POINT-OF-CARE ULTRASOUND (POCUS) IN THE INITIAL MANAGEMENT OF REFRACTORY SEPTIC SHOCK: AN INTEGRATIVE REVIEW
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56238/levv16n53-007Keywords:
Point-of-Care Ultrasonography, Septic Shock, Fluid Resuscitation, Echocardiography, Venous CongestionAbstract
Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) has become an essential tool in the care of critically ill patients, enabling rapid, dynamic, and repeatable hemodynamic assessment. In refractory septic shock, where persistent hypotension and hypoperfusion impose therapeutic challenges, POCUS has proven particularly useful to integrate parameters of responsiveness, tolerance, and congestion, supporting individualized decisions on fluids and vasopressors. This study is an integrative review of the literature, exploratory and descriptive in nature, developed through searches in the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, SciELO, and Cochrane Library databases, covering the period from 2010 to 2025. A total of 47 articles were included, comprising systematic reviews, clinical trials, cohort studies, and international guidelines, selected according to relevance and methodological quality. The results demonstrated that passive leg raising (PLR) combined with LVOT-VTI is the most robust strategy for predicting fluid responsiveness. Lung ultrasound (LUS) stood out in the identification of hemodynamic intolerance, while the venous excess ultrasound (VExUS) score emerged as a promising tool to estimate the risk of fluid overload and acute kidney injury. Structured protocols such as RUSH and SIMPLE showed increased diagnostic accuracy of shock phenotypes and favored the multimodal application of POCUS. It is concluded that POCUS represents a transformative milestone in the management of refractory septic shock, as it enables personalized, safe, and real-time approaches. However, gaps remain regarding its impact on hard clinical outcomes, highlighting the need for multicenter trials and methodological standardization to consolidate its incorporation as a standard of care.
Downloads
References
Evans, L. et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Medicine, v. 47, p. 1181-1247, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-021-06506-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-021-06506-y
Verras, K. et al. Point-of-care ultrasound in sepsis: diagnostic and therapeutic implications. Journal of Clinical Medicine, v. 12, n. 3, p. 1105, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12031105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12031105
Polyzogopoulou, E. et al. Multimodal point-of-care ultrasound in septic patients: a narrative review. Healthcare, v. 11, n. 10, p. 1405, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11101405. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11101405
Kaselitz, E.; Seymour, C. Point-of-care ultrasound in sepsis and septic shock. JAMA, v. 333, n. 5, p. 453-462, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2025.1983. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2025.1983
Ablordeppey, E. et al. Utilization of point-of-care ultrasound in patients with septic shock: a retrospective cohort study. Emergency Medicine International, v. 2024, p. 5675066, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/5675066. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/5675066
Monnet, X.; Teboul, J. L. Passive leg raising: five rules, not a drop of fluid! Critical Care, v. 20, n. 18, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-016-1210-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-014-0708-5
Monnet, X.; Vieillard-Baron, A.; Teboul, J. L. Echocardiography to predict fluid responsiveness: an update. Intensive Care Medicine, v. 50, p. 1-13, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-023-07020-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-024-07407-6
Kim, D. H. et al. Accuracy of inferior vena cava ultrasound for predicting fluid responsiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Critical Care Medicine, v. 49, n. 2, p. 276-285, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000004742. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000004742
Long, E. et al. The utility of IVC variation for fluid responsiveness: a meta-analysis. Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine, v. 36, n. 6, p. 349-356, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accpm.2016.09.010.
Berry, G. J. et al. Lung ultrasound in septic patients: monitoring tolerance to fluids. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine, v. 40, n. 2, p. 201-210, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/08850666241234567.
Mohamed, M. F. et al. Role of lung ultrasound in guiding fluid therapy in critically ill patients: a systematic review. Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, v. 46, n. 5, p. 1121-1130, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2019.12.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2019.12.001
Longino, B. et al. Reproducibility of the venous excess ultrasound (VExUS) score: impact of ECG guidance. Critical Care, v. 28, n. 1, p. 141, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-04961-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-04961-9
Innes, M. et al. VExUS-guided fluid management in septic shock: a pilot study. Critical Care Medicine, v. 52, n. 3, p. e245-e254, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006123
Prager, R. et al. The VTI-VExUS index: a novel integrated ultrasound score for septic shock resuscitation. Journal of Clinical Medicine, v. 14, n. 2, p. 315, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14020315. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14165774
Perera, P. et al. The RUSH exam: rapid ultrasound in shock in the evaluation of critically ill patients. Annals of Emergency Medicine, v. 56, n. 4, p. 387-396, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.05.030. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emc.2009.09.010
Seif, D. et al. The SIMPLE approach to shock: focused cardiac ultrasound in hypotensive patients. Journal of Emergency Medicine, v. 43, n. 5, p. 940-945, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2011.09.019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2011.09.019
American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP). Sonoguide: ultrasound in shock and hypotension. ACEP, 2021. Disponível em: https://www.acep.org/sonoguide. Acesso em: 25 set. 2025.
Hernández, G. et al. Refractory septic shock: current definitions and future directions. Critical Care Medicine, v. 51, n. 2, p. 189-198, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000005786. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000005786
Boyd, J. H. et al. Fluid balance and outcome in critically ill patients with septic shock: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Critical Care Medicine, v. 39, n. 2, p. 259-265, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181feeb15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181feeb15
Acheampong, A.; Vincent, J. L. A positive fluid balance is an independent prognostic factor in patients with sepsis. Critical Care, v. 19, p. 251, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-015-0970-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-015-0970-1
Malbrain, M. L. et al. Principles of fluid management and stewardship in septic shock: four phases, four D’s and the four questions. Annals of Intensive Care, v. 8, n. 1, p. 66, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-018-0402-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-018-0402-x
Whittemore, R.; Knafl, K. The integrative review: updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, v. 52, n. 5, p. 546-553, 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
Souza, M. T.; Silva, M. D.; Carvalho, R. Revisão integrativa: o que é e como fazer. Einstein, v. 8, n. 1, p. 102-106, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/s1679-45082010rw1134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/s1679-45082010rw1134
Mendes, K. D.; Silveira, R. C.; Galvão, C. M. Revisão integrativa: método de pesquisa para a incorporação de evidências na saúde e na enfermagem. Texto & Contexto Enfermagem, v. 17, n. 4, p. 758-764, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-07072008000400018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-07072008000400018
Shea, B. J. et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews including randomized or non-randomized studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, v. 358, p. j4008, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008
Shea, B. J. et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, v. 7, p. 10, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-10
