Ultrasound diaphragmatic excursion during non-invasive ventilation in ICU: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Diaphragmatic dysfunction is seen in up to 60% of critically ill patients with respiratory failure, and it is associated with worse outcomes. The functionality of the diaphragm can be studied with simple and codified bedside ultrasound evaluation. Diaphragm excursion is one of the most studied parameters. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of diaphragmatic dysfunction in critically ill non-intubated patients admitted to a general intensive care unit with acute respiratory failure. METHODS: We collected data, including ultrasound diaphragm excursion, at 2 time points: at T0 (at the time of recruitment, just before starting NIV) and at T1 (after one hour of NIV). RESULTS: A total of 47 patients were enrolled. The prevalence of diaphragm dysfunction was 42.5% (95% CI 28, 3 - 57,8). Surgical patients showed a higher incidence (relative risk of 1.97) than medical patients. Mean DE was not significantly different between NIV responders (1,35 ± 0.78 cm) and non-responders (1.21 ± 0.85 cm, p 0,6). Patients with diaphragmatic dysfunction responded positively to NIV in 60% (95% CI 36.0 - 80.9%) of cases, while patients without diaphragmatic dysfunction responded positively to the NIV trial in 70.4% (95% CI 49.8 - 86.2%) of cases (p = 0.54). Taking the use of ultrasound diaphragm excursion as a potential predictor of NIV response, the corresponding ROC curve had an area under the curve of 0.53; the best balance between sensitivity (58.1%) and specificity (62.5%) was obtained with a cut-off diaphragm excursion of 1.37 cm. CONCLUSIONS: Diaphragm dysfunction is particularly frequent in critically ill patients with respiratory failure. The functionality of the diaphragm can be effectively and easily tested by bedside ultrasound examination. Overall, our results point towards tentative evidence of a trend of a different response to NIV in patients with vs without diaphragmatic dysfunction.

Mechanical ventilation weaning issues can be counted on the fingers of just one hand: part 1.

Although mechanical ventilation may be a patient's vital ally during acute illness, it can quickly transform into an enemy during chronic conditions. The weaning process is the fundamental phase that enables the resumption of physiological respiratory function; however, it is also associated with a number of life-threatening complications, and a large percentage of critically ill patients never achieve airway device removal or require the resumption of mechanical ventilation just a few days post-weaning. Indeed, the weaning process is, at present, more of an art than a science. As such, there is urgent need for novel contributions from the scientific literature to abate the growing rates of morbidity and mortality associated with weaning failure. The physician attempting to wean a patient must integrate clinical parameters and common-sense criteria. Numerous studies have striven to identify single predictive factors of weaning failure and sought to standardize the weaning process, but the results are characterized by remarkable heterogeneity. Despite the lack of benchmarks, it is clear that the analysis of respiratory function must include a detailed overview of the five situations described below rather than a single aspect. The purpose of this two-part review is to provide a comprehensive description of these situations to clarify the "arena" physicians are entering when weaning critically ill patients from mechanical ventilation.

Mechanical ventilation weaning issues can be counted on the fingers of just one hand: part 2.

Assessing heart and diaphragm function constitutes only one of the steps to consider along the weaning path. In this second part of the review, we will deal with the more systematic evaluation of the pulmonary parenchyma-often implicated in the genesis of respiratory failure. We will also consider the other possible causes of weaning failure that lie beyond the cardio-pulmonary-diaphragmatic system. Finally, we will take a moment to consider the remaining unsolved problems arising from mechanical ventilation and describe the so-called protective approach to parenchyma and diaphragm ventilation.

Ultrasound Imaging for Diaphragm Dysfunction: A Narrative Literature Review.

Of the various muscles that make up the respiratory system, the diaphragm is the prima donna. In the past, only specialist research centers were able to estimate and challenge the effort of this muscle; this was achieved by measuring transdiaphragmatic pressure-an invasive technique involving a double-balloon probe inserted through the esophagus-or by measuring twitch pressure (ie, the pressure generated at the outside tip of the endotracheal tube). However, the prevalence of diaphragm dysfunction in critically ill patients requiring intubation can exceed 60% (at the time of hospital admission) and may rise to as high as 80% in patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation and experiencing difficult weaning. Although still in its infancy, modern ultrasound (US) provides a fascinating way to study the diaphragm, permitting the assessment of its excursion, thickness, and thickening. Furthermore, US enables the course of diaphragmatic function to be followed on a day-to-day basis, from intensive care admission to discharge, and it can help us understand the different causes of underlying disease: trauma, infection (eg, sepsis-induced diaphragm dysfunction), cancer, weaning problems (eg, ventilation-induced diaphragm dysfunction), etc. Today, the assessment of diaphragm dysfunction with US provides an important first step toward improving the detection of diaphragm dysfunction and as a protective and supportive strategy for its management. The purposes of this review are as follows: (1) to explore which US method is best for evaluating diaphragm function in the intensive care unit and how and when it should be used, and (2) to discuss which diseases may involve the diaphragm, and what therapies should be used.

An easier and safe affair, pleural drainage with ultrasound in critical patient: a technical note.

Thoracic ultrasound is a powerful diagnostic imaging technique for pleural space disorders. In addition to visualising pleural effusion, thoracic ultrasound also helps clinicians to identify the best puncture site and to guide the drainage insertion procedure. Thoracic ultrasound is essential during these invasive manoeuvres to increase safety and decrease potential life-threatening complications. This paper provides a technical description of pigtail-type drainage insertion using thoracic ultrasound, paying particular attention to indications, contraindications, ultrasound guidance, preparation/equipment, procedure and complications.

Low-back pain at the emergency department: still not being managed?

BACKGROUND: Low-back pain (LBP) affects about 40% of people at some point in their lives. In the presence of "red flags", further tests must be done to rule out underlying problems; however, biomedical imaging is currently overused. LBP involves large in-hospital and out-of-hospital economic costs, and it is also the most common musculoskeletal disorder seen in emergency departments (EDs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective observational study enrolled 1,298 patients admitted to the ED, including all International Classification of Diseases 10 diagnosis codes for sciatica, lumbosciatica, and lumbago. We collected patients' demographic data, medical history, lab workup and imaging performed at the ED, drugs administered at the ED, ED length of stay (LOS), numeric rating scale pain score, admission to ward, and ward LOS data. Thereafter, we performed a cost analysis. RESULTS: Mean numeric rating scale scores were higher than 7/10. Home medication consisted of no drug consumption in up to 90% of patients. Oxycodone-naloxone was the strong opioid most frequently prescribed for the home. Once at the ED, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opiates were administered to up to 72% and 42% of patients, respectively. Imaging was performed in up to 56% of patients. Mean ED LOS was 4 hours, 14 minutes. A total of 43 patients were admitted to a ward. The expense for each non-ward-admitted patient was approximately €200 in the ED, while the mean expense for ward-admitted patients was €9,500, with a mean LOS of 15 days. CONCLUSION: There is not yet a defined therapeutic care process for the patient with LBP with clear criteria for an ED visit. It is to this end that we need a clinical pathway for the prehospital management of LBP syndrome and consequently for an in-hospital time-saving therapeutic approach to the patient.