Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 26, 2025
Bedside Ultrasound for Guiding Fluid Removal in Patients with Pulmonary Edema: The Reverse-FALLS Protocol
Published on: July 28, 2018
Does Point-of-Care Ultrasound Affect Fluid Resuscitation Volume in Patients with Septic Shock: A Retrospective Review
Enyo A Ablordeppey1,2, Amy Zhao3, Jeffery Ruggeri2
1Department of Anaesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Background:
Fixed, large volume resuscitation with intravenous fluids (IVFs) in septic shock can cause inadvertent hypervolemia, increased medical interventions, and death when unguided by point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). The primary study objective was to evaluate whether total IVF volume differs for emergency department (ED) septic shock patients receiving POCUS versus no POCUS.
Methods:
We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study from 7/1/2018 to 8/31/2021 of atraumatic adult ED patients with septic shock. We agreed upon a priori variables and defined septic shock as lactate ≥4 and hypotension (SBP <90 or MAP <65). A sample size of 300 patients would provide 85% power to detect an IVF difference of 500 milliliters between POCUS and non-POCUS cohorts. Data are reported as frequencies, median (IQR), and associations from bivariate logistic models.
Results:
304 patients met criteria and 26% (78/304) underwent POCUS. Cardiac POCUS demonstrated reduced ejection fraction in 15.4% of patients. Lung ultrasound showed normal findings in 53% of patients. The POCUS vs. non-POCUS cohorts had statistically significant differences for the following variables: higher median lactate (6.7 [IQR 5.2-8.7] vs. 5.6], p = 0.003), lower systolic blood pressure (77.5 [IQR 61-86] vs. 85.0, p < 0.001), more vasopressor use (51% vs. 34%, p = 0.006), and more positive pressure ventilation (38% vs. 24%, p = 0.017). However, there were no statistically significant differences between POCUS and non-POCUS cohorts in total IVF volume ml/kg (33.02 vs. 32.1, p = 0.47), new oxygen requirement (68% vs. 59%, p = 0.16), ED death (3% vs. 4%, p = 0.15), or hospital death (31% vs. 27%, p = 0.48). There were similar distributions of lactate, total fluids, and vasopressors in patients with CHF and severe renal failure.
Conclusions:
Among ED patients with septic shock, POCUS was more likely to be used in sicker patients. Patients who had POCUS were given similar volume of crystalloids although these patients were more critically ill. There were no differences in new oxygen requirement or mortality in the POCUS group compared to the non-POCUS group.
