scholarly journals LO68: Does point-of-care ultrasonography change actual care delivered by shock subcategory in emergency department patients with undifferentiated hypotension? An international randomized controlled trial from the SHoC-ED investigators

CJEM ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (S1) ◽  
pp. S32
Author(s):  
P. Atkinson ◽  
S. Hunter ◽  
M. Peach ◽  
L. Taylor ◽  
A. Kanji ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Bolus Volume ◽  
Fluid Bolus ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Actual Care

Introduction: Although use of point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) protocols for patients with undifferentiated hypotension in the Emergency Department (ED) is widespread, our previously reported SHoC-ED study showed no clear survival or length of stay benefit for patients assessed with PoCUS. In this analysis, we examine if the use of PoCUS changed fluid administration and rates of other emergency interventions between patients with different shock types. The primary comparison was between cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic shock types. Methods: A post-hoc analysis was completed on the database from an RCT of 273 patients who presented to the ED with undifferentiated hypotension (SBP <100 or shock index > 1) and who had been randomized to receive standard care with or without PoCUS in 6 centres in Canada and South Africa. PoCUS-trained physicians performed scans after initial assessment. Shock categories and diagnoses recorded at 60 minutes after ED presentation, were used to allocate patients into subcategories of shock for analysis of treatment. We analyzed actual care delivered including initial IV fluid bolus volumes (mL), rates of inotrope use and major procedures. Standard statistical tests were employed. Sample size was powered at 0.80 (α:0.05) for a moderate difference. Results: Although there were expected differences in the mean fluid bolus volume between patients with non-cardiogenic and cardiogenic shock, there was no difference in fluid bolus volume between the control and PoCUS groups (non-cardiogenic control 1878 mL (95% CI 1550 – 2206 mL) vs. non-cardiogenic PoCUS 1687 mL (1458 – 1916 mL); and cardiogenic control 768 mL (194 – 1341 mL) vs. cardiogenic PoCUS 981 mL (341 – 1620 mL). Likewise there were no differences in rates of inotrope administration, or major procedures for any of the subcategories of shock between the control group and PoCUS group patients. The most common subcategory of shock was distributive. Conclusion: Despite differences in care delivered by subcategory of shock, we did not find any significant difference in actual care delivered between patients who were examined using PoCUS and those who were not. This may help to explain the previously reported lack of outcome difference between groups.

scholarly journals LO22: Does point-of-care ultrasonography improve diagnostic accuracy in emergency department patients with undifferentiated hypotension? An international randomized controlled trial from the SHoC-ED investigators

CJEM ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (S1) ◽  
pp. S15
Author(s):  
P. Atkinson ◽  
M. Peach ◽  
S. Hunter ◽  
A. Kanji ◽  
L. Taylor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Introduction: Point of care ultrasound has been reported to improve diagnosis in non-traumatic hypotensive ED patients. We compared diagnostic performance of physicians with and without PoCUS in undifferentiated hypotensive patients as part of an international prospective randomized controlled study. The primary outcome was diagnostic performance of PoCUS for cardiogenic vs. non-cardiogenic shock. Methods: SHoC-ED recruited hypotensive patients (SBP < 100 mmHg or shock index > 1) in 6 centres in Canada and South Africa. We describe previously unreported secondary outcomes relating to diagnostic accuracy. Patients were randomized to standard clinical assessment (No PoCUS) or PoCUS groups. PoCUS-trained physicians performed scans after initial assessment. Demographics, clinical details and findings were collected prospectively. Initial and secondary diagnoses including shock category were recorded at 0 and 60 minutes. Final diagnosis was determined by independent blinded chart review. Standard statistical tests were employed. Sample size was powered at 0.80 (α:0.05) for a moderate difference. Results: 273 patients were enrolled with follow-up for primary outcome completed for 270. Baseline demographics and perceived category of shock were similar between groups. 11% of patients were determined to have cardiogenic shock. PoCUS had a sensitivity of 80.0% (95% CI 54.8 to 93.0%), specificity 95.5% (90.0 to 98.1%), LR+ve 17.9 (7.34 to 43.8), LR-ve 0.21 (0.08 to 0.58), Diagnostic OR 85.6 (18.2 to 403.6) and accuracy 93.7% (88.0 to 97.2%) for cardiogenic shock. Standard assessment without PoCUS had a sensitivity of 91.7% (64.6 to 98.5%), specificity 93.8% (87.8 to 97.0%), LR+ve 14.8 (7.1 to 30.9), LR- of 0.09 (0.01 to 0.58), Diagnostic OR 166.6 (18.7 to 1481) and accuracy of 93.6% (87.8 to 97.2%). There was no significant difference in sensitivity (-11.7% (-37.8 to 18.3%)) or specificity (1.73% (-4.67 to 8.29%)). Diagnostic performance was also similar between other shock subcategories. Conclusion: As reported in other studies, PoCUS based assessment performed well diagnostically in undifferentiated hypotensive patients, especially as a rule-in test. However performance was similar to standard (non-PoCUS) assessment, which was excellent in this study.

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.

scholarly journals MP012: Is there an association between the use of cardiac ultrasound and survival outcomes in patients arriving to the emergency department in cardiac arrest? The second Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHOC-ED 2) Study

CJEM ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (S1) ◽  
pp. S70-S70
Author(s):  
N. Beckett ◽  
P.R. Atkinson ◽  
J. Fraser ◽  
J. French ◽  
D. Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Hospital Admission ◽  
Hospital Discharge ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Cardiac Activity ◽  
Advanced Cardiac Life Support ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound

Introduction: The use of cardiac point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) to assess cardiac arrest patients is widespread, although not mandated by advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) guidelines. This study aims to examine if the use of ultrasound, along with the findings on ultrasound are associated with a difference in outcomes of cardiac arrest patients in the emergency department (ED). Methods: A retrospective database and chart analysis was completed for patients arriving to a tertiary ED in asystole or PEA cardiac arrest, between 2010 and 2014. Patients were excluded if aged under 19, or with a previous DNR order. Patients were grouped based on whether PoCUS was used during ACLS (PoCUS group) and those without PoCUS (control group). Multiple data were abstracted from charts using a standardized form. Data was analyzed for the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission (SHA), and survival to hospital discharge (SHD), as well as initial cardiac activity findings on PoCUS. Results: 230 patients met the study inclusion criteria, with 44 (19%) in the control group, and 186 (81%) in the PoCUS group. In the PoCUS group 20 (11%) had cardiac activity (Positive PoCUS) and 166 (89%) had no cardiac activity recorded. The control group had a higher rate of SHA than the PoCUS group (27%; 95% CI 15-43% vs. 10%: 6-15%, p = 0.0046), however there was no difference in frequency of ROSC (control: 37%; 24-55% vs. PoCUS 26%; 20-33%, p = 0.1373) or SHD (control: 7%, 95% CI 1-19%; PoCUS: 2%, 95% CI 0-5%, p = 0.0858). Positive PoCUS patients had a higher frequency of ROSC (75%; 50-91% vs. 20%; 15-27%, p < 0.001) and SHA (25%; 9-49% vs. 8%; 4-13%, p = 0.0294) than patients with no PoCUS cardiac activity, however there was no difference in the rate of SHD between the positive PoCUS patients (0%; 0-17%) and patients with no PoCUS cardiac activity (2%; 0-5%, p = 1.0000). Conclusion: Our results suggest that there is no difference in survival between cardiac arrest patients receiving PoCUS and those who do not. Although finding positive cardiac activity on PoCUS is associated with greater ROSC and survival to hospital admission, it does not identify patients with a final outcome of survival to hospital discharge.

scholarly journals LO043: Is there an association between resuscitation effort and the use of cardiac ultrasound in patients arriving to the emergency department in cardiac arrest? The second Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHOC-ED 2) Study

CJEM ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (S1) ◽  
pp. S45-S45
Author(s):  
N. Beckett ◽  
P.R. Atkinson ◽  
J. Fraser ◽  
J. French ◽  
D. Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Endotracheal Intubation ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Cardiac Activity ◽  
Advanced Cardiac Life Support ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Multiple Data

Introduction: The use of cardiac point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) to assess cardiac arrest patients is widespread, although not mandated by advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) guidelines. This study aims to examine if the use of ultrasound is associated with a difference in the length of resuscitation and the frequency of interventions during ACLS in the emergency department (ED). Methods: A retrospective database and chart analysis was completed for patients arriving to a tertiary ED in cardiac arrest, between 2010 and 2014. Patients were excluded if aged under 19, or with a previous DNR order. Patients were grouped based on whether PoCUS was used during ACLS (PoCUS group) and those without PoCUS (control group). Multiple data were abstracted from charts using a standardized form. Data was analyzed for the length of resuscitation, frequency of common ACLS interventions such as endotracheal intubation, administration of epinephrine, and defibrillation, as well as initial cardiac activity findings on PoCUS. Results: 263 patients met the study inclusion criteria, with 51 (19%) in the control group, and 212 (81%) in the PoCUS group. In the PoCUS group 23 (11%) had cardiac activity (Positive PoCUS) and 189 (89%) had no cardiac activity recorded. Positive PoCUS patients had longer mean resuscitation times (26.13 min, 95% CI 17.80-34.46 min) compared to patients with no PoCUS cardiac activity (12.63 min, 95% CI 11.07-14.19 min, p < 0.05) as well as to the control group (14.20 min, 95% CI 10.30-18.09 min, p < 0.05). Positive PoCUS patients were more likely to receive endotracheal intubation (91%, 95% CI 72-99%), and epinephrine (100%, 95% CI 85-100%) than patients with no PoCUS cardiac activity (ET: 47%, 95% CI 40-54%, p < 0.0001; Epi: 81%, 95% CI 75-86%, p < 0.0172) and than the control group (ET: 65%, 95% CI 50-78%, p < 0.0227; Epi: 80%, 95% CI 67-90%, p < 0.0258). There was no difference in numbers receiving defibrillation between groups. Conclusion: Our results suggest emergency physicians may be making increased resuscitative effort for patients with positive cardiac activity findings on PoCUS compared to those with negative findings or when no PoCUS was performed.

scholarly journals P107: Does the use of bedside ultrasound to identify intrauterine pregnancy in the emergency department shorten the length of stay of patients presenting with 1st trimester vaginal bleeding or pelvic pain?

CJEM ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (S1) ◽  
pp. S114-S114
Author(s):  
M. Ravichandiran ◽  
S. Ramkissoon
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
First Trimester ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Intrauterine Pregnancy ◽  
First Trimester Pregnancy ◽  
Trimester Pregnancy ◽  
Experimental Group

Introduction: The use of point of care ultrasound (POCUS) has increased rapidly in the emergency department (ED) over the last 10 years. This study seeks to determine whether the use of POCUS to identify intrauterine pregnancy in the ED shortens the length of stay of patients presenting with first trimester pregnancy-related complaints at The Scarborough Hospital (TSH). Methods: A prospective chart review of women seen at TSH ED for first trimester pregnancy-related complaints was conducted from March 1, 2014 to December 30, 2014. ED physicians were asked to record the names of patients assessed using POCUS in the ED along with their findings during the study period (experimental group). Health Records data was used to find all patients seen in the emergency department during the study period with the chief triage complaint of “Pregnancy Issues < 20 weeks” (control group). Results: A total of 378 patients were identified in the control group and 61 patients were recorded in the experimental group. The outliers were removed from both groups. The POCUS identified an intra-uterine pregnancy (POS IUP) in 47.5% and no definite intrauterine pregnancy (NDIUP) in 52.5%.In the control group, 82.0% proceeded to obtain a formal ultrasound (FUS) after the POCUS. Patients found to have a POS IUP on the POCUS spent 141.48±100.95 minutes in hospital, while patients found to have NDIUP spent 197.10±132.48 minutes in hospital (p=0.07). The POS IUP group spent statistically significantly less time in hospital when compared to the control group (p=0.001). In the POCUS group, patients seen between 1700 and 0800 (i.e. when FUS is not available) spent significantly less time (p=0.02) in hospital (113.13±118.07 minutes, n=24) when compared to patients seen between 0800 and 1700 (208.28±106.35 minutes, n=36). Conclusion: For first-trimester pregnancy-related complaints, POCUS has been shown to be effective in reducing the time that patients spend in hospital at TSH. This difference was especially apparent when POCUS was used at times when FUS was not available. Despite the apparent reluctance of many ED physicians to discharge patients without a FUS, even after identifying a POS IUP on the POCUS, it was evident that this technology was saving time for both physicians and patients.

Case Report: When all claims that it is necrotizing fasciitis but Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) proves the opposite!

POCUS Journal ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-14
Author(s):  
Hadiel Kaiyasah, MD, MRCS (Glasgow), ABHS-GS ◽  
Maryam Al Ali, MBBS
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Critical Care ◽  
Case Report ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Necrotizing Fasciitis ◽  
Soft Tissue Infection ◽  
Critical Care Unit ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Soft Tissue Infections

Soft tissue ultrasound (ST-USS) has been shown to be of utmost importance in assessing patients with soft tissue infections in the emergency department or critical care unit. It aids in guiding the management of soft tissue infection based on the sonographic findings.

scholarly journals Association of interleukin-17A rs2275913 polymorphism with rheumatoid arthritis susceptibility in Sudanese population

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 205031212110202
Author(s):  
Rgda Mohamed Osman ◽  
Mounkaila Noma ◽  
Abdallah Elssir Ahmed ◽  
Hanadi Abdelbagi ◽  
Rihab Ali Omer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Control Group ◽  
P Value ◽  
Case Group ◽  
Molecular Technique ◽  
Interleukin 17A ◽  
Significant Difference

Objectives: Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease. This study aimed to determine the association of interleukin-17A-197G/A polymorphism with rheumatoid arthritis in Sudanese patients. Methods: A case–control study was conducted between March and December 2018. Clinical and demographic data of the study participants were collected and analyzed. Polymerase chain reaction restriction fragment length polymorphism molecular technique was done to investigate interleukin-17A-197G/A polymorphisms. All statistical tests were considered statistically significant when p < 0.05. Results: The study population included 266 participants aged between 1 and 85 years, with an average of 40 years, classified into 85 (31.2%) cases (mean age 48.5 ± 11.3 years), and 181 (68.8%) controls (mean age 35.3 ± 15.9 years). The interleukin-17A homozygote AA genotype was more frequent among the control group compared to the case group; 95 (52.5%) and 7 (8.2%), respectively. The homozygote GG and the heterozygote AG genotypes were proportionally not different among the cases and control groups; 13 (54.2%) and 11 (45.8%), and 65 (46.4%) and 75 (53.6%), respectively. According to the distribution of interleukin-17A genotypes, a statistically significant difference was observed among cases with the interleukin-17A AA and AG genotypes, p values 0.001 and 0.004, respectively. For the association interleukin-17A genotypes and family history a negatively significant association was reported (95% confidence interval, –0.219, p value = 0.001). There was also a negatively significant association of interleukin-17A genotypes and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (95% confidence interval, −0.141, p value = 0.002). Conclusion: This study is the first study in Sudan established the association between interleukin-17A-197G/A (rs2275913) polymorphisms and susceptibly to rheumatoid arthritis. These findings appeal for further research in Sudan to investigate the exact role of IL-17A in immunopathology and disease severity among Sudanese rheumatoid arthritis

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document