TY - JOUR
T1 - Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Adult Critical Care Ultrasonography
T2 - Focused Update 2024
AU - Díaz-Gómez, José L.
AU - Sharif, Sameer
AU - Ablordeppey, Enyo
AU - Lanspa, Michael J.
AU - Basmaji, John
AU - Carver, Thomas
AU - Taylor, Jayne Chirdo
AU - Gargani, Luna
AU - Goffi, Alberto
AU - Hynes, Allyson M.
AU - Hernandez, Antonio
AU - Kasal, Jan
AU - Koratala, Abhilash
AU - Kort, Smadar
AU - Lindbloom, Peter
AU - Liu, Rachel
AU - Livezey, Pete
AU - Lobo, Viveta
AU - Malone, Susan
AU - Mayo, Paul
AU - Mitchell, Carol
AU - Niu, Ng
AU - Panebianco, Nova
AU - Parekh, Madhavi
AU - Price, Susana
AU - Sarwal, Aarti
AU - Teran, Felipe
AU - Via, Gabriele
AU - Vieillard-Baron, Antoine
AU - Weekes, Anthony
AU - Wiley, Brandon
AU - Lewis, Kimberley
AU - Nikravan, Sara
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2025 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. All Rights Reserved.
PY - 2025/2/1
Y1 - 2025/2/1
N2 - RATIONALE: Critical care ultrasonography (CCUS) is rapidly evolving with new evidence being published since the prior 2016 guideline. OBJECTIVES: To identify and assess the best evidence regarding the clinical outcomes associated with five CCUS applications in adult patients since the publication of the previous guidelines. PANEL DESIGN: An interprofessional, multidisciplinary, and diverse expert panel of 36 individuals including two patient/family representatives was assembled via an intentional approach. Conflict-of-interest policies were strictly followed in all phases of the guidelines, including task force selection and voting. METHODS: Focused research questions based on Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) for adult CCUS application were developed. Panelists applied the guidelines revision process described in the Standard Operating Procedures Manual to analyze supporting literature and to develop evidence-based recommendations as a focused update. The evidence was statistically summarized and assessed for quality using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The evidence-to-decision framework was used to formulate recommendations as strong or conditional. RESULTS: The Adult CCUS Focused Update Guidelines panel aimed to understand the current impact of CCUS on patient important outcomes as they related to five PICO questions in critically ill adults. A rigorous systematic review of evidence to date informed the panel's recommendations. In adult patients with septic shock, acute dyspnea/respiratory failure, or cardiogenic shock, we suggest using CCUS to guide management. Given evidence supporting an improvement in mortality, we suggest the use of CCUS for targeted volume management as opposed to usual care without CCUS. Last, there was insufficient data to determine if CCUS should be used over standard care without CCUS in the management of patients with cardiac arrest. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines panel achieved strong agreement regarding the recommendations for CCUS to improve patient outcomes. These recommendations are intended for consideration along with the patient's existing clinical status.
AB - RATIONALE: Critical care ultrasonography (CCUS) is rapidly evolving with new evidence being published since the prior 2016 guideline. OBJECTIVES: To identify and assess the best evidence regarding the clinical outcomes associated with five CCUS applications in adult patients since the publication of the previous guidelines. PANEL DESIGN: An interprofessional, multidisciplinary, and diverse expert panel of 36 individuals including two patient/family representatives was assembled via an intentional approach. Conflict-of-interest policies were strictly followed in all phases of the guidelines, including task force selection and voting. METHODS: Focused research questions based on Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) for adult CCUS application were developed. Panelists applied the guidelines revision process described in the Standard Operating Procedures Manual to analyze supporting literature and to develop evidence-based recommendations as a focused update. The evidence was statistically summarized and assessed for quality using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The evidence-to-decision framework was used to formulate recommendations as strong or conditional. RESULTS: The Adult CCUS Focused Update Guidelines panel aimed to understand the current impact of CCUS on patient important outcomes as they related to five PICO questions in critically ill adults. A rigorous systematic review of evidence to date informed the panel's recommendations. In adult patients with septic shock, acute dyspnea/respiratory failure, or cardiogenic shock, we suggest using CCUS to guide management. Given evidence supporting an improvement in mortality, we suggest the use of CCUS for targeted volume management as opposed to usual care without CCUS. Last, there was insufficient data to determine if CCUS should be used over standard care without CCUS in the management of patients with cardiac arrest. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines panel achieved strong agreement regarding the recommendations for CCUS to improve patient outcomes. These recommendations are intended for consideration along with the patient's existing clinical status.
KW - acute respiratory failure
KW - cardiogenic shock
KW - critical care ultrasonography
KW - guidelines
KW - point-of-care ultrasound
KW - septic shock
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85219022123
U2 - 10.1097/CCM.0000000000006530
DO - 10.1097/CCM.0000000000006530
M3 - Article
C2 - 39982182
AN - SCOPUS:85219022123
SN - 0090-3493
VL - 53
SP - e447-e458
JO - Critical care medicine
JF - Critical care medicine
IS - 2
ER -