worrying about an increased INR when doing a tap?

Well – there is not much evidence – certainly I could find no positive evidence – studies which demonstrated an increased rate of bleeding with coagulopathy for this paracentesis.  There are a few studies and reviews which came to the conclusion that there was no significantly increased bleeding risk.  For example this retrospective case review series of 600 chest and abdo taps from Transfusion 2003;  and this literature review in Transfusion 2005.

This series from Pache & Bilodeau Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2005 looked at nearly 5000 taps and found the rate of bleeding was 0.2%, and death was rare - 0.016%.  They note that these outcomes occurred in the patients with the most severe liver disease.  So maybe the patient’s predisposition is the problem rather than the procedure?

Now I am sure if you accidentally stab the patient in the liver, IVC or inferior hypogastric artery they will bleed – but being coagulopathic is probably not the issue here!  Sure it makes the resuscitation a bit trickier, but it is not the cause!  I think this is one of those medical myths where we all see or hear about a bad outcome, somebody retrospectively looks at the INR and blames it for the bleed – retrospectoscopic bias!

Probably my boss should have used an US to guide him, rather than blame the intern if he hit something bleedy!

Traditionally patients undergoing big paracentesis volumes were given IV albumin infusion to prevent post-tap circulatory collapse, hyponatremia etc.  Over the last few years a few other strategies have been suggetsed and used -  in 2011 there was a meta-analysis in Hepatology - this showed that IV albumin was generally the best bet for circulatory dysfunction and hyponatremia.  There was also a small mortality benefit – so it seems like a reasonable thing to do.  The previous Cochrane reviews on the topic in 1998 and 2002 showed no benefit, a trend towards increased mortality – so it is interesting that the latest review comes to a new conclusion.

Once again, the complications of circulatory dysfunction and hepatorenal syndrome are associated with the more severe / decompensated end of the spectrum of liver disease. So tread carefully in the patient with advanced disease, renal impairment and poor cardiac function at the outset.

OK, that is paracentesis in a page or so.  Let me know if you have any other pearls

Casey

You may have noticed my recent obsession with all things respiratory.  Seeing and personally experiencing a lot of LRTIs recently. 

A few weeks back Cliff Reid @resus.me put up this article for discussion: Lung US for pneumonia in ED, Emerg Med Journ 2012.  Which suggests that US is at least as good as an CXR for the early diagnosis of pneumonia and actually picked a few more when the CTs were compared as a gold standard.  It was a small study of 120 patients – so I thought I would look further into the literature – see what else is out there.  Here is what I found:

Evaluation of lung ultrasound for the diagnosis of pneumonia in the ED. Amer Journ Emerg Med 2009

Ultrasound diagnosis of pneumonia in children.  Radiol Med. 2008

Clinical application of transthoracic ultrasonography in inpatients with pneumonia.  Europ Journ Clinical Investigation 2011.

Diagnosis of radio-occult pulmonary conditions by real-time chest ultrasonography in patients with pleuritic pain.  Ultrasound in Med Biol 2008

It seems the Italian sonographic community have cornered the market in all things chest US in the past few years!

So in summary if you are too busy to read the articles – there are a pile of little observational studies out there that all say the same thing – US is as good as a CXR, maybe a little more sensitive for showing pneumonia / consolidation.  It is very likley to be better than the clinical examination – however that is not how this works. 

If you hear something or are unsure – then use the probe as the next “test” – if you get a positive then likley you have found a pneumonic process.  You can treat this as clinically appropriate, and still get a CXR if necessary later.  However, especially in kids – do you really need to irradiate them?  Or can we use clinical progress, repeat US and still achieve the same ends?

I suspect those of us who grew up on CXR diagnosis will be more comfortable seeing a positive, or a negative – however if you look in the numbers – CXR has a significant false negative rate in pneumonia (especially early in the disease) – so should we be so comfortable?  I think this is one of those common biases in Medicine – we attribute too much weight to a familiar test, even though we know it might be steering us in the wrong direction.  We like yes/no, black/white answers – and believe in CXR as it has been drilled into us from day 1 of Med School!

This is a great example of US being an “extension of the clinical examination” rather than a “test” – after all, with US you are looking at the sound that you might be able to hear with your stethoscope and ears.  I suspect in 10 years this will be something we teach in Medical Schools – the old look, listen, feel, percuss with have “scan” added to the end of the exam.

Love to hear your thoughts

Casey

Definition – To suss: to look into something deeper, and acquire more information; or to solve a problem or puzzle using ingenuity.

This is a concept I have been thinking up for a while.  And it turns out others have also been to the same place.  Dr James Rippey (Ultrasound Village) and colleagues published this paper in 2009 that “brainstormed” all the possible uses of bedside US in trauma patients.

So what the heck is a “SUSS IT” – and why is it any different to what you do now?  It stands for Secondary UltraSonographic Survey In Trauma.  If nothing else it has a cool acronym!  It is not a single scan, or protocol – it is more like a shopping list of all the scans that just might come in handy when dealing with a trauma.

I reckon there is are two types of US-users out there.  There are some true diagnosticians who do scans to a standard that allows them to produce a reportable finding.  Then there are the rest of us: ED docs with a probe and a prayer… we have a varying degree of experience and know our limitations.  I am certainly in the second category – as are most ED docs I know.  For me bedside US is basically an extension of my clinical examination.  Often it provides a  lot more information which allows me to change my management.   My scan will never be comparable to a CT in terms of sensitivity, but it is a whole lot better than me using my eyes, ears and fingers only. Some parts of the ‘SUSS IT’ are clearly validated, have a basis in evidence and are used extensively eg. FAST, lung scans.

Well – same as you currently do a primary and secondary survey, but you use your US probe to sharpen your diagnostic screen. We know that a lot of the clinical examination that we do is insensitive and unlikely to change management (Chris Nickson posted a great example of the inadequacy of rectal examination in trauma this week. Check out LITFL “Adding insult to injury”).

Sure, if you are going to do a panCT you probably will get a lot of the info from that. So why bother?

- Avoid radiation in the lesser trauma patient

- If you work in a CT-free hospital, like many in rural Australia

- If you are in a completely Xray free place – as in many places, at night, or on weekends

- If the patient is too sick to go to CT

- To diagnose those minor injuries that go along with major injuries, without having to go back to radiology dept.

- To get info early in the resus

- The haemodynamic and functional assessments eg. ECHO, IVC, ETTube / line placement – you need this data now – not after the CT.

- Because it is more useful than doing nothing whilst waiting for the flight team.

 

Airway

  • Assessing for intubation difficulty by US might be more accurate than clinical asseesment - small pilot study, suggests it is more accurate than our usual techniques, and can be done in an unconscious  / supine patient.
  • Pre-induction marking of the neck for potential surgical airway has been widely used.
  • US-guided surgical cricothyroidotomy – it might work – see this from the US podcast boys, paper pending – watch this space
  • Verification of ETT placement and bilateral lung ventilation has been shown to be fast and accurate by Pfieffer et al
Breathing   
Circulation
There are a number of applications for US in diagnosing and assessing the circulatory status of trauma patients.  Also good for access in the tough cases
  • IVC diameter / change with respiration – has been used a lot to assess for hypovolemia / fluid responsiveness.  A few studies show it can show subtle loss AJEM published this.  Emcrit has a video showing you how to do it here (IVC collapse). Its not too hard.
  • A focused ECHO looking at the LV for hyperdynamic motion in the context of trauma blood loss is good evidence you need to give red stuff!  Another great clip from Ultrasound Village.
  • Arterial line placement – sure we can do it without an US, but sometimes in the truly shut-down patient it can be tough.  I found this study in Acad. Emerg. Med 2008 which shows it might be quicker, and require less stabs to get it in with the US probe in the other hand.
  • IV access – surely the biggest IVC you can get in the biggest vein is a good thing – but in the world where obese people with deep veins can make you earn your keep – I think having the probe nearby just might come in handy.
  • CVC placement.  For me I always go for an IJ line in trauma if possible.  Check out Sonoguide’s guide to all things US-guided venous access here
Disability / Neuro
This is maybe a bit more controversial.  The use of US measurement of optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) to detect raised intracranial pressure has been studied by a few groups in the last 5 years.  Mostly small studies, comparing to CT changes or the readings from an invasive pressure monitor.  Certainly the numbers they come up with look good in terms of sensitivity.  I did a review on this last year (Raised ICP – Can we pick it?).  Not sure if this is ready for “prime time” but it has to be worth a look (it is quick and easy) and add the data to your overall ‘gestalt’ – maybe you will do your RSI a bit differently? Get that CT earlier?
What I want to see is a basic statistical study that looks at 1000+ ONSDs and established a normal curve – there seems to be a wide range of “cut offs” used in the papers I am reading – so I want to know – when is it really 2+ SD outside the norm?  Any takers?  Come on – US Village, US Podcast….
Eyes
When it comes to eye trauma – US is the only way to fly.  You can see it all, even if the brow injury has swollen the lids tight shut!  Lens dislocation, globe rupture, retinal detachment, IO foreign body, bleeds – you can see them all.  Much better than the ophthalmoscope in a patient who cannot follow intructions etc.  Check out Sonoguide’s Ocular section for some good pics.
Picking a hyphema might require you to look with your own eyes – but the rest US is great for!
Chest
Already covered most chest / lung injuries under “Breathing” above – but not the heart injury.
Traumatic pericardial effusion / tamponade – Beck’s triad [low BP, muffled heart sounds and distended neck veins] is the teaching, but it sucks in reality.  So use US / ECHO – as shown at Ultrasound Village here.
Aortic injury – probably outside the scope of the average ED US user.
Pulmonary contusion – Toby Thomas suggested this link – Chest 2006 Soldati e al suggest US is as good as Ct for contusion.
Also this slide set from Ericsoussi has some nice pics of lung pathology.
Abdomen
  • FAST scans are well studied and used all over the planet.  There are well defined clinical algorithms for the use of FAST scans such as this one from the Scand. J of Trauma, Resus and E Med 2009.  I think most of us know and can use the FAST – so I will say no more about it here.
  • Pregnancy assessment – in trauma there are a few questions you need to ask:
    • Is this woman pregnant?
    • Is the fetus alive?
    • What is the gestation?  ie. are we past the point of viability should delivery occur?
    • Are there any obvious injuries.  NB: using US to exclude an abruption is not a good idea, proven to be an insensitive exam (~50%).
Pelvis
Whenever I do a secondary survey I “spring the pelvis” and wonder – what is the sensitivity of this?  My guess not that great,  and we know that PR exam is terrible for detecting pelvic injury.  I recently saw this paper (thanks Cliff Reid @ resus.me) from Journ of EM 2011, which suggests the simple act of scanning down onto the pubic symphysis and measuring the “gap” is prety good for detecting open-book fractures [for me this is a great example of a quick US technique which allows me to make my exam sensitive and objective - thus allowing earlier intervention - get that binder on, arrange transfer to somewhere they can deal with a pelvic injury. ]
So what about other pelvic fractures? well, it is a big bone that you can see on US – I reckon I could pick an iliac wing fracture pretty easily
Boy Bits
Limbs
  • Long bone fractures are usually clinically obvious, but sometimes they can be subtle – especially in the unconscious patient.  It can be easy to miss a radius or fibula fracture when you are busy fixing the chest or head injury.
  • I have often been in the scenario where I finally get around to looking at the littler bones after all the resus is done and find something minor.  Usually we just clean, plaster and tie it up for transit – but why not use the probe to confirm the injury – and avoid another trip to Xray with the ventilator?  At least you can warn the receiving team about it – embarrassing to diagnose it on day 3 when the patient wakes up !
  • Is there a fractured bone in that messy deep wound? Have a look – might need a proper washout sooner rather than later…
  • Need to find some shrapnel, Us is good for this – it would be remiss to not have a link to an article from Dr Blaivas (Journ of US in Med)- so check out this one that looked at gunshot wounds in limbs.  Blaivas is the guru of US in Emergency medicine in case you need to look something up.

IN SUMMARY

 I hope I have convinced you of the following:

  • Ultrasound is a useful extension to clinical examination.  I am not suggesting that you use US in place of X-ray or CT if appropriate – I am saying you can use US as a way of sharpening the clinical exam and finding the pathology etc quicker.
  • We know that our clinical skills are just not that great for much of what we need to achieve early in managing trauma
  • Despite working in a small hospital – you can get a lot of information quickly using US techniques in trauma cases.
  • If you are in the field or on a plane – then the SUSS IT is ideal.  The evidence from disaster scenes shows it does make a difference to disposition and other decisions in the early stages of management.
  • The SUSS IT is a smorgasbord of techniques that you can use as required to get information and modify your management in real-time.
  • Most of these ‘scans’ take seconds to do – in a busy resus, they may be seconds well spent if you have the resources to do it…

I hope this gives you a platform to explore the utility of US in trauma.  This is a rapidly expanding field of evidence, and I know I have missed some great US-tricks.  So please let me know – are there any more morsels we can add to the smorgasbord?

I hope to make this a “Clinical Resource” and update it as new evidence comes to light.

Happy scanning – Casey

 

Todays case – 69 yo woman presents to ED with 3 hour history of sharp, severe left abdominal pain. Pain is colicky, radiating down into groin. Urinalysis shows 2+ blood.
So if you read the “frolic with colic” post and the wise comments from the readers you will be asking for an ultrasound – not to diagnose a stone, but to rule out a AAA rupture.  So off to the dark room, maybe you are a keen US type and you have a look yourself.  So you pick up the probe and identify the aorta, then follow it down and is bulges out just below the renal vessels to a max. diameter of 3.9 cm….

This case got me thinking.  I know there are a lot of ED / Gp docs out there who are keen on bedside sonography.  And looking at the aorta is not the toughest utility for those with a small amount of training.  But, the big problem isn’t finding the pathology – rather knwing what it means and what to do about it.  So here is a quick review on the topic.  Most of the info here is pulled from a nice review article, written by my former boss Mr Paul Norman and Dr Powell in Circulation 2007.  It is worth a read if you have time.  The super simple summary is that:

  •  most of what we know about AAAs comes from data which is heavily skewed towards men.
  • Female AAAs grow faster than those in men
  • Women have a higher rupture rate (~4x) for a similar diameter AAA c/w men
  • Women are technically more tricky to do repairs on, esp. endoluminal.
  • Women tend to be managed “non-surgically” in rupture at higher rates than men.
  • Basically, women seem to get the raw end of the deal in every department when it comes to AAA
  • The rates of AAA are climbing faster in women (?late lag effect of smoking)

 

Q:

Most sources quote 30 mm.  If you want to know how to measure this with an US – check out the Ultrasound Village website lecture on AAAs.   

The guidelines vary from organisation to organisation. But, it is likely that you should consider referring women with smaller diameters than men, as they tend to pop earlier.  So the magic number in men is 5 – 5.5 cm for elective repair, it seems that 4.5 – 5 cm probably confers the same rupture risk in women. 

Of course, the job of the GP is to counsel the patient and do so in the context of other comorbidities and the patient’s own risk beliefs.  After all, this is not trivial surgery.  There are serious comlications and an appreciable surgical mortality.

This paper in Annals of Surgery 2010 looked at the mortality rates for elective repair @ 28 days, 1 year and 5 years.  Being older, female and having comorbidities had a large effect on survival – up to 50% mortality in some groups!

The Circulation paper (above) recommends surveillance “every 6 – 12 months using CT or US”. The goal is to detect expansion and intervene early. So – you should be counselling the patient ahead of this – do they want an elective repair if the risk / size goes up?. In my book this means a long chat and some think time for the family before embarking on surveillance.

Well, in short – probably not. There was a Cochrane review in 2007.  This showed no reduction in all-cause mortality for screening for AAAs.  There was a decreased AAA-related death rate in 65 – 79 yo. men.  There was no mortality benefit shown for women, though they were only allowed in one trial and contributed only about 7% of the trial data used.  So not enough evidence (as Bertrand Russell once said!)

So next time you scan a belly and go looking for an aorta, just recall – you might find something, and if what you are doing amounts to screening you just might be opening a whole can of worms for this patient.  Consider their age, sex and comorbidities. You just might save a life, you also might start the ball rolling on a course of events that the patient never wanted.  This is the downside of widespread bedside US for me – finding stuff that you wished you hadn’t!.

When I went to med school we were taught that the B-HCG level doubles every 48 hrs in early pregnancy – and if it wasn’t – you either had an ectopic or a miscarriage until proven otherwise. However, it turns out that this is not the case  - just when you thought it was safe to go back to office gynae – along comes some data that completely muddies the waters and makes it all difficult again.

Barnhart et al in 2004 showed the HCG was slower to rise in many women with normal viable intrauterine pregnancies – the 99% confidence for slowest rise (going on to normal pregnancy) was only 53% at 48 hours [eg. from 1000 iu  to 1530 2 days later] – tthis is precisely what I thought an ectopic looked like!  So I think you need to be careful when interpreting these numbers.

This study out of Oregon in 1990 [Rob Orman was at the peak of his grunge career?] followed a small group of women with high risk pregancies – and  2/3 of the women with ectopics actually had a normal “doubling”.

Kadar et al in 1994 looked at women’s uteri for an intrauterine sac based on both HCG and ‘dates’ and found that ‘dates’ are much better predictors of gestation that HCG. So if you have an idea of LMP or when the HCG first went up – you are better off than using a single HCG.

So that is the bad news – the HCG can really lead you down the garden path if you are not careful.  So do NOT rely on a single HCG, be careful of interpreting 48 hour “doubling” HCG levels and if you know the dates-  this is actually useful!

The good news – we ED types are actually pretty good when it comes to finding normal IUPs.  There was a meta-analysis in 2010 by Stein et al which showed US in ED docs hands was up in the high 90s for sensitivity and specificity for detecting IUP or its absence.

Caveat: you have to practice and get good at interpreting what you see.  For a great guide and resources check out Ultrasound Villagetheir cheat sheets are cool – I use them all the time in my practice.

Apologies to the smart ones reading this – but I have been trying to explain this concept to my students for a while – so I thought I would share.

Shock: this is defined by hypoperfusion of the tissues resulting in insufficient substrates (oxygen, sugar etc) for aerobic cellular respiration.

The good news is that evolution has supplied us with a back up plan in the event of “inadequate substrate for aerobic respiration” – namely anaerobic respiration – neat eh!  But there is a limit to this – you eventually need to get back to Aerobic metabolism, clear the toxic byproducts of anaerobic respiration and repay the oxygen debt.

Ok that is the technical bit done.  Now onto the clinical application of this science.

In order to maintain tissue perfusion (and fuel / oxygen supply) you need to have blood passing through those little terminal arterioles / capillaries at a rate fast enough to keep up with the demands of the tissue – this can vary also.

Here we meet the problem – we (clinicians) have got no good direct way of measuring the flow or demand in those little vessels.  At the bedside we can just guess as to what is going on.  Unfortunately our instincts for this “guess work” are a bit skewed and that is the point of this post – we need to develop better instincts here.  So this is how I do it.

The blood pressure is an important piece of information – very important – but it is not the only player when it comes to working out the perfusion of the important organs.

Problem is – we all cut our teeth on relatively stable, healthy patients who have good physiological reserve and are operating towards the centre of the comfort zone of perfusion.  In these patients the BP is probably a good proxy for “perfusion”.  BUT – in the patient who is sick (ie. the one where you really want to know what is going on ) the physics are not ‘normal’ – you need more info and here the instinct needs to be developed.

Ok, some boring mathematics now :-

Cardiac output (CO) =   HR   x   stroke volume (SV)                  and              BP   =   CO  x   systemic vascular resistance (SVR)  or  CO  = BP  / SVR

So therefore:     HR  x  SV    =     BP  /  SVR.    Yep, I just tried to reduce CV physiology to 4 numbers. Not always so simple – but its a start.

You can read HR and BP off of the monitor, or even do it manually!

The SV  - hard to measure clinically – you can palp the radial pulse and guess its ‘volume’, you can ask the patient if they have some chronic cardiac disease / cardiomyopathy / IHD.  Or you can pick up an ECHO probe and eyeball it, or ask an ECHO tech to give you a number (LVEF).  Knowing that the preload is good certainly helps – so look at the IVC – is it collapsing?

So that just leaves the SVR – and this is tough.  In a sick patient – you cannot interpret the BP or guess the cardiac output without having some idea about the SVR.  So how can we measure this?  Look at the patient – are they red, flushed or pale and white.  Feel the hands and radial pulse – are they cool and thready or bounding and warm?  Urine output – if this is low – there is a good chance the normotensive patient has a high SVR.  Or you can get a fancy monitor which gives you a number – SVV (stroke volume variation) or Oesophageal Doppler etc.  None of these are perfect.

So once you have guessed the patient’s SVR you are in a position to interpret the BP and make an estimate of the perfusing  cardiac output / cardiac index  (NB: the cardiac index sounds impressive, but it is just the CO divided by the patient’s body surface area.  ie. big people need more CO to perfuse their body than little people)

Confused yet?  Lets look at a few common clinical scenarios to illustrate these points.  Also to look at the uses and abuses of inotropic meds in the hypotensive patient.

If you give a decent slug of propofol to anybody over about 60 – they will probably crash their BP. Is this a bad thing? well yes, but not as bad as you might think.

The propofol causes a loss of SVR by relaxing all the peripheral vessels.  So both the BP and SVR have fallen – the CO is proabably not crashing as much as the BP would suggest.  Of course if the propofool renders the heart bradycardic and negative inotropy reduces the ability of the heart to compensate – this is not great.  But any Anaesthetic doc will tell you – if you give them a whiff od metaraminol / phenylepherine  – the BP comes up quick.  And as soon as the surgeon inflicts pain – they settle quickly.  So here is an example of ‘relative’ hypotension – sure it is low – but so is the SVR – so it isn’t so bad.

This is usually a vasoplegic state – all those inflammatory cytokines cause a decrease in SVR,  the vascular bed expands – making the patient “relatively hypovolemic”.  There is a fall in CO due to poor venous return – so the BP drops as does the perfusing pressure – and shock occurs.  In some (maybe 15%) they get myocardial depression form the toxins of sepsis and also therfore suffer from “pump failure as well as the other mechanisms of shock at play.

So – for sepsis the rule of thumb is :-  give a heap of fluids – more than you think.  Give 2 litres and ask questions later.  If they remain hypotensive / acidotic / high lactate then you might need to give inotropes.  BUT you have to “prime the pump first” – check the IVC / SVV (or CVP if you believe in it) to ensure they are fluid loaded adequately.  So which fluid?   The SAFE trial - no difference between saline and albumin, though there was a trend towards benefit in giving albumin in the septic subgroup.  To me, in a small place Hartman’s (Ringer’s) seems to make sense – it is chaep, easy and doesn’t screw with your acidosis too much?

Then, and only then give inotropes…which one?    I think the answer is noradrenaline – it is widely used for sepsis and makes sense as it has good alpha agonism – so combats the low SVR.  You could also use phenylepherine if you cannot get a CVC.  If htere is evidence of myocardial depression – then you might need to get smarter and use adrenaline or call a friend for help! Having said that Myburgh et al (Aussie ICU crew) showed no difference between norad and epi – so it is a bit theoretical.

This is not the same as the septic patient.  In my mind this is the opposite of sepsis in a way.  Consider a 30 yo. motorcyclist with crush chest and pelvic fracture.  The BP is lowish, you guess he is bleeding into his chest, pelvis, ?abdo… and his endogenous adrenaline is surging – so he has a massive SVR.  So here – a lowish BP equals a crappy CO and his perfusion of the terminal vessels is terrible.  This is not a place to use vasopressors – you will make his SVR go higher and kill the perfusion further.

The patient with hypovolemic shock needs volume +++ – see recent post on Massive transfusion in trauma.  Blood, clotting factors, keep them warm and manage acidosis.  And acidosis is the result of the anaerobic metabolism in the O2-starved tissues – muscles, livers etc.

So here what you want to do is open up the vascular bed, get the perfusion happening ASAP – you actually want to drop the SVR – the catch phrase is “sympatholytic resuscitation”.  You do this by filling them up with volume, then giving fentanyl (or your favourite alternative) to reduce the endogenous sympathetic drive and allow the red cells you are pumping in to get to the areas that need the oxygen.

Remember – target MAP is 65 initially – so if your patient has a comfy MAP of 85, yet you know they have bleed a lot – your BP is giving you a seriously false sense of goodness. The best guide here is the pH, or lactate or base deficit or the temp of the hands – these are the markers of poor perfusion – not the BP so much!

This is pretty uncommon… unless you are an Obstetric Anaesthetic doc – then you come across it everytime you do a C-section. So I will use this as an example.

When you do a spinal – the first nerves to go ofline are those little sympathetic fibres – so you lose your peripheral vascular tone and the SVR drops quick – and your patient vomits, looks very grey and sweaty.  If the spinal goes higher, you lose the sympathetic fibres to the cardiac plexus – and your patient gets bradycardic, maybe some aorto-caval compression = a problem (CO = HR x SV), a double whammy – SVR crash, then CO crash – not good at all. {pray there isn’t a big bleed mid-op!}

So how to manage this – well it depends on the level of the cord lesion / block.  Lower levels, without bradycardia – maybe just a phenylepherine infusion.  Higher blocks with slow heart – you might need some chronotropy to help – good old adrenaline is my choice (ephedrine is an option – though a bit weak)  The high-spinal is the one emergency that goes C, B, A  - not A, B, C in real time!

So that is my super-simple and pragmatic approach to SHOCK.  In my experience – the big problem with SHOCK is recognizing it.  Once you have made the diagnosis he management is easier – but just remember – the BP is just part of the story.

If you don’t think about the other players – CO, SVR etc then it is a bit like walking into a movie theatre half way through a good “who-dun-it” murder mystery.  You might never guess who the killer was!

I have been busy learning all this week, so not much new material.  Fortunately Dr Ray Gadd out of Qld has sent me a ripper case of sepsis for you to mull and consider.    I know Ray is a keen Broome Docs reader – so let him know what your thoughts are on this case via the Comments area, we all learn from shared ideas!  I love this case because it is a true representation of the resources available to us in remote communities.  The case is definitely not “textbook” – but it is real!

Today’s case is food for thought, I will use it as a basis for some upcoming posts on Sepsis.  Over the coming weeks I hope to put together some Sepsis Resources which I reckon can make the diagnosis and management of sepsis in small / remote hospitals much easier and bring the standard of care for these super-sick patients up to a similar level they would get in any tertiary ED.

So – without further ado – Here is Ray’s case :  Septic Surprise (Apologies it is in PowerPoint – takes a bit to download)

Do you have a Breakfast Club in your ED.  In our ED it is commonplace to see 2 – 3 drunk, head-injured patients sleeping it off and having “neuro obs” until the cornflakes and tea are served – followed by spontaneous discharge.  This “ward round”is usually pretty mundane, sometimes a few sutures etc.

But last week I saw something new – blindness, acute left eye loss of vision following a punch to the head (not a first time attender).  This made me ponder the possible differentials.  External exam was pretty much NAD, so what is the cause?  This is the list I came up with for this scenario:

Retinal detachment, vitreous bleed, traumatic cataract, occult foreign body, lens disloation, post-traumatic optic neuropathy, vascular injury / dissection (carotid or vertebral), transient cortical blindness, retrobulbar haematoma…  as you can see a big differential, anyone else think of any causes not obvious on exam?  In terms of probability the first 3 (underlined) are the big ones.

Anyway – I have a confession – I am pretty crappy with an ophthalmoscope.  So in this situation I reach for the linear high-frequency US probe.  If you have never done this – it is the easiest USS in the book, just plonk the probe on the upper lid and waft it up and down.

from

This image is from the guys at Ultrasound Village.  Check out their site and courses.

Shows the typical retinal detachment – floating retina anchored at the disc posteriorly.  Acutely htis will move as the patient moves the globe, however after a while it tends to fix in one place.  Can be differentialted from a vitreal bleed by asking the patient to look up and down and checking the änchor point”is fixed at the disc – not floating / or rolling.

In my practice the US has made eye assessment sooo much easier.  I reckon I can confidently exclude a detachment using US much easier than with the scope, and with the US you can get right around to the anterior part of the retina – I find tis impossible with the opthalmoscope.  You can also see a FB easily and the blood in a vitreal bleed is easy.  I have not seen a lens dislocation with this – so cannot comment.

Anyway my patient had the classic left-eye-blind ((R) handed assailant) of a traumatic retinal detachment and she was seen by the visiting Eye guys – unfortunatley she had had this for a bit longer than she was originally letting on and there was little chance of a fix

If you are interested in learning how to use US in your clinical practice then I recommend the US Village course.  They are running a 3 day course in Broome this August – so you can come and learn, sit on the beach, ride a camel and meet me if you get bored.

Check out the flyer for dates and contacts on the link below.

Broome Ultrasound Echo Course