Logo

Log In Sign Up |  An official publication of: American College of Emergency Physicians
Navigation
  • Home
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Clinical
    • Airway Managment
    • Case Reports
    • Critical Care
    • Guidelines
    • Imaging & Ultrasound
    • Pain & Palliative Care
    • Pediatrics
    • Resuscitation
    • Trauma & Injury
  • Resource Centers
    • mTBI Resource Center
  • Career
    • Practice Management
      • Benchmarking
      • Reimbursement & Coding
      • Care Team
      • Legal
      • Operations
      • Quality & Safety
    • Awards
    • Certification
    • Compensation
    • Early Career
    • Education
    • Leadership
    • Profiles
    • Retirement
    • Work-Life Balance
  • Columns
    • ACEP4U
    • Airway
    • Benchmarking
    • Brief19
    • By the Numbers
    • Coding Wizard
    • EM Cases
    • End of the Rainbow
    • Equity Equation
    • FACEPs in the Crowd
    • Forensic Facts
    • From the College
    • Images in EM
    • Kids Korner
    • Medicolegal Mind
    • Opinion
      • Break Room
      • New Spin
      • Pro-Con
    • Pearls From EM Literature
    • Policy Rx
    • Practice Changers
    • Problem Solvers
    • Residency Spotlight
    • Resident Voice
    • Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine
    • Sound Advice
    • Special OPs
    • Toxicology Q&A
    • WorldTravelERs
  • Resources
    • ACEP.org
    • ACEP Knowledge Quiz
    • Issue Archives
    • CME Now
    • Annual Scientific Assembly
      • ACEP14
      • ACEP15
      • ACEP16
      • ACEP17
      • ACEP18
      • ACEP19
    • Annals of Emergency Medicine
    • JACEP Open
    • Emergency Medicine Foundation
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Medical Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Awards
    • Authors
    • Article Submission
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright Information

Introducing the CASA Exam: A New Protocol to Guide Point-Of-Care Ultrasound in Cardiac Arrest

By Kevin Gardner, MD; Eben Clattenburg, MD; Peter Wroe, MD; and Arun Nagdev, MD | on May 1, 2018 | 2 Comments
Sound Advice
  • Tweet
  • Email
Print-Friendly Version

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a powerful diagnostic tool in the emergency department. To identify reversible causes of pulseless electrical activity (PEA), emergency physicians have started integrating POCUS into the evaluation of patients in cardiac arrest, leading to its current recommendation from the American Heart Association (AHA).1

You Might Also Like
  • Survival After Cardiac Arrest May Depend on Which EMS Agency Shows Up
  • Post-Cardiac Arrest Care System in Arizona Improves Patient Outcomes
  • Amiodarone, Lidocaine, Placebo Treatments Compared for Patients with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

However, two recent studies have demonstrated that ED POCUS use in the resuscitation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) may prolong CPR pauses, which has been shown to negatively impact survival.2,3 In our experience, even experienced ED sonographers can have difficulty simultaneously obtaining adequate echocardiographic views and interpreting their images in the 10-second CPR pause interval, leading to unintended prolonged CPR pauses.

Protocol = Solution

A potential solution for minimizing CPR interruptions may be to protocolize POCUS integration in the resuscitation of the OHCA patient. Prior protocols have been suggested, but they are too complex and can reduce the possibility of clinical implementation. A simplified protocol most ED sonographers can easily perform may reduce the cognitive load of running a complex resuscitation, facilitate detection of reversible causes of OHCA, and prevent prolonged CPR pauses.

The CASA Exam

Recently, we proposed the Cardiac Arrest Sonographic Assessment (CASA) exam (see Figure 1).4 The CASA exam is a three-step protocol that evaluates for:

  • Pericardial effusion
  • Right heart strain indicative of a pulmonary embolus
  • Cardiac activity

All three steps can be rapidly performed with a cardiac (phased array) transducer.

Tamponade and pulmonary embolism (PE) are potentially reversible causes if identified quickly, and the presence or absence of cardiac activity provides information regarding prognosis.5 This step-wise approach allows for the integration of POCUS in the resuscitation of the critically ill patient while maintaining the evidence-based principles of continuous, high-quality CPR. If and when return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) is achieved, a more comprehensive ultrasound assessment should be performed.

Probe and Views

We recommend using a phased array transducer with cardiac presets for the echocardiographic examination, and all images should be recorded for review. Our initial cardiac evaluation often utilizes the subxiphoid view because cardiac compressions make the anterior chest difficult to access. The parasternal long axis, our preferred view in patients not in cardiac arrest, can also be used, but the ED sonographer must be resolute in wiping gel from the chest after each echocardiographic evaluation. Leaving gel on the chest will interfere with cardiac compressions and adhesion of the defibrillation pads.

The optimal view of the heart will be based on the patient’s intrinsic pathology. Patients with chronic lung pathology (eg, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) are often best imaged from the subxiphoid view, but the cardiac location can vary significantly. We recommend obtaining only one view per pause.

Step 1: Pericardial Effusion

Determining the presence of a pericardial effusion causing cardiac tamponade is the first step in the CASA exam because this is the cause of cardiac arrest in 4 to 15 percent of patients.5-9 The rapid identification of cardiac tamponade is critical because an emergent pericardiocentesis may resolve PEA. Patients with cardiac tamponade as a cause of PEA have a significantly higher survival to hospital discharge rate (15.4 percent) than other PEA causes (1.3 percent).5 Unfortunately, cardiac tamponade can be a complex echocardiographic diagnosis, and often subtle signs cannot be determined during the initial resuscitation. The decision to perform an urgent landmark or ultrasound-based pericardiocentesis should be based on both the clinical scenario and ultrasonographic findings.

Step 2: Right Heart Strain

Evaluating for right heart strain indicative of PE is the second step of the CASA exam because this may be the underlying etiology of 4.0 to 7.6 percent of cardiac arrests.10-13 Furthermore, cardiac arrest patients with PE have significantly better outcomes when appropriate treatment is initiated compared with other etiologies.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Single Page

Topics: Cardiac ArrestDiagnosisEmergency MedicineEmergency PhysicianImaging and UltrasoundPOCUS

Related

  • Airway Considerations in Prehospital Cardiac Arrest

    May 9, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • EM Runs in the Family

    February 26, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • Case Report: Coronary Vasospasm-Induced Cardiac Arrest

    December 6, 2024 - 0 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now May 03

Read More

2 Responses to “Introducing the CASA Exam: A New Protocol to Guide Point-Of-Care Ultrasound in Cardiac Arrest”

  1. May 6, 2018

    Chris Wiesner Reply

    Respectfully, no way that “pericardial effusion causing cardiac tamponade is…the cause of cardiac arrest in 4 to 15 percent of patients”.

    The high-end 15% figure appears to come from reference #6, an 2003 observational study of 20 cardiac arrest patients at a single hospital over an 18 month period. Perhaps not what you should hang your hat on statistically.

    Also, while certainly the article is focused on patients in PEA, you should be careful about making that clear when quoting statistics — the sentence about the rate of tamponade-induced cardiac arrest does not indicate you are limiting yourself to patients in PEA, although the underlying study is so limited.

    I ultrasound every cardiac arrest I see. Even in patients with PEA, my clinical experience is that nowhere near 15% of them have tamponade or even an effusion.

  2. May 13, 2018

    arun nagdev Reply

    Completely agree with your comment. The rates are much lower than the 15%, but this is really all we have in the way of literature. In our just published 2018 Resuscitation paper “Clattenburg, et al.”, we did not have those numbers as well for pericardial effusions.

    The goal of the CASA protocol is to allow the clinician to simplify the ultrasound aspect when running an OHCA, and ensure high quality CPR. By making the clinician look quickly for the presence or absence of a pericardial effusion, it allows him/her to move to other items that are on the differential.

    Thanks for your great comment.

    Arun

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*
*

Wiley
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • Advertise
  • Cookie Preferences
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 2333-2603