scholarly journals MP05: Diagnostic accuracy of point of care ultrasound in undifferentiated hypotension presenting to the emergency department: a systematic review

CJEM ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (S1) ◽  
pp. S43-S44 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Richardson ◽  
O. Loubani ◽  
P. Atkinson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Full Article ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Initial Assessment ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Strong Conclusion

Introduction: Undifferentiated hypotension remains one of the most life-threatening presentations to emergency departments (ED) around the world. An accurate and rapid initial assessment is essential, as shock carries a high mortality with multiple unique etiologies and management plans. Point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) has emerged as a promising tool to improve these diagnostic and management challenges, yet its reliability in this setting remains unclear. Methods: We performed a systematic review of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov databases from inception to June 8, 2018. Databases were reviewed by two independent researchers and all languages were included. The methodological quality of included studies were evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Our primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of PoCUS in hypotension, with secondary outcomes including patient outcomes and changes to management. Results: Our literature search revealed 5345 articles after duplicates were removed, leaving 235 articles for full article review. Following full article review, 9 studies remained and were included in the systematic review. There were 2 randomized control trials, 6 prospective cohort trials, and 1 retrospective cohort trial. For our primary outcome of diagnostic accuracy, eight studies were included; we extracted Kappa values ranging from 0.70 to 0.971, pooled sensitivity ranging from 69% to 88%, and pooled specificity ranging from 88% to 96%. Four studies reported on management change including results reporting shorter time to disposition, change in diagnostic test ordering (18% to 31%), change in consultation (13.6%), change in admission location (12%) and change in management plan (25% to 40%). Only one study reported on patient outcomes, which revealed no survival or length of stay benefit. Conclusion: When assessing for the diagnostic accuracy of PoCUS in the setting of undifferentiated hypotension presenting to the emergency department, we found fair consistency between PoCUS and final diagnosis with high Kappa values, fair to good pooled sensitivities, and good to excellent specificities. There was no strong evidence indicating improved outcomes. However, the large amount of heterogeneity amongst studies has limited our ability to make a strong conclusion except that future research should focus on a uniform study design and patient focused outcomes.

scholarly journals The Accuracy and Prognostic Value of Point‐of‐care Ultrasound for Nephrolithiasis in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 684-698 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Wong ◽  
Braden Teitge ◽  
Marshall Ross ◽  
Paul Young ◽  
Helen Lee Robertson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Prognostic Value ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound

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 Evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound for cholelithiasis and cholecystitis in a canadian emergency department

CJEM ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sameer Sharif ◽  
Dean Vlahaki ◽  
Steven Skitch ◽  
Jenifer Truong ◽  
Shane Freeman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound

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 Ultrasound Utility in the Diagnosis of a Morel-Lavallée Lesion

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Scott LaTulip ◽  
Rameshwar R. Rao ◽  
Alan Sielaff ◽  
Nik Theyyunni ◽  
John Burkhardt
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Imaging Technique ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Rapid Diagnosis ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Ultrasound Findings ◽  
Specialized Equipment ◽  
Improve Patient

Morel-Lavallée lesions are uncommon injuries that can be associated with significant comorbidities if not detected early. Rapid diagnosis in the Emergency Department could significantly improve patient outcomes. We describe the diagnosis of such a lesion through the use of ultrasound imaging in the Emergency Department to utilize a fast, cost-effective imaging technique that does not subject the patient to radiation exposure. Our patient received surgical consultation but improved with conservative management. Ultrasound findings associated with this lesion do not require specialized equipment and should be considered when evaluating soft tissue lesions using point of care ultrasound.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document