DOI: 10.12890/2025_006009
Modified rapid ultrasound for a shock patient
Authors
zbitar2@hotmail.com
Keywords
Retroperitoneal space, shock, modified RUSH protocolAbstract
Background: Clinical evaluation of a patient with undifferentiated shock is challenging without the bedside clinical utility of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). Scenarios can become complicated when a patient becomes non-transferrable in the critical care unit. POCUS can aid physicians in diagnosing and implementing early management. The retroperitoneal space can accommodate significant bleeding before it becomes apparent. The retroperitoneal space is not included in the POCUS protocol for patients in shock.
Case presentation: We present a case of the history of ischemic cardiomyopathy and atrial fibrillation on apixaban. The patient developed hypotension and severe anaemia. The cause of shock was unclear clinically until POCUS showed a retroperitoneal hematoma. In this shock patient the hematoma was detected by a modified rapid ultrasound that added examination of the retroperitoneal space.
Discussion: The retroperitoneal space is highly vascular and liable to bleed in patients on antiplatelet and anticoagulation. Including the space in the standard POCUS protocols for shock enables visualization of the retroperitoneal compartment and enhances the ability to detect hidden fluid accumulations.
Conclusion: A modified POCUS protocol, including the retroperitoneal space, for a patient with unexplained haemorrhagic shock, can help in early detection of the site of haemorrhage.
References
- Hagen-Ansert, S. L. (2022). Retroperitoneum. In Textbook of diagnostic sonography (9th ed., Vol. 1, pp. [491-497]). Elsevier.
- Sanchez CE, Helmy T. Percutaneous management of inferior epigastric artery injury after cardiac catheterization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2012;79:633-637. doi: 10.1002/ccd.23097
- Bitar ZI, Elshabasy RD, Mohsen MJ, Maadarani OS, Elzoueiry MM, Gohar MR. Detecting spontaneous retroperitoneal hemorrhage using a modified RUSH protocol: a case report. Int J Surg Case Rep 2022;92:106830. doi: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2022.106830
- Kasotakis G. Retroperitoneal and rectus sheath hematomas. Surg Clin North Am 2014;94:71-76. doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2013.10.007
- Yoshida T, Yoshida T, Noma H, Nomura T, Suzuki A, Mihara T. Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound for shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 2023;27:200. doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04495-6
- Sunga KL, Bellolio MF, Gilmore RM, Cabrera D. Spontaneous retroperitoneal hematoma: etiology, characteristics, management, and outcome. J Emerg Med 2012;43:e157-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2011.06.006
- Levine MN, Raskob G, Landefeld S, Kearon C. Hemorrhagic complications of anticoagulant treatment. Chest 2001;119:108S-121S. doi: 10.1378/chest.119.1_suppl.108s
- Perera P, Mailhot T, Riley D, Mandavia D. The RUSH exam: Rapid Ultrasound in SHock in the evaluation of the critically lll. Emerg Med Clin North Am 2010;28:29-56, vii. doi: 10.1016/j.emc.2009.09.010
- Sahu KK, Mishra AK, Lal A, George SV, Siddiqui AD. Clinical spectrum, risk factors, management and outcome of patients with retroperitoneal hematoma: a retrospective analysis of 3-year experience. Expert Rev Hematol 2020;13:545-555. doi: 10.1080/17474086.2020.1733963. Erratum in: Expert Rev Hematol 2020;13:i. doi: 10.1080/17474086.2020.1771654
