Review Article

Echocardiographic Evaluation of a Patient in Circulatory Shock: A Contemporary Approach

Abstract

Circulatory shock is characterized by a state of inefficient tissue oxygen supply and multiple organ dysfunction. Patients with circulatory shock require fast and assertive diagnosis and therapies to reduce its high lethality. Echocardiography has already been established as a fundamental method in managing patients with circulatory shock. It provides crucial assistance in etiological diagnosis, prognosis, hemodynamic monitoring, and volume estimation in these patients; its potential advantages include portability, absence of contrast or radiation, low cost, and real-time serial assessment. In the intensive care unit setting, it demonstrates a high correlation with invasive (pulmonary artery catheter) and minimally invasive (transpulmonary thermodilution) forms of hemodynamic monitoring. Currently, other techniques, such as pulmonary ultrasound and VExUS score, have been added to echocardiographic assessment, making the method more comprehensive and accurate. These techniques add relevant data to blood volume estimation in critical patients, influencing the probabilistic decision of fluid responsiveness and providing additional information in the diagnostic reasoning of the causes of shock, thus optimizing these patients’ prognosis. Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) aims to make abilities to obtain information at the bedside more accessible to physicians who are not specialists in radiology, by means of ultrasound, which assists them in decision-making. This article addresses the diverse applications of echocardiography in patients with circulatory shock, including prognostic evaluation and etiological diagnosis by means of the parameters found in the main causes of shock, in addition to hemodynamic monitoring, evaluation of fluid responsiveness, and practical use of pulmonary ultrasound.

Metrics

Views 2
PlumX Metrics

Comments

0 Comments

Comments are moderated by the editorial team before publication. Discussions should be evidence-based and use scientific language. Conflicts of interest should be declared.

No comments yet.

Send a comment