Bedside ultrasonography in differential diagnosis and personalized treatment shock unknown origin
https://doi.org/10.33667/2078-5631-2026-11-51-65
Abstract
Arterial hypotension and shock of unknown origin are common reasons for intensive care unit admissions and are characterized by significant pharmacoeconomic costs and high mortality. The effectiveness of treatment for patients with shock is determined by the timely and accurate identification of the underlying causes and the implementation of personalized therapy. Differential diagnosis of shock is often possible through the analysis of clinical, laboratory, and non-invasive instrumental data. Echocardiography is now an indispensable tool for urgent and routine assessment of the cardiovascular system, providing rapid information on the anatomy, physiology, and causes of cardiovascular failure. The use of high-quality ultrasonography methods, based solely on 2D visualization, significantly expands diagnostic capabilities. However, accurate diagnosis requires the use of more advanced, semi- quantitative or quantitative ultrasonography methods to identify the underlying mechanisms of shock pathogenesis, allowing the clinician to implement personalized treatment for this patient population.
About the Authors
P. A. Zhezhuk
S.P. Botkin Moscow Multidisciplinary Scientific and Clinical Center (Botkin hospital) ; Department of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Zhezhuk Pavel A.
Moscow
A. V. Vlasenko
S.P. Botkin Moscow Multidisciplinary Scientific and Clinical Center (Botkin hospital) ; Department of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vlasenko Alexey V.
Moscow
D. I. Levikov
S.P. Botkin Moscow Multidisciplinary Scientific and Clinical Center (Botkin hospital) ; Department of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Levikov Dmitry I.
Moscow
E. P. Rodionov
S.P. Botkin Moscow Multidisciplinary Scientific and Clinical Center (Botkin hospital) ; Department of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Rodionov Evgeniy P.
Moscow
E. A. Evdokimov
Department of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Evdokimov Evgeniy A.
Moscow
V. I. Makovey
Department of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Makovey Victoria I.
Moscow
References
1. Cecconi M, De Backer D, Antonelli M, et al. Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med 2014;40.
2. De Backer D. Detailing the cardiovascular profile in shock patients. Crit Care 2017; 21 (Suppl 3): 311.
3. Edler I, Hertz CH. The use of ultrasonic reflectoscope for the continuous recording of the movements of heart walls. 1954. Clin Physiol Funct Imag 2004; 24 (3): 118–36.
4. Bouferrache K, Amiel JB, Chimot L, et al. Initial resuscitation guided by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendations and early echocardiographic assessment of hemodynamics in intensive care unit septic patients: a pilot study. Crit Care Med 2012; 40 (10): 2821–7.
5. Bayes T, LII. An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. By the late Rev. Mr. Bayes, FRS communicated by Mr. Price, in a letter to John Canton, AMFR S. Phil Trans Roy Soc Lond, 1763 (53): p. 370–418.
6. Gelfand AE, Smith AFM. Sampling-based approaches to calculating marginal densities. J Am Stat Assoc 1990; 85 (410): 398–409.
7. Atkinson PR, Milne J, Diegelmann L, et al. Does point-of-care ultrasonography improve clinical outcomes in emergency department patients with undifferentiated hypotension? an International Randomized Controlled Trial From the SHoC-ED Investigators. Ann Emerg Med 2018; 72 (4): 478–89.
8. De Backer D, Biston P, Devriendt J, et al. Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock. N Engl J Med 2010; 362 (9): 779–89.
9. Mitchell C, Rahko PS, Blauwet LA, et al. Guidelines for performing a comprehensive transthoracic echocardiographic examination in adults: recommendations from the american society of echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2019; 32 (1): 1–64.
10. Via G, Hussain A, Wells M, et al. International evidence-based recommendations for focused cardiac ultrasound. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2014; 27 (7): 683. e1–33.
11. Walley PE, Walley KR, Goodgame B, et al. A practical approach to goal-directed echocardiography in the critical care setting. Crit Care 2014; 18 (6): 681.
12. Bughrara N, Renew JR, Alabre K, et al. Comparison of qualitative information obtained with the echocardiographic assessment using subcostal-only view and focused transthoracic echocardiography examinations: a prospective observational study. Can J Anaesth 2022; 69 (2): 196–204.
13. Mitchell C, Rahko PS, Blauwet LA, et al. Guidelines for performing a comprehensive transthoracic echocardiographic examination in adults: recommendations from the american society of echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2019; 32 (1): 1–64.
14. Walley PE, Walley KR, Goodgame B, et al. A practical approach to goal-directe echocardiography in the critical care setting. Crit Care 2014; 18 (6): 681.
15. Kasal J, Musleh A, Hassani S, et al. Alternative cardiac point-of-care ultrasound views. Semin Ultrasound CT MR2024; 45 (1): 98–119.
16. Beaulieu Y, Marik PE. Bedside ultrasonography in the ICU: part 1. Chest 2005; 128 (2): 881–95.
17. Bughrara N, Renew JR, Alabre K, et al. Comparison of qualitative information obtained with the echocardiographic assessment using subcostal-only view and focused transthoracic echocardiography examinations: a prospective observational study. Can J Anaesth 2022; 69 (2): 196–204.
18. Bughrara N, Diaz-Gomez JL, Pustavoitau A. Perioperative management of patients with sepsis and septic shock, Part II: ultrasound support for resuscitation. Anesthesiol Clin 2020; 38 (1): 123–34.
19. Nikravan S, Bughrara N, Klick J, et al. An echocardiographic approach for the management of shock: the subcostal to apical, respiratory to parasternal-cardiac to respiratory, aortic to stomach protocol. Semin Ultrasound CT MR2024; 45 (1): 74–83.
20. Jensen MB, Sloth E, Larsen KM, et al. Transthoracic echocardiography for cardiopulmonary monitoring in intensive care. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2004; 21 (9): 700–7.
21. Perera P, Mailhot T, Riley D, et al. The RUSH exam: rapid Ultrasound in SHock in the evaluation of the critically lll. Emerg Med Clin North Am 2010; 28 (1): 29–56.
22. McLean A. Critical care ultrasound manual. 1st edition. London, UK: Churchill Livingstone; 2013.
23. Geri G, Vignon P, Aubry A, et al. Cardiovascular clusters in septic shock combining clinical and echocardiographic parameters: a post hoc analysis. Intensive Care Med 2019; 45 (5): 657–67.
24. Vignon P. Continuous cardiac output assessment or serial echocardiography during septic shock resuscitation? Ann Transl Med 2020; 8 (12): 797.
25. Kou S, Caballero L, Dulgheru R, et al. Echocardiographic reference ranges for normal cardiac chamber size: results from the NORRE study. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2014; 15 (6): 680–90.
26. Cotella JI, Miyoshi T, Mor-Avi V, et al. Normative values of the aortic valve area and Doppler measurements using two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography: results from the Multicentre World Alliance of Societies of Echocardiography Study. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2023; 24 (4): 415–23.
27. Mercadal J, Borrat X, Herna´ndez A, et al. A simple algorithm for differential diagnosis in hemodynamic shock based on left ventricle outflow tract velocity-time integral measurement: a case series. Ultrasound J 2022; 14 (1): 36.
28. Jentzer JC, Burstein B, Ternus B, et al. Noninvasive hemodynamic characterization of shock and preshock using echocardiography in cardiac intensive care unit patients. J Am Heart Assoc 2023; 12 (22): e031427.
29. Reynolds HR, Hochman JS. Cardiogenic shock: current concepts and improving outcomes. Circulation 2008; 117 (5): 686–97.
30. Tavazzi G, Corradi F, Vandenbriele C, et al. Multimodality imaging in cardiogenic shock: state-of-the art. Curr Opin Crit Care 2023; 29 (4): 381–91.
31. Vincent JL, Sakr Y, Sprung CL, et al. Sepsis in European intensive care units: results of the SOAP study. Crit Care Med 2006; 34 (2): 344–53.
32. Payen D, de Pont AC, Sakr Y, et al. A positive fluid balance is associated with a worse outcome in patients with acute renal failure. Crit Care 2008; 12 (3): R74.
33. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, Antonelli M, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021 Nov; 47 (11): 1181–1247. DOI: 10.1007/s00134–021–06506-y. Epub 2021 Oct 2. PMID: 34599691; PMCID: PMC8486643.
34. Mercadal J, Borrat X, Hernández A, et al.; Spanish Critical Care Ultrasound Network Group: A simple algorithm for differential diagnosis in hemodynamic shock based on left ventricle outflow tract velocity-time integral measurement: A case series. Ultrasound J 2022; 14:36.
35. Sharma, V.K., Dellinger, R. The International Sepsis Forum’s frontiers in sepsis: high cardiac output should not be maintained in severe sepsis. Crit Care 7, 272 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1186/cc2350
36. Gajadin DO, van der Heijden WA, van den Berg M. VExUS score in V–V ECMO: the B-wave. Crit Care. 2024 Dec 18; 28 (1): 418. DOI: 10.1186/s13054‑024‑05206‑5. PMID: 39695797; PMCID: PMC11654410.
37. Zhezhuk P. A., Vlasenko A. V., Evdokimov E. A., Levikov D. I., Rodionov E. P., Makovey V.I., Erofeev V.V. Infusion therapy of critically ill patients (state of the problem). Part 1. Medical alphabet. 2023; (25): 32–43. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.33667/2078‑5631‑2023‑25‑32‑43
38. Zhezhuk P.A., Vlasenko A.V., Evdokimov E.A., Levikov D.I., Rodionov E.P., Makovey V.I., Erofeev V. V. Infusion therapy of critically ill patients (state of the problem). Part 2. Medical alphabet. 2023; (35): 38–47. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.33667/2078‑5631‑2023‑35‑38‑47
39. Mukherjee M et al (2025) Guidelines for the echocardiographic assessment of the right heart in adults and special considerations in pulmonary hypertension: recommendations from the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 38 (3): 141–186.
40. Tello K, Wan J, Dalmer A, Vanderpool R, Ghofrani HA, Naeije R, Roller F, Mohajerani E, Seeger W, Herberg U, Sommer N, Gall H, Richter MJ. Validation of the Tricuspid Annular Plane Systolic Excursion/Systolic Pulmonary Artery Pressure Ratio for the Assessment of Right Ventricular-Arterial Coupling in Severe Pulmonary Hypertension. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019 Sep; 12 (9): e009047. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.119.009047. Epub 2019 Sep 10. PMID: 31500448; PMCID: PMC7099862.
Review
For citations:
Zhezhuk P.A., Vlasenko A.V., Levikov D.I., Rodionov E.P., Evdokimov E.A., Makovey V.I. Bedside ultrasonography in differential diagnosis and personalized treatment shock unknown origin. Medical alphabet. 2026;1(11):51-65. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.33667/2078-5631-2026-11-51-65
Views:
57
JATS XML
Email this article 