» Articles » PMID: 37231510

Diagnostic Accuracy of Point-of-care Ultrasound for Shock: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview
Journal Crit Care
Specialty Critical Care
Date 2023 May 25
PMID 37231510
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Circulatory failure is classified into four types of shock (obstructive, cardiogenic, distributive, and hypovolemic) that must be distinguished as each requires a different treatment. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is widely used in clinical practice for acute conditions, and several diagnostic protocols using POCUS for shock have been developed. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS in identifying the etiology of shock.

Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, Clinicaltrial.gov, European Union Clinical Trials Register, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR) until June 15, 2022. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Meta-analysis was conducted to pool the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS for each type of shock. The study protocol was prospectively registered in UMIN-CTR (UMIN 000048025).

Results: Of the 1553 studies identified, 36 studies were full-text reviewed, and 12 studies with 1132 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-0.91] and 0.98 [95% CI 0.92-0.99] for obstructive shock, 0.78 [95% CI 0.56-0.91] and 0.96 [95% CI 0.92-0.98] for cardiogenic shock, 0.90 [95% CI 0.84-0.94] and 0.92 [95% CI 0.88-0.95] for hypovolemic shock, and 0.79 [95% CI 0.71-0.85] and 0.96 [95% CI 0.91-0.98] for distributive shock, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for each type of shock was approximately 0.95. The positive likelihood ratios for each type of shock were all greater than 10, especially 40 [95% CI 11-105] for obstructive shock. The negative likelihood ratio for each type of shock was approximately 0.2.

Conclusions: The identification of the etiology for each type of shock using POCUS was characterized by high sensitivity and positive likelihood ratios, especially for obstructive shock.

Citing Articles

Implementation of prehospital point-of-care ultrasound using a novel continuous feedback approach in a UK helicopter emergency medical service.

Naeem S, Aziz S, Hirst T, Strobel J, Mulvey J, Lang A Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2025; 33(1):21.

PMID: 39905531 PMC: 11796228. DOI: 10.1186/s13049-025-01340-3.


Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasound in Intensive Care Patients with Undifferentiated Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Karigowda L, Gupta B, Elkady H, Deshpande K Indian J Crit Care Med. 2025; 28(12):1159-1169.

PMID: 39759796 PMC: 11695890. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24851.


Governance Considerations for Point-of-Care Ultrasound: a HIMSS-SIIM Enterprise Imaging Community Whitepaper in Collaboration with AIUM.

Ma I, Francavilla M, Nomura J, Kielski A, Fernandez F, Piro K J Imaging Inform Med. 2025; .

PMID: 39753828 DOI: 10.1007/s10278-024-01365-7.


Delphi Consensus Recommendations for the Development of the Emergency Medicine Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) Curriculum in Nepal.

Shrestha A, Blank W, Blank U, Horn R, Morf S, Shrestha S POCUS J. 2024; 9(2):133-142.

PMID: 39634678 PMC: 11616984. DOI: 10.24908/pocus.v9i2.17724.


The utility of point-of-care ultrasound in critical care nephrology.

da Hora Passos R, Flato U, Sanches P, Pellegrino C, Cordioli R, Silva B Front Nephrol. 2024; 4:1402641.

PMID: 39421322 PMC: 11484063. DOI: 10.3389/fneph.2024.1402641.


References
1.
Deeks J, Macaskill P, Irwig L . The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58(9):882-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016. View

2.
Labovitz A, Noble V, Bierig M, Goldstein S, Jones R, Kort S . 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):1225-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.echo.2010.10.005. View

3.
Keefer S, Atkinson P, Chandra K, Henneberry R, Olszynski P, Peach M . Sonographic Findings of Left Ventricular Dysfunction to Predict Shock Type in Undifferentiated Hypotensive Patients: An Analysis From the Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHoC-ED) Study. Cureus. 2021; 13(7):e16360. PMC: 8360322. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.16360. View

4.
McInnes M, Moher D, Thombs B, McGrath T, Bossuyt P, Clifford T . Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement. JAMA. 2018; 319(4):388-396. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.19163. View

5.
Jones A, Tayal V, Sullivan D, Kline J . Randomized, controlled trial of immediate versus delayed goal-directed ultrasound to identify the cause of nontraumatic hypotension in emergency department patients. Crit Care Med. 2004; 32(8):1703-8. DOI: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000133017.34137.82. View