Page 69 - JSOM Summer 2022

Urine output (UO) is a well-established index of organ perfu- only feasible but, with adequate understanding and prepared-
sion. Accurate UO is considered standard of care in patients in ness, can drastically reduce preventable causes of death.
active shock. Ultrasound and echocardiography are invaluable
tools in not only in the monitoring of shock but also in differ- Acknowledgments
entiation. For instance, early recognition of McConnell’s sign The authors would like to thank Dr Steven Simpson for his
for massive pulmonary embolism – right ventricular hypokine- contribution.
sia with preserved apical contractility – may hasten triage and
treatment. Further ultrasonography specifics are beyond the References
scope of this review. 1. Ait-Oufella H, Lemoinne S, Boelle PY, et al. Mottling score pre-
dicts survival in septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37(5):
FIGURE 3 The left ventricular outflow tract velocity-time integral 801–807.
2. Kraut JA, Madias NE. Lactic acidosis. N Engl J Med. 2014;371
(VTI, dotted white line). Photo credits: Seth Assar, MD.
(24):2309–2319.
3. Brenchley J, Walker A, Sloan JP, et al. Evaluation of focussed
assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) by UK emergency
physicians. Emerg Med J. 2006;23(6):446–448.
4. Nandipati KC, Allamaneni S, Kakarla R, et al. Extended focused
assessment with sonography for trauma (EFAST) in the diagno-
sis of pneumothorax: experience at a community based level I
trauma center. Injury. 2011;42(5):511–514.
5. Weil MH, Shubin H. Proposed reclassification of shock states
with special reference to distributive defects. Adv Exp Med Biol.
1971;23(0):13–23.
6. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The Third In-
ternational Consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock
( sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801–810.
7. Hotchkiss RS & Karl IE. The pathophysiology and treatment of
sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348(2):138–50.
8. De Backer D, Creteur J, Preiser JC, et al. Microvascular blood
flow is altered in patients with sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med.
2002;166(1):98–104.
9. Haydar S, Spanier M, Weems P, et al. Comparison of QSOFA
Case Study Continued score and SIRS criteria as screening mechanisms for emergency
department sepsis. Am J Emerg Med. 2017;35(11):1730–1733.
Our Green Beret is septic secondary to purulent cellulitis as a 10. Ditzel RM Jr, Anderson JL, Eisenhart WJ, et al. A review of trans-
result of his contaminated wound. Administration of antibiot- fusion- and trauma-induced hypocalcemia: Is it time to change
ics was overlooked amidst the chaos of combat. You recognize the lethal triad to the lethal diamond?. J Trauma Acute Care Surg.
his sepsis based upon his change in clinical status and qSOFA 2020;88(3):434–439.
score of 3. You immediately provide him with an injection 11. Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, et al. Early goal-directed therapy
of ertapenem for combat wound infection and vancomycin, in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med.
2001;345(19):1368–1377.
which you luckily had on you, for empiric methicillin- resistant 12. Angus DC, Barnato AE, Bell D, et al. A systematic review and
Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) coverage based upon the pu- meta-analysis of early goal-directed therapy for septic shock: the
rulent cellulitis. You set up an intravenous (IV) line and ad- ARISE, ProCESS and ProMISe Investigators. Intensive Care Med.
minister 2L of lactated Ringer’s solution. During this time, 2015;41(9):1549–1560.
you administer small push doses of ketamine and perform an 13. Seymour CW, Gesten F, Prescott HC, et al. Time to treatment and
irrigation and debridement of his wound. His blood pressure mortality during mandated emergency care for sepsis. N Engl J
Med. 2017;376(23):2235–2244.
has not improved and as you begin preparing a third liter of 14. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving sepsis cam-
crystalloid you produce and then initiate an epinephrine drip. paign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and sep-
tic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(11):1181–1247.
A Foley catheter is placed for UOP monitoring. You perform 15. Brandt S, Regueira T, Bracht H, et al. Effect of fluid resuscitation
bedside ultrasonography: his IVC appears plump and non- on mortality and organ function in experimental sepsis models.
reactive to respirophasic motion and his left ventricular sys- Crit Care. 2009;13(6):R186.
tolic function is slightly hyperdynamic. You then initiate the 16. Micek ST, McEvoy C, McKenzie M, Hampton N, et al. Fluid bal-
ance and cardiac function in septic shock as predictors of hospital
passive leg raise maneuver and find no augmentation of his mortality. Crit Care. 2013;17(5):R246.
LVO TVI or pulse pressure. 17. Maitland K, Kiguli S, Opoka RO, et al. Mortality after fluid bo-
lus in African children with severe infection. N Engl J Med. 2011;
Over the coming hours you trend his UOP, which you noted 364(26):2483–2495.
was initially oliguric, but now has normalized. His mentation 18. Brown RM, Wang L, Coston TD, et al. Balanced crystalloids ver-
has improved and his epinephrine requirement, which peaked sus saline in sepsis. A secondary analysis of the SMART clinical
trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;200(12):1487–1495.
at 15mg/min, has reduced to 3mg/min. You arrange a schedule 19. Perner A, Haase N, Guttormsen AB, et al. Hydroxyethyl starch
for him to receive repeat doses of both antibiotics and request 130/0.42 versus Ringer’s acetate in severe sepsis [published cor-
urgent medical evacuation. rection appears in N Engl J Med. 2012 Aug 2;367(5):481]. N
Engl J Med. 2012;367(2):124–134.
20. Brunkhorst FM, Engel C, Bloos F, et al. Intensive insulin ther-
Conclusion apy and pentastarch resuscitation in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med.
2008;358(2):125–139.
Shock is a life-threatening condition carrying a high mortality 21. Finfer S, Bellomo R, Boyce N, et al. A comparison of albumin
rate when untreated. Rapid differentiation and appropriate in- and saline for fluid resuscitation in the intensive care unit. N Engl
tervention in resource-limited prehospital environments is not J Med. 2004;350(22):2247–2256.

Shock and Vasopressors | 67