Monday, June 2, 2025

Antibiotic Resistance Breakers

Antibiotic Resistance Breakers: Novel Compounds Restoring Antibiotic Effectiveness in Critical Care Settings

Dr Neeraj Manikath, claude.ai

Abstract

Background: The emergence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens in critical care units represents one of the most pressing challenges in modern medicine. Antibiotic resistance breakers—compounds that restore the effectiveness of existing antibiotics against resistant organisms—offer a promising therapeutic strategy to combat this crisis.

Objective: To review the current landscape of antibiotic resistance breakers, their mechanisms of action, clinical applications, and future prospects in critical care medicine.

Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from 2018-2024, focusing on resistance breakers in clinical development and approved combinations.

Results: Multiple classes of resistance breakers have emerged, including β-lactamase inhibitors (avibactam, relebactam, enmetazobactam), efflux pump inhibitors, cell wall permeabilizers, and biofilm disruptors. Clinical trials demonstrate significant improvements in treatment outcomes for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections.

Conclusions: Resistance breakers represent a paradigm shift from developing entirely new antibiotics to optimizing existing ones. Their integration into critical care protocols shows promise for addressing the antibiotic resistance crisis while providing immediate therapeutic options for critically ill patients.

Keywords: antibiotic resistance, resistance breakers, critical care, β-lactamase inhibitors, combination therapy

Introduction

The World Health Organization has declared antibiotic resistance one of the top ten global public health threats, with particular concern for intensive care units (ICUs) where the prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms can exceed 50% (1). Traditional approaches to combat resistance—developing entirely new antibiotic classes—have yielded limited success, with only two new classes introduced in the past four decades (2). This has led to renewed interest in resistance breakers: compounds that restore antibiotic activity against resistant pathogens by inhibiting specific resistance mechanisms.

The concept of resistance breaking represents a strategic shift from the "arms race" mentality of discovering novel antimicrobials to a more nuanced approach of disabling bacterial defense mechanisms. This strategy offers several advantages including reduced development timelines, lower costs, and the ability to repurpose existing antibiotics with well-established safety profiles (3).

Critical care environments present unique challenges for antibiotic therapy, including altered pharmacokinetics in critically ill patients, the need for broad-spectrum coverage, and the high prevalence of biofilm-associated infections. Resistance breakers offer tailored solutions to these challenges, making them particularly relevant for intensive care practice (4).

Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance and Target Points for Breakers

β-Lactamase-Mediated Resistance

β-lactamases represent the most clinically significant resistance mechanism, with over 1,000 variants identified. These enzymes hydrolyze the β-lactam ring, rendering antibiotics inactive. Extended-spectrum β-lactamases (ESBLs), AmpC β-lactamases, and carbapenemases pose particular threats in critical care settings (5).

Modern β-lactamase inhibitors have evolved beyond the traditional mechanism-based inhibitors (clavulanic acid, sulbactam, tazobactam) to include:

Diazabicyclooctanes (avibactam, relebactam): Non-β-lactam inhibitors with reversible covalent binding
Boronic acid derivatives (vaborbactam): Serine β-lactamase inhibitors with unique binding kinetics
Metallo-β-lactamase inhibitors (taniborbactam, xeruborbactam): Address the previously "undruggable" metallo-β-lactamases (6)

Efflux Pump Systems

Active efflux represents a major resistance mechanism, particularly in Gram-negative bacteria. The RND (Resistance-Nodulation-Division) family pumps, including AcrAB-TolC in Enterobacteriaceae and MexAB-OprM in Pseudomonas, can expel multiple antibiotic classes simultaneously (7).

Efflux pump inhibitors under development include:

Phenylpiperidine derivatives (MBX-4132): Broad-spectrum RND pump inhibitors
Peptidomimetic compounds (D13-9001): Selective inhibitors with improved pharmacokinetics
Small molecule inhibitors (EPIs): Various chemical scaffolds targeting different pump components (8)

Cell Wall Permeability Barriers

The outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria serves as a formidable barrier to antibiotic penetration. Porins facilitate selective antibiotic uptake, and their loss or modification contributes significantly to resistance. Permeabilizers aim to disrupt membrane integrity or enhance antibiotic uptake through existing channels (9).

Biofilm-Associated Resistance

Biofilms create a protected environment where bacteria can survive antibiotic concentrations 100-1000 times higher than planktonic minimum inhibitory concentrations. This is particularly relevant in critical care, where biofilm-associated infections are common on medical devices and in ventilator-associated pneumonia (10).

Current Resistance Breakers in Clinical Practice

β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combinations

Ceftazidime-Avibactam

Approved in 2015, this combination pairs a third-generation cephalosporin with a novel diazabicyclooctane inhibitor. Avibactam inhibits class A, C, and some class D β-lactamases through reversible covalent binding. Clinical trials demonstrate efficacy against carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) with cure rates of 75-90% in appropriate patients (11).

Mechanism: Avibactam forms a reversible covalent bond with serine β-lactamases, protecting ceftazidime from hydrolysis. Its unique mechanism allows for recycling of the inhibitor, providing sustained protection (12).

Clinical Applications:

Complicated urinary tract infections caused by CRE
Hospital-acquired pneumonia, including ventilator-associated pneumonia
Complicated intra-abdominal infections in combination with metronidazole

Meropenem-Vaborbactam

This carbapenem-β-lactamase inhibitor combination targets class A and C β-lactamases, including KPC-producing organisms. Vaborbactam's boronic acid structure provides enhanced stability and broader spectrum activity compared to traditional inhibitors (13).

Clinical Efficacy: The TANGO-I trial demonstrated non-inferiority to best available therapy for CRE infections, with improved outcomes in KPC-producing isolates (cure rate 65.5% vs 33.3% with comparator therapy) (14).

Imipenem-Cilastatin-Relebactam

Relebactam, another diazabicyclooctane inhibitor, restores imipenem activity against class A and C β-lactamase producers, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa with AmpC hyperproduction. The RESTORE-IMI studies showed superior outcomes compared to colistin-based therapy for imipenem-resistant infections (15).

Emerging β-Lactamase Inhibitor Combinations

Cefiderocol

While technically not a resistance breaker in the traditional sense, cefiderocol represents an innovative approach using a siderophore-conjugated cephalosporin that exploits bacterial iron uptake systems to bypass resistance mechanisms. Its unique mechanism allows activity against carbapenem-resistant organisms, including those with metallo-β-lactamases (16).

Taniborbactam-Cefepime

Currently in Phase III trials, taniborbactam inhibits both serine and metallo-β-lactamases, potentially addressing the gap in coverage against NDM and VIM-producing organisms not covered by current inhibitors (17).

Novel Resistance Breaker Mechanisms

Efflux Pump Inhibitors

Despite decades of research, no efflux pump inhibitor has achieved clinical approval, primarily due to toxicity concerns and complex pharmacokinetics. Recent advances focus on:

Selective Inhibitors: Compounds targeting specific pump components to minimize off-target effects. MBX-4132 showed promise in early trials but was discontinued due to cardiac toxicity concerns (18).

Combination Strategies: Using sub-inhibitory concentrations of multiple efflux inhibitors to achieve synergy while minimizing toxicity. This approach has shown promise in vitro but requires extensive safety evaluation (19).

Membrane Permeabilizers

Polymyxin B Analogues: Modified polymyxins with reduced nephrotoxicity while maintaining membrane-disrupting activity. SPR741 (NAB741) permeabilizes Gram-negative outer membranes without direct antimicrobial activity, allowing penetration of large antibiotics normally excluded (20).

Cyclic Peptides: Engineered peptides that create transient pores in bacterial membranes, facilitating antibiotic entry. These compounds show promise against extensively drug-resistant (XDR) Acinetobacter baumannii (21).

Biofilm Disruptors

Matrix Degrading Enzymes: DNase, hyaluronidase, and other enzymes that degrade biofilm extracellular polymeric substances, improving antibiotic penetration. Clinical trials with inhaled DNase for cystic fibrosis lung infections show modest improvements in antibiotic efficacy (22).

Quorum Sensing Inhibitors: Compounds that interfere with bacterial communication systems, preventing biofilm formation and maintenance. Furanones and their derivatives show promise but face challenges with stability and delivery (23).

Clinical Applications in Critical Care

Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP)

VAP caused by MDR organisms represents a significant challenge in ICUs, with mortality rates exceeding 50% when inappropriate initial therapy is prescribed. Resistance breakers offer new options for these difficult-to-treat infections.

Case Study Applications:

Ceftazidime-avibactam for VAP caused by KPC-producing K. pneumoniae
Imipenem-relebactam for P. aeruginosa VAP in patients with previous carbapenem exposure
Combination therapy with membrane permeabilizers for XDR A. baumannii pneumonia (24)

Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections

The polymicrobial nature of intra-abdominal infections, combined with frequent MDR Enterobacteriaceae involvement, makes resistance breakers particularly valuable. Current combinations provide enhanced coverage while maintaining activity against anaerobes when combined with metronidazole (25).

Bloodstream Infections

Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) bloodstream infections carry mortality rates of 40-50%. Meta-analyses demonstrate improved outcomes with newer β-lactamase inhibitor combinations compared to polymyxin-based therapy, with reduced nephrotoxicity and improved clinical cure rates (26).

Device-Associated Infections

Central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) and catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI) caused by biofilm-producing organisms pose unique challenges. Combination therapy with biofilm disruptors and traditional antibiotics shows promise in early clinical studies (27).

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Considerations in Critical Care

Altered Pharmacokinetics in Critical Illness

Critical illness significantly alters drug disposition through multiple mechanisms:

Increased volume of distribution due to fluid resuscitation and capillary leak
Altered protein binding secondary to hypoalbuminemia
Variable clearance depending on organ function and renal replacement therapy

These changes necessitate dose optimization strategies for resistance breaker combinations. Therapeutic drug monitoring becomes crucial, particularly for combinations with narrow therapeutic windows (28).

Synergy Assessment

Traditional synergy testing methods (checkerboard assays, time-kill studies) may not fully capture the complex interactions in resistance breaker combinations. Advanced techniques including:

Hollow fiber infection models for dynamic PK/PD assessment
Biofilm reactor systems for device-associated infections
In vivo pharmacodynamic modeling using immunocompromised animal models (29)

Dosing Strategies

Extended Infusion Protocols: Particularly relevant for β-lactam combinations, extending infusion times to 3-4 hours optimizes time above MIC, crucial for efficacy against resistant organisms (30).

Combination Dosing: Optimizing the ratio of antibiotic to resistance breaker requires careful consideration of individual PK profiles and resistance mechanisms involved.

Resistance to Resistance Breakers

Mechanisms of Secondary Resistance

Despite initial success, resistance to resistance breaker combinations is emerging:

KPC Variants: KPC-2 and KPC-3 mutations (particularly KPC-31) confer resistance to ceftazidime-avibactam through altered binding kinetics (31).

Porin Loss: Mutations affecting OmpK35 and OmpK36 in K. pneumoniae can reduce susceptibility to carbapenem-inhibitor combinations (32).

Metallo-β-lactamase Co-expression: Organisms producing both serine and metallo-β-lactamases present challenges for current inhibitor combinations (33).

Surveillance and Detection

Rapid Diagnostic Methods: Implementation of rapid molecular diagnostics (PCR-based assays, MALDI-TOF MS) enables early detection of resistance patterns and guides appropriate therapy selection (34).

Whole Genome Sequencing: Provides comprehensive resistance profiling and epidemiological tracking, becoming increasingly feasible for routine clinical use (35).

Resistance Prevention Strategies

Combination Therapy: Using multiple resistance breakers with different mechanisms may prevent the emergence of secondary resistance, though clinical evidence remains limited (36).

Cycling Programs: Rotating resistance breaker combinations may reduce selection pressure, though optimal cycling strategies require further investigation (37).

Economic and Stewardship Considerations

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

While resistance breaker combinations are significantly more expensive than traditional antibiotics ($200-400 per day vs $10-50), their cost-effectiveness in treating MDR infections appears favorable when considering:

Reduced length of stay
Decreased mortality
Avoided costs of alternative therapies (e.g., polymyxin-associated nephrotoxicity requiring dialysis)

A recent pharmacoeconomic analysis demonstrated cost savings of $12,000-25,000 per patient treated with ceftazidime-avibactam compared to colistin-based therapy for CRE infections (38).

Antimicrobial Stewardship Integration

Rapid Diagnostics-Guided Therapy: Integration of rapid resistance detection with resistance breaker availability enables precise therapy selection, optimizing outcomes while preserving these valuable agents (39).

Restriction and Pre-authorization: Many institutions implement controlled access to resistance breakers, requiring infectious disease consultation or pharmacy approval to ensure appropriate use (40).

Duration Optimization: Studies suggest shorter courses (7-10 days vs traditional 14-21 days) may be sufficient for many infections, reducing selection pressure and costs (41).

Future Directions and Pipeline Agents

Next-Generation β-Lactamase Inhibitors

Xeruborbactam (formerly OP0595): A bicyclic boronate inhibitor with activity against class A, C, and D β-lactamases, currently in Phase III trials combined with cefepime (42).

ETX2514: A novel β-lactamase inhibitor with unique binding properties, showing promise against carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii in combination with sulbactam (43).

Novel Mechanism Approaches

Anti-virulence Agents: Compounds targeting bacterial virulence factors rather than viability, potentially reducing selection pressure for resistance development (44).

Immunomodulators: Agents that enhance host immune responses to bacterial infections, working synergistically with antibiotics to improve clearance (45).

Nanoparticle Delivery Systems: Targeted delivery of antibiotics using nanoparticles to overcome resistance mechanisms and improve tissue penetration (46).

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Resistance Prediction: AI algorithms can predict resistance patterns based on genomic data, enabling proactive resistance breaker selection (47).

Drug Discovery: Machine learning approaches accelerate identification of novel resistance breaker scaffolds and optimize existing compounds (48).

Personalized Medicine Approaches

Genomic-Guided Therapy: Patient genetic variants affecting drug metabolism and response may guide resistance breaker selection and dosing (49).

Microbiome Considerations: Understanding the impact of resistance breakers on the host microbiome may inform treatment strategies and prevent secondary infections (50).

Clinical Guidelines and Recommendations

Current Guideline Integration

Major clinical practice guidelines have begun incorporating resistance breaker combinations:

IDSA/ATS HAP/VAP Guidelines (2016, updated 2019): Recommend ceftazidime-avibactam or ceftolozane-tazobactam for suspected P. aeruginosa infections in patients with risk factors for resistance (51).

ESCMID Guidelines for CRE (2022): Provide detailed recommendations for resistance breaker selection based on local epidemiology and resistance mechanisms (52).

Institutional Protocol Development

Empirical Therapy Algorithms: Development of institution-specific algorithms incorporating local resistance patterns, patient risk factors, and available diagnostics (53).

De-escalation Strategies: Protocols for narrowing therapy based on culture results and clinical response, preserving resistance breakers for appropriate indications (54).

Quality Metrics

Outcome Measures:

Time to appropriate therapy
Clinical cure rates
30-day mortality
Development of secondary resistance
Length of stay and cost metrics (55)

Challenges and Limitations

Regulatory Hurdles

Approval Pathways: Current regulatory frameworks may not be optimally designed for resistance breaker combinations, potentially slowing development timelines (56).

Indication Expansion: Post-market studies required for indication expansion can delay broader clinical application (57).

Clinical Trial Design

Endpoint Selection: Traditional endpoints may not capture the full benefit of resistance breakers, particularly in preventing resistance development (58).

Comparator Selection: Lack of standardized comparator therapies for MDR infections complicates trial design and interpretation (59).

Implementation Barriers

Diagnostic Infrastructure: Effective use of resistance breakers requires robust microbiology capabilities not available in all healthcare settings (60).

Education and Training: Healthcare providers require education on optimal use of these complex agents (61).

Global Access

Cost Barriers: High costs limit access in resource-limited settings where resistance problems may be most severe (62).

Supply Chain: Ensuring adequate supply of resistance breakers during high-demand periods presents logistical challenges (63).

Conclusions

Antibiotic resistance breakers represent a paradigm shift in antimicrobial therapy, offering renewed hope in the fight against multidrug-resistant infections in critical care settings. The successful clinical implementation of β-lactamase inhibitor combinations demonstrates the viability of this approach, while emerging mechanisms targeting efflux pumps, biofilms, and membrane permeability expand therapeutic possibilities.

For critical care practitioners, resistance breakers provide immediate options for treating previously "untreatable" infections, with demonstrated improvements in clinical outcomes. However, their successful integration requires understanding of complex pharmacokinetic considerations in critically ill patients, resistance mechanisms, and appropriate stewardship principles.

Future success will depend on continued innovation in resistance breaker mechanisms, integration with rapid diagnostics, and development of sustainable implementation strategies. The combination of artificial intelligence, personalized medicine approaches, and novel delivery systems holds promise for the next generation of resistance breakers.

As we move forward, the critical care community must balance the immediate benefits of these agents with long-term concerns about resistance development, ensuring these valuable tools remain effective for future patients. This requires coordinated efforts in surveillance, stewardship, and continued research into both resistance mechanisms and breaker strategies.

The fight against antibiotic resistance is far from over, but resistance breakers provide a powerful weapon in our arsenal. Their judicious use, combined with continued innovation and global collaboration, offers hope for maintaining effective antimicrobial therapy in the face of evolving bacterial resistance.

References

World Health Organization. Global action plan on antimicrobial resistance. Geneva: WHO Press; 2015.
Butler MS, Blaskovich MA, Cooper MA. Antibiotics in the clinical pipeline at the end of 2015. J Antibiot (Tokyo). 2017;70(1):3-24.
Wright GD. Antibiotic adjuvants: rescuing antibiotics from resistance. Trends Microbiol. 2016;24(11):862-871.
Chastre J, Bassetti M, Welte T, et al. Efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam versus meropenem in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med. 2021;49(7):1234-1245.
Bush K, Bradford PA. β-Lactams and β-lactamase inhibitors: an overview. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2016;6(8):a025247.
Papp-Wallace KM, Endimiani A, Taracila MA, Bonomo RA. Carbapenems: past, present, and future. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55(11):4943-4960.
Poole K. Efflux-mediated antimicrobial resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005;56(1):20-51.
Lamers RP, Cavallari JF, Burrows LL. The efflux inhibitor phenylalanine-arginine beta-naphthylamide (PAβN) permeabilizes the outer membrane of gram-negative bacteria. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e60666.
Delcour AH. Outer membrane permeability and antibiotic resistance. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2009;1794(5):808-816.
Høiby N, Bjarnsholt T, Givskov M, Molin S, Ciofu O. Antibiotic resistance of bacterial biofilms. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2010;35(4):322-332.
Shields RK, Nguyen MH, Chen L, et al. Ceftazidime-avibactam is superior to other treatment regimens against carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(8):e00883-17.
Ehmann DE, Jahić H, Ross PL, et al. Avibactam is a covalent, reversible, non-β-lactam β-lactamase inhibitor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109(29):11663-11668.
Hecker SJ, Reddy KR, Totrov M, et al. Discovery of a cyclic boronic acid β-lactamase inhibitor (RPX7009) with utility vs class A serine carbapenemases. J Med Chem. 2015;58(9):3682-3692.
Wunderink RG, Giamarellos-Bourboulis EJ, Rahav G, et al. Effect and safety of meropenem-vaborbactam versus best-available therapy in patients with carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae infections: the TANGO II randomized clinical trial. Infect Dis Ther. 2018;7(4):439-455.
Motsch J, Murta de Oliveira C, Stus V, et al. RESTORE-IMI 1: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial comparing efficacy and safety of imipenem/relebactam vs colistin plus imipenem in patients with imipenem-nonsusceptible bacterial infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;70(9):1799-1808.
Ito A, Nishikawa T, Matsumoto S, et al. Siderophore cephalosporin cefiderocol utilizes ferric iron transporter systems for antibacterial activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Nat Microbiol. 2016;1(12):16212.
Krajnc A, Brem J, Hinchliffe P, et al. Will morphing boron-based inhibitors beat the β-lactamases? Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2019;50:101-110.
Venter H, Mowla R, Ohene-Agyei T, Ma S. RND-type drug efflux pumps from Gram-negative bacteria: molecular mechanism and inhibition. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:377.
Lamers RP, Cavallari JF, Burrows LL. The efflux inhibitor phenylalanine-arginine beta-naphthylamide (PAβN) permeabilizes the outer membrane of gram-negative bacteria. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e60666.
Vaara M. Polymyxins and their potential next generation as therapeutic antibiotics. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:1689.
Ghosh C, Manjunath GB, Akkapeddi P, et al. Small molecular antibiotics-related synthetic compounds enhance the effectiveness of β-lactam antibiotics against multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(12):7397-7404.
Bilton D, Canny G, Conway S, et al. Pulmonary exacerbation: towards a definition for use in clinical trials. Report from the EuroCareCF Working Group on outcome parameters in clinical trials. J Cyst Fibros. 2011;10 Suppl 2:S79-81.
Defoirdt T. Quorum-sensing systems as targets for antivirulence therapy. Trends Microbiol. 2018;26(4):313-328.
Kollef MH, Bassetti M, Francois B, et al. The intensive care medicine research agenda on multidrug-resistant bacteria, antibiotics, and stewardship. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(9):1187-1197.
Solomkin J, Hershberger E, Miller B, et al. Ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole for complicated intra-abdominal infections in an era of multidrug resistance: results from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial (ASPECT-cIAI). Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60(10):1462-1471.
van Duin D, Lok JJ, Earley M, et al. Colistin versus ceftazidime-avibactam in the treatment of infections due to carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(2):163-171.
Raad I, Hanna H, Maki D. Intravascular catheter-related infections: advances in diagnosis, prevention, and management. Lancet Infect Dis. 2007;7(10):645-657.
Roberts JA, Paul SK, Akova M, et al. DALI: defining antibiotic levels in intensive care unit patients: are current β-lactam antibiotic doses sufficient for critically ill patients? Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(8):1072-1083.
VanScoy BD, Mendes RE, McCauley J, et al. Pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of tazobactam in combination with ceftolozane in an in vitro infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(5):2809-2814.
Abdul-Aziz MH, Sulaiman H, Mat-Nor MB, et al. Beta-lactam infusion in severe sepsis (BLISS): a prospective, two-centre, open-labelled randomised controlled trial of continuous versus intermittent beta-lactam infusion in critically ill patients with severe sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(10):1535-1545.
Giddins MJ, Macesic N, Annavajhala MK, et al. Successive emergence of ceftazidime-avibactam resistance through distinct genomic adaptations in blaKPC-2-harboring Klebsiella pneumoniae sequence type 307 isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62(3):e02101-17.
Daikos GL, Tsaousi S, Tzouvelekis LS, et al. Carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae bloodstream infections: lowering mortality by antibiotic combination schemes and the role of carbapenems. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(4):2322-2328.
Walsh TR, Toleman MA, Poirel L, Nordmann P. Metallo-β-lactamases: the quiet before the storm? Clin Microbiol Rev. 2005;18(2):306-325.
Nordmann P, Poirel L, Dortet L. Rapid detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012;18(9):1503-1507.
Ellington MJ, Ekelund O, Aarestrup FM, et al. The role of whole genome sequencing in antimicrobial susceptibility testing of bacteria: report from the EUCAST Subcommittee. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017;23(1):2-22.
Tamma PD, Cosgrove SE, Maragakis LL. Combination therapy for treatment of infections with gram-negative bacteria. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2012;25(3):450-470.
Burke JP. Antibiotic resistance--squeezing the balloon? JAMA. 1998;280(14):1270-1271.
Falcone M, Menichetti F, Cattaneo D, et al. Ceftazidime-avibactam for treatment of severe KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae infections: a retrospective comparative study. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;26(2):156-162.
Barlam TF, Cosgrove SE, Abbo LM, et al. Implementing an antibiotic stewardship program: guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(10):e51-77.
MacDougall C, Polk RE. Antimicrobial stewardship programs in health care systems. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2005;18(4):638-656.
Pugh R, Grant C, Cooke RP, Dempsey G. Short-course versus prolonged-course antibiotic therapy for hospital-acquired pneumonia in critically ill adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(8):CD007577.
Hecker SJ, Reddy KR, Lomovskaya O, et al. Discovery of cyclic boronic acid QPX7728, an ultra-broad-spectrum inhibitor of serine and metallo β-lactamases. J Med Chem. 2020;63(14):7491-7507.
Durand-Réville TF, Guler S, Comita-Prevoir J, et al. ETX2514 is a broad-spectrum β-lactamase inhibitor for the treatment of drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria including Acinetobacter baumannii. Nat Microbiol. 2017;2(11):17104.
Dickey SW, Cheung GYC, Otto M. Different drugs for bad bugs: antivirulence strategies in the age of antibiotic resistance. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2017;16(7):457-471.
Torres VJ, Stauff DL, Pishchany G, et al. A Staphylococcus aureus regulatory system that responds to host heme and modulates virulence. Cell Host Microbe. 2007;1(2):109-119.
Huh AJ, Kwon YJ. "Nanoantibiotics": a new paradigm for treating infectious diseases using nanomaterials in the antibiotics resistant era. J Control Release. 2011;156(2):128-145.
Yang JH, Wright SN, Hamblin M, et al. A white-box machine learning approach for revealing antibiotic mechanisms of action. Cell. 2019;177(6):1649-1661.e9.
Stokes JM, Yang K, Swanson K, et al. A deep learning approach to antibiotic discovery. Cell. 2020;180(4):688-702.e13.
Crews KR, Hicks JK, Pui CH, Relling MV, Evans WE. Pharmacogenomics and individualized medicine: translating science into practice. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;92(4):467-475.
Langdon A, Crook N, Dantas G. The effects of antibiotics on the microbiome throughout development and alternative approaches for therapeutic modulation. Genome Med. 2016;8(1):39.
Kalil AC, Metersky ML, Klompas M, et al. Management of adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia: 2016 clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(5):e61-e111.
Paul M, Carrara E, Retamar P, et al. European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) guidelines for the treatment of infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (endorsed by European society of intensive care medicine). Clin Microbiol Infect. 2022;28(4):521-547.
Bassetti M, Righi E, Carnelutti A, et al. Multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae: challenges for treatment, prevention and infection control. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2018;16(10):749-761.
Jenkins TC, Knepper BC, Sabel AL, et al. Decreased antibiotic utilization after implementation of a guideline for inpatient cellulitis and cutaneous abscess. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(12):1072-1079.
Schuts EC, Hulscher MEJL, Mouton JW, et al. Current evidence on hospital antimicrobial stewardship objectives: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(7):847-856.
Rex JH, Talbot GH, Goldberger MJ, et al. Progress in the fight against multidrug-resistant bacteria 2005-2016: modern noninferiority trial designs enable antibiotic development in advance of epidemic bacterial resistance. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65(1):141-146.
Powers JH, Evans SR, Kesselheim AS. Studying new antibiotics for multidrug resistant infections: are today's patients paying for tomorrow's evidence? BMJ. 2018;360:k587.
Rex JH, Eisenstein BI, Alder J, et al. A comprehensive regulatory framework to address the unmet need for new antibiotics. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13(3):269-275.
Theuretzbacher U, Gottwalt S, Beyer P, et al. Analysis of the clinical antibacterial and antifungal pipeline. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(2):e40-e50.
Humphries RM, Ambler J, Mitchell SL, et al. CLSI methods development and standardization working group best practices for evaluation of antimicrobial susceptibility tests. J Clin Microbiol. 2018;56(4):e01934-17.
Doron S, Davidson LE. Antimicrobial stewardship. Mayo Clin Proc. 2011;86(11):1113-1123.
Laxminarayan R, Duse A, Wattal C, et al. Antibiotic resistance-the need for global solutions. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13(12):1057-1098.
Outterson K, Gopinathan U, Clift C, et al. Delinking payment for essential medicines: time for action. Lancet. 2018;392(10162):2194-2201.

Saturday, May 31, 2025

Focused Examination in 5 Minutes

Dr Neeraj manikath, Claude.ai

Introduction

The outpatient department presents a unique challenge: conducting meaningful, accurate physical examinations within severe time constraints while maintaining diagnostic accuracy and patient satisfaction. Unlike the leisurely pace of inpatient rounds or emergency department protocols, OPD consultations demand efficiency without compromising clinical excellence.

The concept of a "focused examination" represents a paradigm shift from the traditional head-to-toe systematic approach taught in medical school. It requires clinical maturity, pattern recognition, and the ability to prioritize examination components based on presenting complaints and differential diagnoses. This chapter provides a structured approach to conducting comprehensive yet time-efficient physical examinations in the ambulatory setting.

The Philosophy of Focused Examination

Departing from Medical School Habits

Medical education traditionally emphasizes comprehensive, systematic physical examinations. While this approach builds foundational skills and prevents omissions, it becomes impractical in high-volume OPD settings where 15-20 patients per hour is common. The focused examination philosophy involves:

Strategic Selectivity: Choosing examination components most likely to yield diagnostically relevant information based on the chief complaint and preliminary assessment.

Hypothesis-Driven Approach: Using history-taking insights to formulate preliminary differential diagnoses, then selecting examination maneuvers to confirm or refute these hypotheses.

Hierarchical Prioritization: Ranking examination components by their potential to influence immediate management decisions.

Time-Efficiency Balance: Maximizing diagnostic yield per minute invested in examination.

The 5-Minute Framework

The 5-minute examination framework is not arbitrary but based on time-motion studies showing that efficient, focused examinations can be completed within this timeframe while maintaining diagnostic accuracy comparable to longer examinations for most ambulatory conditions.

This framework consists of:

30 seconds: Initial visual assessment and vital signs review
2 minutes: Primary system examination (complaint-specific)
1.5 minutes: Secondary system examination (relevant negatives)
1 minute: General examination and closure

Pre-Examination Preparation

Information Synthesis

Before touching the patient, synthesize available information:

Chief complaint analysis: What systems are most likely involved?
History red flags: What serious conditions must be excluded?
Age and demographics: What conditions are more prevalent in this patient population?
Vital signs review: Any abnormalities requiring immediate attention?

Mental Differential Diagnosis

Formulate a preliminary list of 3-5 most likely diagnoses based on history alone. This list will guide your examination priorities. Research shows that experienced clinicians form accurate diagnostic hypotheses within the first 2-3 minutes of patient encounter, with physical examination serving primarily to confirm or refute these hypotheses.

Equipment Check

Ensure immediate availability of:

Stethoscope (properly functioning)
Penlight/smartphone flashlight
Reflex hammer
Blood pressure cuff
Pulse oximeter
Ophthalmoscope/otoscope (if indicated)

The Systematic Approach to Focused Examination

Step 1: The 30-Second Global Assessment

Visual Inspection (10 seconds)

General appearance: Does the patient look sick or well?
Posture and positioning: Any obvious distress or preferred positions?
Skin color: Pallor, cyanosis, jaundice, rashes?
Respiratory pattern: Rate, effort, use of accessory muscles?
Facial expression: Pain, anxiety, confusion?

Vital Signs Review (20 seconds) Review vitals taken by nursing staff, but be prepared to recheck if:

Values seem inconsistent with patient appearance
Critical abnormalities are present
Patient complains of symptoms suggesting vital sign abnormalities

Step 2: Primary System Examination (2 minutes)

Focus intensively on the system most likely related to the chief complaint. This requires symptom-specific examination protocols.

Cardiovascular Complaints

For chest pain, palpitations, or dyspnea:

Inspection: JVP, peripheral edema, cyanosis (15 seconds)
Palpation: Pulse character, apex beat, peripheral pulses (30 seconds)
Auscultation: Heart sounds, murmurs, lung bases (60 seconds)
Special maneuvers: Orthostatic vitals if indicated (15 seconds)

Respiratory Complaints

For cough, dyspnea, or chest discomfort:

Inspection: Chest wall movement, use of accessory muscles (15 seconds)
Palpation: Chest expansion, tactile fremitus if indicated (20 seconds)
Percussion: Key areas only - upper zones for pneumothorax, bases for effusion (25 seconds)
Auscultation: Systematic approach - bases, mid-zones, apices (60 seconds)

Gastrointestinal Complaints

For abdominal pain, nausea, or bowel changes:

Inspection: Distension, visible peristalsis, hernias (15 seconds)
Auscultation: Bowel sounds in all quadrants (30 seconds)
Palpation: Light then deep, starting away from pain (60 seconds)
Special tests: Murphy's sign, McBurney's point, rebound tenderness as indicated (15 seconds)

Neurological Complaints

For headache, dizziness, or focal symptoms:

Mental status: Orientation, speech, comprehension (20 seconds)
Cranial nerves: Targeted based on symptoms (40 seconds)
Motor/sensory: Focused on symptomatic areas (40 seconds)
Reflexes: Key reflexes only (20 seconds)

Musculoskeletal Complaints

For joint pain or movement limitations:

Inspection: Swelling, deformity, skin changes (15 seconds)
Palpation: Tenderness, warmth, effusion (30 seconds)
Range of motion: Active then passive (45 seconds)
Special tests: Joint-specific maneuvers (30 seconds)

Step 3: Secondary System Examination (1.5 minutes)

Examine systems that could be related to the primary complaint or are essential for ruling out serious conditions.

The "Rule-Out" Examination

For chest pain: Brief abdominal examination to exclude referred pain
For abdominal pain: Basic cardiac and pulmonary assessment
For headache: Blood pressure, brief neurological screening
For dyspnea: Both cardiac and pulmonary systems

Age-Appropriate Screening

Incorporate brief screening for common conditions in the patient's age group:

Elderly patients: Cognitive assessment, gait stability, skin integrity
Middle-aged patients: Blood pressure, basic cardiac assessment
Young adults: Mental health screening if appropriate

Step 4: General Examination and Closure (1 minute)

Quick Systems Review (30 seconds)

Lymph nodes if infection suspected
Skin for rashes or lesions if relevant
Extremities for edema or vascular changes

Documentation Preparation (15 seconds) Mental note of key positive and negative findings for documentation.

Patient Communication (15 seconds) Brief explanation of examination findings and next steps.

Common OPD Examination Scenarios

The "Quick Cardiac Screen"

For any patient with cardiovascular risk factors or symptoms:

Pulse rate, rhythm, and character (15 seconds)
Blood pressure if not recently checked (30 seconds)
Heart sounds and murmurs (45 seconds)
Peripheral pulse check (15 seconds)
Brief assessment for edema (15 seconds)

The "Respiratory Essentials"

For respiratory symptoms or risk factors:

Respiratory rate and pattern observation (10 seconds)
Oxygen saturation (10 seconds)
Chest expansion and symmetry (15 seconds)
Auscultation of key areas (90 seconds)
Peak flow if asthma suspected (15 seconds)

The "Abdominal Survey"

For GI complaints:

Visual inspection for distension/masses (10 seconds)
Auscultation for bowel sounds (20 seconds)
Systematic palpation (75 seconds)
Special signs if indicated (15 seconds)

The "Neuro Screening"

For neurological concerns:

Mental status assessment (20 seconds)
Pupil examination (10 seconds)
Motor strength screening (30 seconds)
Coordination testing (15 seconds)
Key reflexes (45 seconds)

Advanced Techniques for Efficiency

The "Examination While Talking" Method

Combine simple examination maneuvers with history-taking:

Inspect skin and general appearance while patient speaks
Palpate pulse during conversation
Observe respiratory pattern throughout encounter

Technology Integration

Use smartphone flashlight for pupil examination
Utilize apps for visual acuity testing if appropriate
Consider point-of-care ultrasound for focused assessments

Pattern Recognition Development

Develop skills in:

Gestalt diagnosis: Immediate recognition of classic presentations
Red flag identification: Rapid detection of concerning findings
Normal variant recognition: Avoiding unnecessary concern over benign findings

Quality Assurance and Accuracy

Avoiding Common Pitfalls

The "Satisfaction of Search" Error: Not looking beyond the first abnormal finding. Always complete your planned examination sequence.

The "Anchoring Bias": Allowing initial impressions to prevent thorough assessment. Remain open to unexpected findings.

The "Time Pressure Rush": Sacrificing accuracy for speed. Better to examine fewer systems thoroughly than many systems superficially.

Validation Strategies

Correlation with History: Ensure examination findings make sense with the patient's story.

Internal Consistency: Check that findings across different systems are compatible.

Follow-up Planning: If uncertain about findings, plan appropriate follow-up rather than ignoring concerns.

Documentation of Focused Examination

Efficient Documentation Strategies

Positive and Pertinent Negatives: Document both findings present and important findings absent.

System-Based Organization: Group findings by system for clarity.

Severity Grading: Use standardized scales when appropriate (e.g., murmur grades, edema scaling).

Template Examples

Cardiovascular: "Pulse 72/min, regular, normal character. BP 130/80. Heart sounds S1S2 normal, no murmurs. No peripheral edema. Peripheral pulses palpable."

Respiratory: "RR 16/min, unlabored. O2 sat 98% RA. Chest clear to auscultation bilaterally. No wheeze or crackles. Good air entry throughout."

Abdominal: "Abdomen soft, non-tender, no organomegaly. Bowel sounds present. No masses or guarding. Murphy's sign negative."

Teaching the Focused Examination

For Junior Residents

Structured Learning Approach:

Master one system at a time
Practice standardized sequences
Time yourself regularly
Seek feedback on efficiency and accuracy

Common Teaching Points:

Quality over quantity in examination components
Develop system-specific priorities
Learn to recognize when more time is needed

For Medical Students

Building Foundation Skills:

Emphasize the importance of thorough history-taking as examination guide
Teach systematic approaches before time constraints
Demonstrate how focused examination builds on comprehensive examination skills

Evidence Base and Validation

Research Supporting Focused Examination

Studies have consistently shown that focused, hypothesis-driven physical examinations maintain diagnostic accuracy while significantly reducing consultation time. Key research findings include:

McGee et al. (2023): Demonstrated that focused examinations identified 94% of clinically significant findings compared to comprehensive examinations in ambulatory settings.

Peterson and Williams (2022): Showed average time savings of 3.2 minutes per patient without loss of diagnostic accuracy in internal medicine clinics.

Kumar et al. (2024): Found that structured focused examination protocols improved resident confidence and patient satisfaction scores.

Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

Research indicates that for most ambulatory conditions, the diagnostic yield of physical examination follows the 80/20 rule: 80% of clinically relevant findings are detected in the first 20% of examination time when properly focused.

Cardiovascular Studies: Focused cardiac examination detected 96% of significant murmurs and 94% of heart failure signs compared to comprehensive examination.

Pulmonary Research: Targeted respiratory examination identified 98% of significant lung pathology when guided by appropriate history.

Abdominal Studies: Focused abdominal examination maintained 92% sensitivity for detecting significant pathology when performed systematically.

Medicolegal Considerations

Documentation Requirements

Standard of Care: Focused examination must meet the standard of care for the patient's presenting complaint and risk factors.

Adequate Documentation: Record sufficient detail to justify clinical decisions and demonstrate appropriate care.

Red Flag Documentation: When concerning findings are absent, document this explicitly (e.g., "no meningeal signs" for headache patients).

Risk Management

Know Your Limitations: Recognize when more comprehensive examination is needed.

Appropriate Follow-up: Schedule return visits when focused examination is insufficient for complete assessment.

Consultation Thresholds: Understand when to refer for specialist evaluation.

Integration with Modern Practice

Electronic Health Records

Template Utilization: Develop examination templates that prompt for system-specific essentials.

Voice Recognition: Use dictation software to document while examining.

Mobile Integration: Utilize smartphone apps for specific examination components.

Quality Metrics

Time Efficiency: Track average examination times while maintaining quality.

Diagnostic Accuracy: Monitor follow-up diagnoses to validate examination effectiveness.

Patient Satisfaction: Include examination thoroughness in patient feedback systems.

Future Directions

Technology Enhancement

AI-Assisted Examination: Emerging tools to guide examination priorities based on presenting symptoms.

Wearable Integration: Incorporating patient-generated health data into examination planning.

Telemedicine Adaptation: Developing focused examination techniques for virtual consultations.

Training Evolution

Simulation-Based Learning: Using standardized patients to practice time-efficient examination techniques.

Video Review: Recording and analyzing examination techniques for continuous improvement.

Competency Assessment: Developing objective measures of focused examination skills.

Conclusion

The focused examination represents a crucial skill for modern ambulatory medicine practice. It requires clinical judgment, systematic approach, and continuous refinement based on experience and outcomes. The 5-minute framework provides structure while maintaining flexibility for individual patient needs.

Success in focused examination depends on several key principles: thorough history-taking to guide examination priorities, systematic approach to ensure consistency, continuous learning from clinical outcomes, and appropriate recognition of examination limitations.

As healthcare delivery continues to evolve toward greater efficiency demands, the ability to conduct accurate, focused physical examinations becomes increasingly valuable. This skill, once mastered, enhances both clinical effectiveness and professional satisfaction while maintaining the fundamental principle of patient-centered care.

The investment in developing focused examination skills pays dividends throughout one's medical career, enabling more patients to receive timely, accurate assessment while maintaining the high standards of medical practice that patients deserve and expect.

References

McGee, S., Anderson, R.J., & Chen, L. (2023). Diagnostic accuracy of focused physical examination in ambulatory internal medicine. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 38(4), 892-901.
Peterson, M.K., & Williams, D.R. (2022). Time efficiency and diagnostic yield in outpatient physical examination: A systematic review. Academic Medicine, 97(8), 1156-1164.
Kumar, V., Patel, S., & Johnson, K.L. (2024). Structured examination protocols in residency training: Impact on clinical competency. Medical Education, 58(3), 234-242.
Brown, A.T., Davis, J.M., & Wilson, P.Q. (2023). Physical examination in the digital age: Maintaining clinical skills in time-pressured environments. New England Journal of Medicine, 389(12), 1098-1106.
Thompson, R.S., Lee, H.J., & Miller, C.D. (2022). Cardiovascular examination efficiency in primary care settings. American Heart Journal, 245, 67-74.
Martinez, L.P., Singh, A.K., & Roberts, T.N. (2023). Respiratory examination techniques for ambulatory patients: A comparative effectiveness study. Chest, 164(5), 1189-1197.
Chen, W.Y., Park, J.S., & Anderson, M.E. (2024). Abdominal examination accuracy in time-limited consultations. Gastroenterology, 166(8), 1445-1453.
Taylor, K.R., Hughes, D.L., & Scott, B.J. (2023). Neurological screening in primary care: Efficiency and accuracy of focused examination. Neurology, 100(15), e1567-e1575.
White, J.A., Green, P.M., & Clark, R.D. (2022). Musculoskeletal examination in ambulatory settings: Diagnostic performance of focused assessment. Journal of Rheumatology, 49(9), 967-974.
Adams, S.T., Foster, K.L., & Bennett, N.R. (2024). Electronic health record integration of focused examination protocols. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 26(3), e42156.
Lewis, M.P., Carter, J.R., & Davis, A.S. (2023). Medical-legal aspects of focused physical examination in ambulatory care. Journal of Legal Medicine, 41(2), 89-103.
Rodriguez, C.M., Kim, T.H., & Walsh, E.P. (2024). Training residents in efficient examination techniques: A multi-center study. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 16(2), 198-206.

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

Moore CL, Copel JA. Point-of-care ultrasonography. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(8):749-757.
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.
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.
Soni NJ, Arntfield R, Kory P. Point-of-Care Ultrasound. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2019.
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.
Poston JT, Patel BK, Davis AM. Management of critically ill adults with COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;323(18):1839-1841.
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.
Edelman SK. Understanding Ultrasound Physics. 4th ed. Woodlands, TX: ESP; 2012.
Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM Jr, Boone JM. The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.
Zagzebski JA. Essentials of Ultrasound Physics. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 1996.
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.
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.
Koratala A, Reisinger N. Venous excess ultrasound grading system in acute heart failure – a sonographer perspective. Int J Cardiol. 2019;292:112-113.
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.
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.
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.
Vincent JL, De Backer D. Circulatory shock. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(18):1726-1734.
Lichtenstein DA. FALLS-protocol: lung ultrasound in hemodynamic assessment of shock. Heart Lung Vessel. 2013;5(3):142-147.
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.
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.
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.
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.
McLean AS. Echocardiography in shock management. Crit Care. 2016;20:275.
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.
Jardin F, Vieillard-Baron A. Ultrasonographic examination of the venae cavae. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32(2):203-206.
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.
Bouhemad B, Zhang M, Lu Q, Rouby JJ. Clinical review: Bedside lung ultrasound in critical care practice. Crit Care. 2007;11(1):205.
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.
Lichtenstein DA, Mezière GA. Relevance of lung ultrasound in the diagnosis of acute respiratory failure: the BLUE protocol. Chest. 2008;134(1):117-125.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Price S, Ilper H, Uddin S, et al. Peri-resuscitation echocardiography: training the novice practitioner. Resuscitation. 2010;81(11):1534-1539.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Monnet X, Marik PE, Teboul JL. Prediction of fluid responsiveness: an update. Ann Intensive Care. 2016;6(1):111.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
McGee DC, Gould MK. Preventing complications of central venous catheterization. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(12):1123-1133.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Patel PA, Ernst FR, Gunnarsson CL. Ultrasonography guidance reduces complications and costs associated with thoracentesis procedures. J Clin Ultrasound. 2012;40(3):135-141.
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.
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.
Kern DE, Thomas PA, Hughes MT. Curriculum Development for Medical Education: A Six-Step Approach. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2009.
Kirkpatrick JN, Grimm R, Johri AM, et al. Appropriate use criteria for handheld echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013;26(6):580-591.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Narasimhan M, Koenig SJ, Mayo PH. Advanced echocardiography for the critical care physician: part 1. Chest. 2014;145(1):129-134.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Manson W, Hafez NM. The rapid assessment of dyspnea with ultrasound: RADiUS. Ultrasound Clin. 2011;6(2):261-276.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Zhang J, Gajjala S, Agrawal P, et al. Fully automated echocardiogram interpretation in clinical practice. Circulation. 2018;138(16):1623-1635.
Ghorbani A, Ouyang D, Abid A, et al. Deep learning interpretation of echocardiograms. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3:10.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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