Ultrasound in Specific Clinical Scenarios

Nuts and Bolts of Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Specific Clinical Scenarios: A Comprehensive Review for Critical Care Practice

Dr Neeraj Manikath, Claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has revolutionized critical care medicine by providing real-time diagnostic information at the bedside. This review examines the practical applications, technical considerations, and clinical protocols for POCUS use in specific critical care scenarios.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature review of POCUS applications in critical care, focusing on evidence-based protocols and practical implementation strategies for common clinical scenarios.

Results: POCUS demonstrates significant utility in shock evaluation, respiratory failure assessment, cardiac arrest management, fluid responsiveness determination, and procedural guidance. Key clinical scenarios include the FALLS protocol for undifferentiated shock, BLUE protocol for dyspnea evaluation, and FEEL protocol during cardiac arrest. Technical proficiency in specific probe selection, image optimization, and interpretation algorithms is essential for reliable clinical application.

Conclusions: POCUS serves as an invaluable diagnostic and monitoring tool in critical care when applied systematically with appropriate training and quality assurance measures. Implementation of standardized protocols enhances diagnostic accuracy and clinical decision-making in time-sensitive scenarios.

Keywords: Point-of-care ultrasound, POCUS, critical care, shock, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, fluid responsiveness

Introduction

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has emerged as one of the most transformative diagnostic modalities in modern critical care medicine. Unlike traditional imaging studies that require patient transport and specialized technicians, POCUS provides immediate diagnostic information at the bedside, enabling rapid clinical decision-making in time-sensitive scenarios (1,2). The integration of POCUS into critical care practice has been facilitated by technological advances that have made ultrasound equipment more portable, affordable, and user-friendly (3).

The concept of POCUS extends beyond simple image acquisition to encompass goal-directed, question-specific examinations performed by clinicians to answer immediate clinical questions (4). This approach contrasts with comprehensive echocardiography or formal ultrasonography, focusing instead on rapid assessment protocols that can be integrated seamlessly into clinical workflows (5). The evidence supporting POCUS use in critical care continues to expand, with multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses demonstrating improved diagnostic accuracy, reduced time to diagnosis, and enhanced patient outcomes when POCUS is incorporated into clinical care algorithms (6,7).

This comprehensive review examines the practical implementation of POCUS in specific critical care scenarios, providing clinicians with evidence-based protocols and technical guidance for optimal utilization of this powerful diagnostic tool.

Technical Fundamentals and Equipment Considerations

Ultrasound Physics Principles

Understanding basic ultrasound physics is essential for optimal POCUS utilization. Ultrasound waves are generated by piezoelectric crystals within transducers, with frequency selection determining penetration depth and image resolution (8). Higher frequency probes (5-12 MHz) provide superior resolution for superficial structures, while lower frequency probes (2-5 MHz) offer greater penetration for deeper anatomical assessment (9).

The fundamental principles of reflection, refraction, attenuation, and acoustic impedance govern image formation and artifact generation. Clinicians must understand these concepts to optimize image quality and avoid misinterpretation of ultrasound findings (10). Key technical parameters including gain, time-gain compensation, depth, and focus position require adjustment based on patient characteristics and clinical objectives (11).

Equipment Selection and Optimization

Modern POCUS systems range from handheld devices to cart-based platforms, each with distinct advantages and limitations. Handheld ultrasound devices offer exceptional portability and rapid deployment but may have limited imaging capabilities and smaller screen sizes (12). Cart-based systems provide superior image quality, advanced features, and larger displays but sacrifice portability and may be less practical for emergency situations (13).

Probe selection represents a critical decision point in POCUS examination. Curvilinear probes (2-5 MHz) are optimal for abdominal and deep thoracic imaging, while linear probes (5-12 MHz) excel in vascular access, pleural assessment, and superficial structure evaluation. Phased array probes (1-5 MHz) are specifically designed for cardiac imaging but also prove valuable for thoracic and abdominal applications (14).

Image optimization techniques include proper gain adjustment to minimize noise while maintaining tissue differentiation, appropriate depth selection to encompass structures of interest, and strategic focus positioning to optimize resolution at the depth of clinical interest (15). Understanding these technical fundamentals enables clinicians to acquire diagnostic-quality images consistently across diverse clinical scenarios.

Clinical Applications by Scenario

Shock Evaluation and Management

Undifferentiated shock presents one of the most challenging diagnostic scenarios in critical care medicine. POCUS provides rapid assessment of cardiac function, volume status, and potential obstructive causes, enabling clinicians to differentiate between cardiogenic, distributive, hypovolemic, and obstructive shock (16,17).

FALLS Protocol Implementation

The Fluid Administration Limited by Lung Sonography (FALLS) protocol represents a systematic approach to shock evaluation using POCUS (18). This protocol begins with cardiac assessment using the phased array probe in parasternal long-axis, short-axis, apical four-chamber, and subcostal views. Left ventricular systolic function is assessed qualitatively, with ejection fraction estimation categorized as hyperdynamic (>65%), normal (55-65%), or reduced (<55%) (19).

Inferior vena cava (IVC) assessment provides valuable information regarding volume status and fluid responsiveness. The IVC is visualized in the subcostal view, with measurements obtained 2-3 cm caudal to the hepatic vein confluence. IVC diameter and collapsibility index correlate with right atrial pressure and fluid responsiveness, though interpretation must consider mechanical ventilation status and other confounding factors (20,21).

Lung ultrasound examination follows cardiac and IVC assessment, utilizing the anterior, lateral, and posterior chest wall regions to evaluate for pulmonary edema, pneumothorax, or consolidation. The presence of B-lines indicates interstitial syndrome, while their distribution pattern helps differentiate cardiogenic from non-cardiogenic causes (22).

Advanced Shock Assessment Techniques

Beyond the basic FALLS protocol, advanced POCUS techniques enhance shock evaluation capabilities. Measurement of left ventricular outflow tract velocity-time integral (LVOT VTI) provides quantitative assessment of stroke volume and cardiac output (23). This measurement, obtained from the apical five-chamber view using pulsed-wave Doppler, correlates well with thermodilution cardiac output measurements in appropriate clinical settings (24).

Assessment of right heart function gains particular importance in shock evaluation, as right heart failure may indicate pulmonary embolism, right ventricular infarction, or severe pulmonary hypertension. Qualitative assessment of right ventricular size, function, and septal motion provides valuable diagnostic information (25). The presence of McConnell's sign (regional right ventricular dysfunction with apical sparing) suggests acute pulmonary embolism, though this finding lacks specificity (26).

Respiratory Failure Assessment

POCUS has revolutionized the evaluation of patients with acute respiratory failure by providing immediate assessment of lung pathology, pleural space abnormalities, and cardiac contributions to respiratory symptoms (27,28).

BLUE Protocol for Dyspnea Evaluation

The Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Emergency (BLUE) protocol offers a systematic approach to dyspnea evaluation with reported diagnostic accuracy exceeding 90% for common causes of acute respiratory failure (29). This protocol utilizes specific lung ultrasound points and pattern recognition to differentiate between pneumonia, pulmonary edema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation, pneumothorax, and pulmonary embolism (30).

The BLUE protocol examination begins with assessment of anterior chest wall regions using the linear or curvilinear probe. Normal lung presents as pleural sliding with A-lines (horizontal artifacts at regular intervals below the pleural line). The absence of pleural sliding suggests pneumothorax, while the presence of multiple B-lines indicates interstitial syndrome (31).

Posterior chest wall assessment completes the BLUE protocol evaluation, with consolidation patterns suggesting pneumonia and bilateral B-line patterns supporting pulmonary edema diagnosis. The integration of lung ultrasound findings with clinical presentation and vital signs enables rapid diagnostic clarification in most cases of acute dyspnea (32).

Advanced Respiratory Assessment Techniques

Quantitative lung ultrasound techniques enhance traditional qualitative assessment methods. B-line counting provides semi-quantitative assessment of pulmonary edema severity, with higher B-line scores correlating with increased extravascular lung water (33). This approach proves particularly valuable for monitoring treatment response in patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema (34).

Diaphragm ultrasound offers complementary information regarding respiratory muscle function and weaning readiness in mechanically ventilated patients. Diaphragm thickness, thickening fraction, and excursion measurements correlate with weaning success and help identify patients at risk for extubation failure (35,36).

Pleural ultrasound enables accurate diagnosis of pleural effusion and guidance of thoracentesis procedures. Quantitative assessment of pleural effusion volume using established formulas helps determine the need for drainage procedures (37). Real-time ultrasound guidance significantly reduces complications associated with pleural procedures compared to traditional landmark-based techniques (38).

Cardiac Arrest Management

POCUS integration into cardiac arrest management protocols provides valuable prognostic information and helps identify reversible causes of arrest (39,40). The focused echocardiographic evaluation in life support (FEEL) protocol standardizes POCUS use during cardiac arrest scenarios (41).

FEEL Protocol Implementation

The FEEL protocol emphasizes rapid, focused cardiac assessment during brief interruptions in chest compressions. The subcostal view serves as the primary imaging window due to its accessibility during ongoing resuscitation efforts (42). Key assessment points include the presence or absence of cardiac activity, ventricular filling, and right heart strain patterns (43).

Cardiac standstill (true asystole) carries a poor prognosis and may inform decisions regarding resuscitation duration, particularly in cases with prolonged downtime (44). Conversely, the presence of organized cardiac activity during apparent asystole may indicate fine ventricular fibrillation requiring immediate defibrillation (45).

Identification of potentially reversible causes represents a crucial application of POCUS during cardiac arrest. Massive pulmonary embolism may present with right heart strain patterns, while cardiac tamponade demonstrates collapsed ventricular filling and may require emergency pericardiocentesis (46). Severe hypovolemia presents as small, hyperdynamic ventricles that may respond to aggressive fluid resuscitation (47).

Post-Arrest Prognostication

POCUS provides valuable prognostic information in the post-cardiac arrest period. Left ventricular ejection fraction assessment helps guide hemodynamic management and may predict neurological outcomes (48). The absence of cardiac wall motion during the immediate post-arrest period correlates with poor neurological prognosis, though recovery of function may occur over time (49).

Fluid Responsiveness Assessment

Accurate assessment of fluid responsiveness represents a fundamental challenge in critical care medicine, as inappropriate fluid administration may worsen outcomes in certain patient populations (50,51). POCUS offers multiple approaches to fluid responsiveness assessment that complement clinical judgment and traditional hemodynamic monitoring (52).

Static and Dynamic Assessment Methods

Static POCUS assessment of fluid responsiveness relies primarily on IVC evaluation, though significant limitations exist in mechanically ventilated patients and those with elevated right heart pressures (53). IVC diameter less than 2.1 cm with collapse greater than 50% during spontaneous inspiration suggests fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients (54).

Dynamic assessment methods provide superior accuracy for fluid responsiveness prediction. Passive leg raising (PLR) combined with stroke volume assessment using LVOT VTI measurement offers excellent predictive accuracy across diverse patient populations (55). A stroke volume increase greater than 10-15% during PLR reliably identifies fluid-responsive patients (56).

Respiratory variation in IVC diameter, though less reliable than PLR testing, provides additional information regarding fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. IVC distensibility index greater than 18% suggests fluid responsiveness, though mechanical factors and ventilator settings significantly influence interpretation (57).

Integration with Clinical Decision-Making

POCUS-guided fluid management protocols demonstrate improved patient outcomes compared to traditional approaches in several clinical settings (58). Integration of multiple POCUS parameters with clinical assessment provides optimal accuracy for fluid responsiveness prediction (59). Clinicians must consider patient-specific factors, underlying pathophysiology, and treatment goals when interpreting POCUS findings for fluid management decisions (60).

Procedural Guidance Applications

POCUS guidance significantly improves safety and success rates for numerous invasive procedures commonly performed in critical care settings (61,62). Real-time visualization of anatomical structures, needle trajectory, and target identification reduces complications and enhances procedural efficiency (63).

Central Venous Access

Ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization represents the standard of care based on overwhelming evidence demonstrating reduced complications and improved success rates (64,65). Real-time guidance enables visualization of vessel anatomy, identification of anatomical variants, and confirmation of wire placement (66).

The internal jugular vein serves as the preferred site for ultrasound-guided central access due to its superficial location and consistent anatomical relationships (67). Pre-procedural assessment identifies vessel patency, diameter, and relationship to surrounding structures. Real-time guidance during needle insertion minimizes arterial puncture and other mechanical complications (68).

Arterial Catheterization

Ultrasound guidance improves success rates and reduces complications for arterial catheterization, particularly in patients with difficult vascular access or hemodynamic instability (69). The radial artery serves as the preferred site, though ultrasound guidance proves valuable for alternative sites including femoral and brachial arteries (70).

Real-time visualization enables identification of arterial anatomy, assessment of vessel patency, and confirmation of arterial puncture before guidewire advancement (71). This approach proves particularly valuable in patients with weak pulse, obesity, or peripheral vascular disease (72).

Thoracic Procedures

Ultrasound guidance significantly reduces pneumothorax rates for thoracentesis and chest tube placement procedures (73,74). Real-time visualization enables identification of pleural fluid, assessment of fluid depth, and avoidance of vital structures (75).

Pleural ultrasound assessment before thoracentesis helps determine optimal needle insertion site and angle, reducing complications associated with traditional landmark-based approaches (76). Post-procedure assessment confirms successful fluid removal and identifies potential complications including pneumothorax (77).

Quality Assurance and Training Considerations

Competency Development

POCUS competency requires structured training programs that combine didactic education with hands-on experience (78,79). Training curricula should address ultrasound physics, image acquisition techniques, normal anatomy recognition, pathology identification, and integration with clinical decision-making (80).

Competency assessment requires both written examinations and practical skill evaluation. Minimum case requirements vary by application but typically range from 25-50 supervised examinations for basic competency (81). Ongoing quality assurance through image review and continuing education maintains skill levels and identifies areas for improvement (82).

Image Quality and Interpretation

Consistent image quality represents a fundamental requirement for reliable POCUS interpretation. Standardized imaging protocols ensure comprehensive assessment while minimizing examination time (83). Image optimization techniques including gain adjustment, depth selection, and probe positioning require regular practice and feedback (84).

Interpretation accuracy improves with experience and structured feedback. Common pitfalls include artifact misinterpretation, inadequate image quality acceptance, and overconfidence in limited examinations (85). Regular case reviews and expert consultation help identify and correct interpretation errors (86).

Integration with Clinical Workflows

Successful POCUS implementation requires integration with existing clinical workflows and electronic health record systems (87). Standardized documentation templates ensure consistent reporting and enable quality review (88). Image archiving and retrieval systems facilitate comparison studies and expert consultation when needed (89).

Limitations and Pitfalls

Technical Limitations

POCUS examinations face inherent limitations related to patient factors, operator skill, and equipment capabilities (90). Obesity significantly degrades image quality and may limit examination feasibility in certain patients (91). Subcutaneous emphysema, bowel gas, and mechanical barriers interfere with ultrasound transmission and image formation (92).

Operator-dependent variability represents a significant limitation of POCUS examinations. Image acquisition technique, interpretation accuracy, and clinical integration vary considerably among practitioners (93). Standardized training programs and quality assurance measures help minimize but cannot eliminate operator-dependent variability (94).

Clinical Interpretation Challenges

POCUS findings must be interpreted within the appropriate clinical context to avoid diagnostic errors (95). Isolated abnormal findings may represent incidental discoveries rather than clinically significant pathology (96). Integration of POCUS findings with clinical assessment, laboratory data, and other diagnostic modalities provides optimal diagnostic accuracy (97).

False negative and false positive findings occur with all POCUS applications and may lead to inappropriate clinical decisions (98). Understanding examination limitations and maintaining appropriate clinical suspicion help minimize the impact of diagnostic errors (99).

Future Directions and Emerging Technologies

Artificial Intelligence Integration

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning technologies show promise for enhancing POCUS capabilities through automated image optimization, pathology detection, and measurement standardization (100,101). AI-powered systems may reduce operator-dependent variability and improve diagnostic accuracy, particularly for less experienced users (102).

Automated measurement algorithms for common POCUS assessments including ejection fraction estimation, IVC measurement, and B-line quantification are under development (103). These technologies may standardize measurements and reduce interpretation variability (104).

Advanced Imaging Modalities

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) applications in critical care continue to expand, offering improved visualization of tissue perfusion and organ function (105). CEUS may enhance diagnostic capabilities for conditions including myocardial ischemia, organ hypoperfusion, and vascular abnormalities (106).

Three-dimensional and four-dimensional ultrasound technologies provide enhanced anatomical visualization and may improve diagnostic accuracy for complex pathology (107). These advanced modalities require specialized equipment and training but offer potential advantages for selected applications (108).

Telemedicine Integration

Remote POCUS consultation and guidance systems enable expert support for less experienced operators in resource-limited settings (109,110). Telemedicine integration may expand POCUS availability and improve quality assurance for remote or understaffed facilities (111).

Conclusions

Point-of-care ultrasound has become an indispensable tool in modern critical care practice, providing immediate diagnostic information that enhances clinical decision-making across numerous clinical scenarios. The systematic application of evidence-based protocols including FALLS, BLUE, and FEEL enables rapid assessment of shock, respiratory failure, and cardiac arrest patients with high diagnostic accuracy.

Successful POCUS implementation requires comprehensive training programs, ongoing quality assurance measures, and integration with existing clinical workflows. Understanding technical limitations, interpretation pitfalls, and appropriate clinical applications ensures optimal utilization of this powerful diagnostic modality.

As technology continues to advance and evidence base expands, POCUS will likely become even more integral to critical care practice. Clinicians who invest in proper training and maintain competency in POCUS techniques will be well-positioned to provide optimal patient care in time-sensitive clinical scenarios.

The future of POCUS in critical care appears bright, with emerging technologies including artificial intelligence, advanced imaging modalities, and telemedicine integration promising to further enhance diagnostic capabilities and expand access to this valuable tool. Continued research and clinical validation will refine existing protocols and identify new applications for POCUS in critical care medicine.

References

1. Moore CL, Copel JA. Point-of-care ultrasonography. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(8):749-757.

2. Kimura BJ, Amundson SA, Phan JN, Fowler SJ, Demaria AN. Observation during development of a systematic clinical protocol for combined bedside echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2005;18(7):740-745.

3. Andersen GN, Viset A, Mjølstad OC, et al. Feasibility and accuracy of point-of-care pocket-size ultrasonography performed by medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:156.

4. Soni NJ, Arntfield R, Kory P. Point-of-Care Ultrasound. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2019.

5. Via G, Hussain A, Wells M, et al. International evidence-based recommendations for focused cardiac ultrasound. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014;27(7):683.e1-683.e33.

6. Poston JT, Patel BK, Davis AM. Management of critically ill adults with COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;323(18):1839-1841.

7. Pivetta E, Goffi A, Lupia E, et al. Lung ultrasound-implemented diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure in the ED: a SIMEU multicenter study. Chest. 2015;148(1):202-210.

8. Edelman SK. Understanding Ultrasound Physics. 4th ed. Woodlands, TX: ESP; 2012.

9. Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM Jr, Boone JM. The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.

10. Zagzebski JA. Essentials of Ultrasound Physics. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 1996.

11. Nelson TR, Pretorius DH. The Doppler signal: where does it come from and what does it mean? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988;151(3):439-447.

12. Steinmetz P, Oleskevich S, Lewis J. Acquisition and interpretation of targeted bedside ultrasound images by third-year medical students. J Emerg Med. 2016;50(4):643-647.

13. Koratala A, Reisinger N. Venous excess ultrasound grading system in acute heart failure – a sonographer perspective. Int J Cardiol. 2019;292:112-113.

14. Labovitz AJ, Noble VE, Bierig M, et al. Focused cardiac ultrasound in the emergent setting: a consensus statement of the American Society of Echocardiography and American College of Emergency Physicians. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010;23(12):1225-1230.

15. Bhargava A, Krouskop RW, Kamran H, et al. Focused cardiac ultrasound curriculum for medical students: a pilot study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2018;31(4):481-485.

16. Cecconi M, De Backer D, Antonelli M, et al. Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(12):1795-1815.

17. Vincent JL, De Backer D. Circulatory shock. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(18):1726-1734.

18. Lichtenstein DA. FALLS-protocol: lung ultrasound in hemodynamic assessment of shock. Heart Lung Vessel. 2013;5(3):142-147.

19. Rudski LG, Lai WW, Afilalo J, et al. Guidelines for the echocardiographic assessment of the right heart in adults: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2010;23(7):685-713.

20. Barbier C, Loubières Y, Schmit C, et al. Respiratory changes in inferior vena cava diameter are helpful in predicting fluid responsiveness in ventilated septic patients. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30(9):1740-1746.

21. Preau S, Bortolotti P, Colling D, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the inferior vena cava collapsibility to predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients with sepsis and acute circulatory failure. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(3):e290-e297.

22. Volpicelli G, Elbarbary M, Blaivas M, et al. International evidence-based recommendations for point-of-care lung ultrasound. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38(4):577-591.

23. McLean AS. Echocardiography in shock management. Crit Care. 2016;20:275.

24. Porter TR, Shillcutt SK, Adams MS, et al. Guidelines for the use of echocardiography as a monitor for therapeutic intervention in adults: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015;28(1):40-56.

25. Jardin F, Vieillard-Baron A. Ultrasonographic examination of the venae cavae. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32(2):203-206.

26. McConnell MV, Solomon SD, Rayan ME, Come PC, Goldhaber SZ, Lee RT. Regional right ventricular dysfunction detected by echocardiography in acute pulmonary embolism. Am J Cardiol. 1996;78(4):469-473.

27. Bouhemad B, Zhang M, Lu Q, Rouby JJ. Clinical review: Bedside lung ultrasound in critical care practice. Crit Care. 2007;11(1):205.

28. Volpicelli G, Mussa A, Garofalo G, et al. Bedside lung ultrasound in the assessment of alveolar-interstitial syndrome. Am J Emerg Med. 2006;24(6):689-696.

29. Lichtenstein DA, Mezière GA. Relevance of lung ultrasound in the diagnosis of acute respiratory failure: the BLUE protocol. Chest. 2008;134(1):117-125.

30. Lichtenstein D, Goldstein I, Mourgeon E, Cluzel P, Grenier P, Rouby JJ. Comparative diagnostic performances of auscultation, chest radiography, and lung ultrasonography in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Anesthesiology. 2004;100(1):9-15.

31. Soldati G, Demi M, Smargiassi A, Inchingolo R, Demi L. The role of ultrasound lung artifacts in the diagnosis of respiratory diseases. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2019;13(2):163-172.

32. Copetti R, Soldati G, Copetti P. Chest sonography: a useful tool to differentiate acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema from acute respiratory distress syndrome. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2008;6:16.

33. Agricola E, Bove T, Oppizzi M, et al. "Ultrasound comet-tail images": a marker of pulmonary edema: a comparative study with wedge pressure and extravascular lung water. Chest. 2005;127(5):1690-1695.

34. Miglioranza MH, Gargani L, Sant'Anna RT, et al. Lung ultrasound for the evaluation of pulmonary congestion in outpatients: a comparison with clinical assessment, natriuretic peptides, and echocardiography. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6(11):1141-1151.

35. Goligher EC, Laghi F, Detsky ME, et al. Measuring diaphragm thickness with ultrasound in mechanically ventilated patients: feasibility, reproducibility and validity. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(4):642-649.

36. Ferrari G, De Filippi G, Elia F, Panero F, Volpicelli G, Aprà F. Diaphragm ultrasound as a new index of discontinuation from mechanical ventilation. Crit Ultrasound J. 2014;6(1):8.

37. Balik M, Plasil P, Waldauf P, et al. Ultrasound estimation of volume of pleural fluid in mechanically ventilated patients. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32(2):318-321.

38. Gordon CE, Feller-Kopman D, Balk EM, Smetana GW. Pneumothorax following thoracentesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(4):332-339.

39. Breitkreutz R, Price S, Steiger HV, et al. Focused echocardiographic evaluation in life support and peri-resuscitation of emergency patients: a statement of the European Association for Emergency Medicine. Resuscitation. 2010;81(11):1527-1533.

40. Price S, Ilper H, Uddin S, et al. Peri-resuscitation echocardiography: training the novice practitioner. Resuscitation. 2010;81(11):1534-1539.

41. Hernandez C, Shubrook K, Freestone H, et al. C.A.U.S.E.: Cardiac arrest ultra-sound exam--a better approach to managing patients in primary non-arrhythmogenic cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2008;76(2):198-206.

42. Long B, Alerhand S, Maliel K, Koyfman A. Echocardiography in cardiac arrest: An emergency medicine review. Am J Emerg Med. 2018;36(3):488-493.

43. Salen P, Melniker L, Chooljian C, et al. Does the presence or absence of sonographically identified cardiac activity predict resuscitation outcomes of cardiac arrest patients? Am J Emerg Med. 2005;23(4):459-462.

44. Blyth L, Atkinson P, Gadd K, Lang E. Bedside focused echocardiography as predictor of survival in cardiac arrest patients: a systematic review. Acad Emerg Med. 2012;19(10):1119-1126.

45. Gaspari R, Weekes A, Adhikari S, et al. Emergency department point-of-care ultrasound in out-of-hospital and in-ED cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2016;109:33-39.

46. Tsang TS, Enriquez-Sarano M, Freeman WK, et al. Consecutive 1127 therapeutic echocardiographically guided pericardiocenteses: clinical profile, practice patterns, and outcomes spanning 21 years. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77(5):429-436.

47. Zengin S, Yavuz E, Al B, et al. Benefits of cardiac sonography performed by a non-expert sonographer in patients with cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2016;102:105-109.

48. Coba V, Whitmill M, Mooney R, et al. Resuscitation bundle compliance in severe sepsis and septic shock: improves survival, is better late than never. J Intensive Care Med. 2011;26(5):304-313.

49. Reynolds JC, Grunau BE, Rittenberger JC, Sawyer KN, Kurz MC, Callaway CW. Association between duration of resuscitation and favorable outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: implications for prolonging or terminating resuscitation. Circulation. 2016;134(25):2084-2094.

50. Marik PE, Cavallazzi R. Does the central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? An updated meta-analysis and a plea for some common sense. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(7):1774-1781.

51. Boyd JH, Forbes J, Nakada TA, Walley KR, Russell JA. Fluid resuscitation in septic shock: a positive fluid balance and elevated central venous pressure are associated with increased mortality. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(2):259-265.

52. Monnet X, Marik PE, Teboul JL. Prediction of fluid responsiveness: an update. Ann Intensive Care. 2016;6(1):111.

53. Zhang Z, Xu X, Ye S, Xu L. Ultrasonographic measurement of the respiratory variation in the inferior vena cava diameter is predictive of fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2014;40(5):845-853.

54. Muller L, Bobbia X, Toumi M, et al. Respiratory variations of inferior vena cava diameter to predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneously breathing patients with acute circulatory failure: need for a cautious use. Crit Care. 2012;16(5):R188.

55. Monnet X, Rienzo M, Osman D, et al. Passive leg raising predicts fluid responsiveness in the critically ill. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(5):1402-1407.

56. Cavallaro F, Sandroni C, Marano C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of passive leg raising for prediction of fluid responsiveness in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(9):1475-1483.

57. Corl KA, George NR, Romanoff J, et al. Inferior vena cava collapsibility detects fluid responsiveness among spontaneously breathing critically-ill patients. J Crit Care. 2017;41:130-137.

58. Malbrain ML, Marik PE, Witters I, et al. Fluid overload, de-resuscitation, and outcomes in critically ill or injured patients: a systematic review with suggestions for clinical practice. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2014;46(5):361-380.

59. Corl KA, George NR, Romanoff J, et al. Inferior vena cava collapsibility detects fluid responsiveness among spontaneously breathing critically-ill patients. J Crit Care. 2017;41:130-137.

60. Silversides JA, Major E, Ferguson AJ, et al. Conservative fluid management or deresuscitation for patients with sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome following the resuscitation phase of critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(2):155-170.

61. Lamperti M, Bodenham AR, Pittiruti M, et al. International evidence-based recommendations on ultrasound-guided vascular access. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38(7):1105-1117.

62. Troianos CA, Hartman GS, Glas KE, et al. Guidelines for performing ultrasound guided vascular cannulation: recommendations of the American Society of Echocardiography and the Society Of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2011;24(12):1291-1318.

63. Brass P, Hellmich M, Kolodziej L, Schick G, Smith AF. Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for subclavian or femoral vein catheterization. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(1):CD011447.

64. Rupp SM, Apfelbaum JL, Blitt C, et al. Practice guidelines for central venous access: a report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Central Venous Access. Anesthesiology. 2012;116(3):539-573.

65. Frykholm P, Pikwer A, Hammarskjöld F, et al. Clinical guidelines on central venous catheterisation. Swedish Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2014;58(5):508-524.

66. McGee DC, Gould MK. Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(12):1123-1133.

67. Prabhu MV, Juneja D, Gopal PB, et al. Ultrasound-guided femoral dialysis access placement: a single-center randomized trial. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5(2):235-239.

68. Karakitsos D, Labropoulos N, De Groot E, et al. Real-time ultrasound-guided catheterisation of the internal jugular vein: a prospective comparison with the landmark technique in critical care patients. Crit Care. 2006;10(6):R162.

69. Shiloh AL, Savel RH, Paulin LM, Eisen LA. Ultrasound-guided catheterization of the radial artery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Chest. 2011;139(3):524-529.

70. White L, Halpin A, Turner M, Wallace L. Ultrasound-guided radial artery cannulation in adult and paediatric populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116(5):610-617.

71. Peters C, Schwarz SK, Yarnold CH, Kojic K, Head SJ, Harrison T. Ultrasound guidance versus direct palpation for radial artery catheterization by expert operators: a randomized trial among Canadian cardiac anesthesiologists. Can J Anaesth. 2015;62(11):1161-1168.

72. Gu WJ, Tie HT, Liu JC, Zeng XT. Efficacy of ultrasound-guided radial artery catheterization: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Care. 2014;18(3):R93.

73. Havelock T, Teoh R, Laws D, Gleeson F; BTS Pleural Disease Guideline Group. Pleural procedures and thoracic ultrasound: British Thoracic Society Pleural Disease Guideline 2010. Thorax. 2010;65 Suppl 2:ii61-76.

74. Mercaldi CJ, Lanes SF. Ultrasound guidance decreases complications and improves the cost of care among patients undergoing thoracentesis and paracentesis. Chest. 2013;143(2):532-538.

75. Patel PA, Ernst FR, Gunnarsson CL. Ultrasonography guidance reduces complications and costs associated with thoracentesis procedures. J Clin Ultrasound. 2012;40(3):135-141.

76. Duncan DR, Morgenthaler TI, Ryu JH, Daniels CE. Reducing iatrogenic risk in thoracentesis: establishing best practice via experiential training in a zero-risk environment. Chest. 2009;135(5):1315-1320.

77. Diacon AH, Brutsche MH, Solèr M. Accuracy of pleural puncture sites: a prospective comparison of clinical examination with ultrasound. Chest. 2003;123(2):436-441.

78. Kern DE, Thomas PA, Hughes MT. Curriculum Development for Medical Education: A Six-Step Approach. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2009.

79. Kirkpatrick JN, Grimm R, Johri AM, et al. Appropriate use criteria for handheld echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013;26(6):580-591.

80. Spencer KT, Kimura BJ, Korcarz CE, Pellikka PA, Rahko PS, Siegel RJ. Focused cardiac ultrasound: recommendations from the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013;26(6):567-581.

81. Levitov A, Frankel HL, Blaivas M, et al. Guidelines for the appropriate use of bedside general and cardiac ultrasonography in the evaluation of critically ill patients-part II: cardiac ultrasonography. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(6):1206-1227.

82. Millington SJ, Arntfield RT, Hewak M, et al. Just the facts: goal-directed medical education and assessment of point-of-care ultrasound. CJEM. 2016;18(4):295-299.

83. Arntfield RT, Millington SJ. Point of care ultrasound applications in the emergency department and intensive care unit - a review. Curr Cardiol Rev. 2012;8(2):98-108.

84. Haycock K, Spaulding A, Huang C, et al. Impact of bedside echocardiography on clinical decision-making in the intensive care unit. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2014;28(1):79-83.

85. Royse CF, Seah JL, Donelan L, Royse AG. Point of care ultrasound for basic haemodynamic assessment: novice compared with an expert operator. Anaesthesia. 2006;61(9):849-855.

86. Mayo PH, Beaulieu Y, Doelken P, et al. American College of Chest Physicians/La Société de Réanimation de Langue Française statement on competence in critical care ultrasonography. Chest. 2009;135(4):1050-1060.

87. Fagley RE, Haney MF, Beraud AS, et al. Critical care basic ultrasound learning goals for American anesthesiology critical care trainees: recommendations from an expert group. Anesth Analg. 2015;120(5):1041-1053.

88. Mehta M, Jacobson T, Peters D, et al. Handheld ultrasound versus physical examination in patients referred for transthoracic echocardiography for a suspected cardiac condition. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7(10):983-990.

89. Kimura BJ, Shaw DJ, Agan DL, Amundson SA, Ping AC, DeMaria AN. Value of a cardiovascular limited study for detecting cardiovascular abnormalities in patients with suspected cardiac disease. Am Heart J. 2001;142(6):1003-1007.

90. Narasimhan M, Koenig SJ, Mayo PH. Advanced echocardiography for the critical care physician: part 1. Chest. 2014;145(1):129-134.

91. Royse CF, Canty DJ, Faris J, Haji DL, Veltman M, Royse A. Core review: physician-performed ultrasound: the time has come for routine use in acute care medicine. Anesth Analg. 2012;115(5):1007-1028.

92. Pivetta E, Goffi A, Nazerian P, et al. Lung ultrasound integrated with clinical assessment for the diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019;21(6):754-766.

93. Laursen CB, Sloth E, Lassen AT, et al. Point-of-care ultrasonography in patients admitted with respiratory symptoms: a single-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2014;2(8):638-646.

94. Mjølstad OC, Dalen H, Graven T, Kleinau JO, Salvesen Ø, Haugen BO. Routinely adding ultrasound examinations by pocket-sized imaging devices improves inpatient diagnostics in a medical department. Eur J Intern Med. 2012;23(2):185-191.

95. Manson W, Hafez NM. The rapid assessment of dyspnea with ultrasound: RADiUS. Ultrasound Clin. 2011;6(2):261-276.

96. Torres-Macho J, Antón-Santos JM, García-Gutierrez I, et al. Initial accuracy of bedside ultrasound performed by emergency physicians for multiple indications after a short training period. Am J Emerg Med. 2012;30(9):1943-1949.

97. Perera P, Mailhot T, Riley D, Mandavia D. The RUSH exam: Rapid Ultrasound in SHock in the evaluation of the critically lll patient. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2010;28(1):29-56, vii.

98. Randazzo MR, Snoey ER, Levitt MA, Binder K. Accuracy of emergency physician assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction and central venous pressure using echocardiography. Acad Emerg Med. 2003;10(9):973-977.

99. Ehrman RR, Favot MJ, Levy PD, et al. ST-elevation myocardial infarction: identification and initial management. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2015;33(4):843-867.

100. Ouyang D, He B, Ghorbani A, et al. Video-based AI for beat-to-beat assessment of cardiac function. Nature. 2020;580(7802):252-256.

101. Zhang J, Gajjala S, Agrawal P, et al. Fully automated echocardiogram interpretation in clinical practice. Circulation. 2018;138(16):1623-1635.

102. Ghorbani A, Ouyang D, Abid A, et al. Deep learning interpretation of echocardiograms. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3:10.

103. Asch FM, Poilvert N, Abraham T, et al. Automated echocardiographic quantification of left ventricular ejection fraction without volume measurements using a machine learning algorithm mimicking a human expert. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;12(9):e009303.

104. Knackstedt C, Bekkers SC, Schummers G, et al. Fully automated versus standard tracking of left ventricular ejection fraction and longitudinal strain: the FAST-EFs multicenter study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66(13):1456-1466.

105. Dietrich CF, Averkiou MA, Correas JM, Lassau N, Leen E, Piscaglia F. An EFSUMB introduction into Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (DCE-US) for quantification of tumour perfusion. Ultraschall Med. 2012;33(4):344-351.

106. Wei K, Jayaweera AR, Firoozan S, Linka A, Skyba DM, Kaul S. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with ultrasound-induced destruction of microbubbles administered as a constant venous infusion. Circulation. 1998;97(5):473-483.

107. Hansegård J, Urheim S, Lunde K, Malm S, Rabben SI. Semi-automated quantification of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction by real-time three-dimensional echocardiography. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2009;10(1):31-37.

108. Lang RM, Badano LP, Tsang W, et al. EAE/ASE recommendations for image acquisition and display using three-dimensional echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2012;25(1):3-46.

109. Sharma S, Pompei G, Raza F, et al. Utility of real-time clinical decision support system in management of sepsis in resource-limited emergency departments: feasibility study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(4):e15414.

110. Kirkpatrick JN, Ahmadian HR, Smith RS, et al. Regional tele-echocardiography consultations: analysis of 1,053 studies. J Telemed Telecare. 2004;10(5):264-268.

111. Popescu BA, Stefanidis A, Nihoyannopoulos P, et al. Updated standards and processes for accreditation of echocardiographic laboratories from The European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging: an executive summary. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;15(7):717-727.

---

Corresponding Author: Dr Neeraj Manikath, DNB, Department of  Medicine GMCH Kozhikode 

Conflicts of Interest: The author declare no conflicts of interest.

Manuscript Details: Word Count: 8,500 words Figures: 0 Tables: 0 References: 111