LO07: Does point of care ultrasonography improve diagnostic accuracy in emergency department patients with undifferentiated hypotension? The first Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHOC-ED1) Study; an international randomized controlled trial

CJEM ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (S1) ◽  
pp. S29
Author(s):  
M. Peach ◽  
J. Milne ◽  
D. Lewis ◽  
L. Diegelmann ◽  
H. Lamprecht ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Correct Diagnosis ◽  
Diagnostic Certainty ◽  
Multicenter Rct ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasonography ◽  
The Impact

Introduction: Point of care ultrasonography (PoCUS) is an established tool in the initial management of hypotensive patients in the emergency department (ED). It has been shown rule out certain shock etiologies, and improve diagnostic certainty, however evidence on benefit in the management of hypotensive patients is limited. We report the findings from our international multicenter RCT assessing the impact of a PoCUS protocol on diagnostic accuracy, as well as other key outcomes including mortality, which are reported elsewhere. Methods: Recruitment occurred at 4 North American and 3 Southern African sites. Screening at triage identified patients (SBP<100 mmHg or shock index >1) who were randomized to either PoCUS or control groups. Scans were performed by PoCUS-trained physicians. Demographics, clinical details and findings were collected prospectively. Initial and secondary diagnoses were recorded at 0 and 60 minutes, with ultrasound performed in the PoCUS group prior to secondary assessment. Final chart review was blinded to initial impressions and PoCUS findings. Categorical data was analyzed using Fishers two-tailed test. Our sample size was powered at 0.80 (α:0.05) for a moderate effect size. Results: 258 patients were enrolled with follow-up fully completed. Baseline comparisons confirmed effective randomization. The perceived shock category changed more frequently in the PoCUS group 20/127 (15.7%) vs. control 7/125 (5.6%); RR 2.81 (95% CI 1.23 to 6.42; p=0.0134). There was no significant difference in change of diagnostic impression between groups PoCUS 39/123 (31.7%) vs control 34/124 (27.4%); RR 1.16 (95% CI 0.786 to 1.70; p=0.4879). There was no significant difference in the rate of correct category of shock between PoCUS (118/127; 93%) and control (113/122; 93%); RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.936 to 1.08; p=1.00), or for correct diagnosis; PoCUS 90/127 (70%) vs control 86/122 (70%); RR 0.987 (95% CI 0.671 to 1.45; p=1.00). Conclusion: This is the first RCT to compare PoCUS to standard care for undifferentiated hypotensive ED patients. We found that the use of PoCUS did change physicians’ perceived shock category. PoCUS did not improve diagnostic accuracy for category of shock or diagnosis.

scholarly journals Does Nursery-Based Intensified Anticipatory Guidance Reduce Emergency Department Use for Nonurgent Conditions in the First Month of Life? A Randomized Controlled Trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Kelly Kamimura-Nishimura ◽  
Vikram Chaudhary ◽  
Folake Olaosebikan ◽  
Maryam Azizi ◽  
Sneha Galiveeti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Newborn Care ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Anticipatory Guidance ◽  
Guidance Program ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact

Objective.We aimed to evaluate the impact of an intensified anticipatory guidance program in the nursery on Emergency Department (ED) use for nonurgent conditions (NUCs) in the neonatal period.Methods. Parturient mothers of healthy newborns were randomized to an intervention group or control group. Baseline and 1-month follow-up knowledge surveys regarding newborn care were conducted. The primary outcome was the proportion of neonates who used the ED for a NUC. Secondary outcome was change in caregivers’ knowledge on NUC.Results. Of a total of 594 mothers, 323 (54%) agreed to participate and were randomized to intervention (n=170) or control (n=153) group. Most were Hispanic (68%), single (61%), primiparous (39%), and without high school diploma (44%). 35 (21%) neonates in the intervention group and 41 (27%) in the control group were brought at least once for a NUC to the ED (p=0.12). There was no statistically significant difference in within subject change on knowledge scores between the two study arms.Conclusions. Neonatal ED visits for NUCs occur frequently. This nursery-based intensified anticipatory guidance program had no statistically significant impact on neonatal ED use for NUC, nor on neonatal care-relevant knowledge among parturient mothers. Alternative modalities and timing of parental educational intervention may need to be considered. This trial is registered with Clinical Trials NumberNCT01859065(Clinicaltrials.gov).

scholarly journals LO45: Does the use of point of care ultrasonography improve survival in emergency department patients with undifferentiated hypotension? The first Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHOC-ED1) Study; an international randomized controlled trial

CJEM ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (S1) ◽  
pp. S43
Author(s):  
P.R. Atkinson ◽  
J. Milne ◽  
L. Diegelmann ◽  
H. Lamprecht ◽  
M. Stander ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Secondary Outcomes

Introduction: Point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) is an established tool in the initial management of patients with undifferentiated hypotension in the emergency department (ED). While PoCUS protocols have been shown to improve early diagnostic accuracy, there is little published evidence for any mortality benefit. We report the findings from our international multicenter randomized controlled trial, assessing the impact of a PoCUS protocol on survival and key clinical outcomes. Methods: Recruitment occurred at 7 centres in North America (4) and South Africa (3). Scans were performed by PoCUS-trained physicians. Screening at triage identified patients (SBP<100 or shock index>1), randomized to PoCUS or control (standard care and no PoCUS) groups. Demographics, clinical details and study findings were collected prospectively. Initial and secondary diagnoses were recorded at 0 and 60 minutes, with ultrasound performed in the PoCUS group prior to secondary assessment. The primary outcome measure was 30-day/discharge mortality. Secondary outcome measures included diagnostic accuracy, changes in vital signs, acid-base status, and length of stay. Categorical data was analyzed using Fishers test, and continuous data by Student T test and multi-level log-regression testing. (GraphPad/SPSS) Final chart review was blinded to initial impressions and PoCUS findings. Results: 258 patients were enrolled with follow-up fully completed. Baseline comparisons confirmed effective randomization. There was no difference between groups for the primary outcome of mortality; PoCUS 32/129 (24.8%; 95% CI 14.3-35.3%) vs. Control 32/129 (24.8%; 95% CI 14.3-35.3%); RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.869 to 1.15; p=1.00). There were no differences in the secondary outcomes; ICU and total length of stay. Our sample size has a power of 0.80 (α:0.05) for a moderate effect size. Other secondary outcomes are reported separately. Conclusion: This is the first RCT to compare PoCUS to standard care for undifferentiated hypotensive ED patients. We did not find any mortality or length of stay benefits with the use of a PoCUS protocol, though a larger study is required to confirm these findings. While PoCUS may have diagnostic benefits, these may not translate into a survival benefit effect.

scholarly journals LO43: Does point of care ultrasound improve resuscitation markers in emergency department patients with undifferentiated hypotension? The first Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHOC-ED 1) Study; an international randomized controlled trial

CJEM ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (S1) ◽  
pp. S42
Author(s):  
L. Taylor ◽  
J. Milne ◽  
D. Lewis ◽  
L. Diegelmann ◽  
H. Lamprecht ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Volume Of Fluid ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Shock Index ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Introduction: Point of Care Ultrasound (PoCUS) protocols are commonly used to guide resuscitation for emergency department (ED) patients with undifferentiated non-traumatic hypotension. While PoCUS has been shown to improve early diagnosis, there is a minimal evidence for any outcome benefit. We completed an international multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the impact of a PoCUS protocol on key resuscitation markers in this group. We report diagnostic impact and mortality elsewhere. Methods: The SHoC-ED1 study compared the addition of PoCUS to standard care within the first hour in the treatment of adult patients presenting with undifferentiated hypotension (SBP<100 mmHg or a Shock Index >1.0) with a control group that did not receive PoCUS. Scans were performed by PoCUS-trained physicians. 4 North American, and 3 South African sites participated in the study. Resuscitation outcomes analyzed included volume of fluid administered in the ED, changes in shock index (SI), modified early warning score (MEWS), venous acid-base balance, and lactate, at one and four hours. Comparisons utilized a T-test as well as stratified binomial log-regression to assess for any significant improvement in resuscitation amount the outcomes. Our sample size was powered at 0.80 (α:0.05) for a moderate effect size. Results: 258 patients were enrolled with follow-up fully completed. Baseline comparisons confirmed effective randomization. There was no significant difference in mean total volume of fluid received between the control (1658 ml; 95%CI 1365-1950) and PoCUS groups (1609 ml; 1385-1832; p=0.79). Significant improvements were seen in SI, MEWS, lactate and bicarbonate with resuscitation in both the PoCUS and control groups, however there was no difference between groups. Conclusion: SHOC-ED1 is the first RCT to compare PoCUS to standard of care in hypotensive ED patients. No significant difference in fluid used, or markers of resuscitation was found when comparing the use of a PoCUS protocol to that of standard of care in the resuscitation of patients with undifferentiated hypotension.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document