RESUMO O emprego da ecocardiografia por médicos não ecocardiografistas tem se tornado comum em todo o mundo nos mais diversos ambientes em que se dá o cuidado do paciente agudamente doente. A avaliação ecocardiográfica realizada de forma point-of-care pode fornecer informações pertinentes em relação ao mecanismo das causas de choque, por exemplo, incrementando as taxas de diagnóstico correto e possibilitando a tomada de decisão fundamentada de forma mais rápida do que por meio dos métodos tradicionais de avaliação. Considerando que o diagnóstico preciso de situações ameaçadoras à vida é indispensável a profissionais atuando junto a pacientes agudamente enfermos, diversas entidades associativas internacionais recomendam que médicos responsáveis por pacientes gravemente doentes devam adquirir e desenvolver a habilidade para realizar exames ultrassonográficos à beira do leito, inclusive ecocardiográficos. Entretanto, não há consenso na literatura acerca de quais aplicações específicas devam compor o rol de habilidades do médico não ecocardiografista. Levando-se em consideração a multiplicidade de aplicações da ecocardiografia em diversos cenários relativos ao paciente agudamente enfermo; as diferenças nos protocolos publicados, tanto no que diz respeito à metodologia de ensino como de verificação de competências, bem como a heterogeneidade da formação entre as mais diversas especialidades responsáveis pelo seu cuidado em diferentes níveis, este documento de consenso teve o objetivo de refletir o posicionamento de representantes de sociedades médicas brasileiras afins acerca do tema, podendo, assim, servir de ponto de partida para a uniformização entre diferentes especialidades, bem como para a transmissão de conhecimento e a verificação das competências correspondentes. doente pointofcare point of care choque exemplo enfermos leito ecocardiográficos Entretanto ecocardiografista Levandose Levando enfermo publicados níveis tema podendo assim correspondentes

ABSTRACT The use of echocardiography by physicians who are not echocardiographers has become common throughout the world across highly diverse settings where the care of acutely ill patients is provided. Echocardiographic evaluation performed in a point-of-care manner can provide relevant information regarding the mechanism of causes of shock, for example, increasing the rates of correct diagnosis and allowing for faster informed decision-making than through evaluation methods. Considering that the accurate diagnosis of life-threatening situations is essential for professionals working with acutely ill patients, several international associations recommend that physicians responsible for critically ill patients acquire and develop the ability to perform bedside ultrasound examinations, including echocardiographic examinations. However, there is no consensus in the literature regarding which specific applications should be included in the list of skills for nonechocardiographer physicians. Taking into account the multiplicity of applications of echocardiography in different scenarios related to acutely ill patients; the differences in the published protocols, with regard to both the teaching methodology and competence verification; and the heterogeneity of training among highly diverse specialties responsible for their care at different levels, this consensus document aimed to reflect the position of representatives of related Brazilian medical societies on the subject and may thus serve as a starting point both for standardization among different specialties and for the transmission of knowledge and verification of the corresponding competencies. provided pointofcare shock example decisionmaking decision making methods lifethreatening life threatening examinations However protocols levels competencies

RESUMO A ecocardiografia do paciente grave tem se tornado fundamental na avaliação de pacientes em diferentes cenários e ambientes hospitalares. Entretanto, ao contrário de outras áreas relativas ao cuidado com esses pacientes, ainda não existem recomendações de sociedades médicas nacionais acerca do assunto. O objetivo deste documento foi organizar e disponibilizar opiniões de consenso de especialistas que possam auxiliar a melhor incorporação dessa técnica na avaliação de pacientes graves. Dessa forma, a Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, a Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência e a Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Hospitalar compuseram um grupo de 17 médicos para formular questões pertinentes ao tópico e debater a possibilidade de consenso de especialistas para cada uma delas. Todas as questões foram elaboradas no formato de escala Likert de cinco pontos. Consenso foi definido, a priori, como um somatório de, ao menos, 80% das respostas entre um e dois ou entre quatro e cinco. A apreciação das questões envolveu dois ciclos de votação e debate entre todos os participantes. As 27 questões elaboradas compõem o presente documento e estão divididas em 4 grandes áreas de avaliação: da função ventricular esquerda; da função ventricular direita; diagnóstica dos choques e hemodinâmica. Ao fim do processo, houve 17 consensos positivos (concordância) e 3 negativos (discordância); outras 7 questões persistiram sem consenso. Embora persistam áreas de incerteza, este documento reúne opiniões de consenso para diversas questões relativas à ecocardiografia do paciente grave e pode potencializar seu desenvolvimento no cenário nacional. hospitalares Entretanto assunto graves forma 1 delas pontos definido priori menos 80 participantes 2 esquerda direita hemodinâmica processo concordância (concordância discordância (discordância) incerteza nacional 8 (discordância

ABSTRACT Echocardiography in critically ill patients has become essential in the evaluation of patients in different settings, such as the hospital. However, unlike for other matters related to the care of these patients, there are still no recommendations from national medical societies on the subject. The objective of this document was to organize and make available expert consensus opinions that may help to better incorporate echocardiography in the evaluation of critically ill patients. Thus, the Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, the Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, and the Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Hospitalar formed a group of 17 physicians to formulate questions relevant to the topic and discuss the possibility of consensus for each of them. All questions were prepared using a five-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined a priori as at least 80% of the responses between one and two or between four and five. The consideration of the issues involved two rounds of voting and debate among all participants. The 27 questions prepared make up the present document and are divided into 4 major assessment areas: left ventricular function, right ventricular function, diagnosis of shock, and hemodynamics. At the end of the process, there were 17 positive (agreement) and 3 negative (disagreement) consensuses; another 7 questions remained without consensus. Although areas of uncertainty persist, this document brings together consensus opinions on several issues related to echocardiography in critically ill patients and may enhance its development in the national scenario. settings hospital However subject Thus Emergência 1 them fivepoint five point scale 80 participants 2 function shock hemodynamics process agreement (agreement disagreement (disagreement consensuses persist scenario 8

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the impact of internal medicine consultation on mortality, 30-day readmission, and length of stay in surgical patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective descriptive study developed in a public Brazilian teaching hospital with 850 beds. RESULTS: A total of 70,245 patients were admitted from 2010 to 2018 to the surgery departments. The main outcomes measured were patients’ mortality, 30-day readmission, and length of stay. Mortality of high-risk patients was lower when followed by internal medicine consultation: patients with ASA≥3 (RR 0.89 [95% confidence interval (95%CI) 0.80–0.99], p=0.02), patients with ASA≥3 plus≥65 years (RR 0.88 [95%CI 0.78–0.99], p=0.04), patients with ASA≥3 plus high-risk surgery (RR 0.86 [95%CI 0.77–0.97], p=0.01), and patients with ASA≥4 plus age ≥65 years (RR 0.83 [95%CI 0.72–0.96], p=0.01). The 30-day readmission of high-risk patients was lower when followed by internal medicine consultation: patients with ≥65 years (RR 0.57 [95%CI 0.37–0.89], p=0.01) and patients with high-risk surgery (RR 0.63 [95%CI 0.46–0.57], p=0.005). The Poisson multivariate regression with adjustment in variances showed that all the variables (namely, age, ASA, morbidity index, surgery risk, and internal medicine consultation) were associated with higher mortality of patients; however, internal medicine consultation was associated with a reduction of mortality in high-risk patients (RR 0.72 [95%CI 0.65–0.84], p=0.02) and an increase of mortality in low-risk patients (RR 1.55 [95%CI 1.31–1.67], p=0.01). CONCLUSION: High-risk surgical patients may benefit from perioperative internal medicine consultations, which probably decrease hospital mortality and 30-day hospital readmission. OBJECTIVE 30day day 30 METHODS 85 beds RESULTS 70245 70 245 70,24 201 departments highrisk high risk ASA3 ASA 3 ASA≥ RR 089 0 89 0.8 95% 95 [95 95%CI 95CI CI (95%CI 0.80–0.99, 080099 0.80–0.99 , 80 99 0.80–0.99] p=0.02, p002 p p=0.02 02 plus65 65 plus≥6 088 88 0.78–0.99, 078099 0.78–0.99 78 0.78–0.99] p=0.04, p004 p=0.04 04 p=0.04) 086 86 0.77–0.97, 077097 0.77–0.97 77 97 0.77–0.97] p=0.01, p001 p=0.01 01 ASA4 4 ≥6 083 83 0.72–0.96, 072096 0.72–0.96 72 96 0.72–0.96] p=0.01. . 057 57 0.5 0.37–0.89, 037089 0.37–0.89 37 0.37–0.89] 063 63 0.6 0.46–0.57, 046057 0.46–0.57 46 0.46–0.57] p=0.005. p0005 p=0.005 005 p=0.005) namely, namely (namely index however 072 0.7 0.65–0.84, 065084 0.65–0.84 84 0.65–0.84] lowrisk low 155 1 55 1.5 1.31–1.67, 131167 1.31–1.67 31 67 1.31–1.67] CONCLUSION Highrisk High consultations 8 7024 7 24 70,2 20 08 0. 9 [9 08009 0.80–0.9 p00 p=0.0 plus6 6 plus≥ 07809 0.78–0.9 07709 0.77–0.9 ≥ 07209 0.72–0.9 05 5 03708 0.37–0.8 06 04605 0.46–0.5 p000 p=0.00 00 07 06508 0.65–0.8 15 1. 13116 1.31–1.6 702 2 70, [ 0800 0.80–0. p0 p=0. 0780 0.78–0. 0770 0.77–0. 0720 0.72–0. 0370 0.37–0. 0460 0.46–0. 0650 0.65–0. 1311 1.31–1. 080 0.80–0 p=0 078 0.78–0 077 0.77–0 0.72–0 037 0.37–0 046 0.46–0 065 0.65–0 131 1.31–1 0.80– p= 0.78– 0.77– 0.72– 03 0.37– 0.46– 0.65– 13 1.31– 0.80 0.78 0.77 0.37 0.46 0.65 1.31 0.3 0.4 1.3