Dataset Information

Does Point-of-care Ultrasonography Change Emergency Department Care Delivered to Hypotensive Patients When Categorized by Shock Type? A Post-Hoc Analysis of an International Randomized Controlled Trial from the SHoC-ED Investigators.

ABSTRACT: Introduction Our previously reported randomized-controlled-trial of point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) for patients with undifferentiated hypotension in the emergency department (ED) showed no survival benefit with PoCUS. Here, we examine the data to see if PoCUS led to changes in the care delivered to patients with cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic shock. Methods A post-hoc analysis was completed on a database of 273 hypotensive ED patients randomized to standard care or PoCUS in six centres in Canada and South Africa. Shock categories recorded one hour after the ED presentation were used to define subcategories of shock. We analyzed initial intravenous fluid volumes, as well as rates of inotrope use and procedures. Results 261 patients could be classified as cardiogenic or non-cardiogenic shock types. Although there were expected differences in the mean fluid volume administered between patients with non-cardiogenic and cardiogenic shock (p-value<0.001), there was no difference between the control and PoCUS groups (mean non-cardiogenic control 1881mL (95% CI 1567-2195mL) vs non-cardiogenic PoCUS 1763mL (1525-2001mL); and cardiogenic control 680mL (28.4-1332mL) vs. cardiogenic PoCUS 744mL (370-1117mL; p= 0.67). Likewise, there were no differences in rates of inotrope administration nor procedures for any of the subcategories of shock between the control group and PoCUS group patients. Conclusion Despite differences in care delivered by subcategory of shock, we did not find any difference in key elements of emergency department care delivered between patients receiving PoCUS and those who did not. This may help explain the previously reported lack of outcome differences between groups.

SUBMITTER: Atkinson P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6890162 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does Point-of-care Ultrasonography Change Emergency Department Care Delivered to Hypotensive Patients When Categorized by Shock Type? A Post-Hoc Analysis of an International Randomized Controlled Trial from the SHoC-ED Investigators.

Atkinson Paul P Hunter Sam S Banerjee Ankona A Lewis David D Fraser Jacqueline J Milne James J Diegelmann Laura L Lamprecht Hein H Stander Melanie M Lussier David D Pham Chau C Peach Mandy M Taylor Luke L Henneberry Ryan R Howlett Michael M Mekwan Jay J Ramrattan Brian B Middleton Joanna J Van Hoving Daniel J DJ Stoica George G French James J Olszynski Paul P

Cureus 20191103 11

Introduction Our previously reported randomized-controlled-trial of point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) for patients with undifferentiated hypotension in the emergency department (ED) showed no survival benefit with PoCUS. Here, we examine the data to see if PoCUS led to changes in the care delivered to patients with cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic shock. Methods A post-hoc analysis was completed on a database of 273 hypotensive ED patients randomized to standard care or PoCUS in six centres in Can ...[more]

PMID: 31827989

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) has recently become a useful tool that intensivists are incorporating into clinical practice. However, the incorporation of ultrasonography in critical care in developing countries is not straightforward. METHODS:Our objective was to investigate current practice and education regarding POCUS among Brazilian intensivists. A national survey was administered to Brazilian intensivists using an electronic questionnaire. Questions were selected by the Delphi method and assessed topics included organizational issues, POCUS technique and training patterns, machine availability, and main applications of POCUS in daily practice. RESULTS:Of 1533 intensivists who received the questionnaire, 322 responded from all of Brazil's regions. Two hundred and five (63.8%) reported having access to an ultrasound machine dedicated to the intensive care unit (ICU); however, this was more likely in university hospitals than in non-university hospitals (80.6 vs. 59.6%; risk ratio [RR]?=?1.35 [1.16-1.58], p?=?0.002). The main applications of POCUS were ultrasound-guided central vein catheterization (49.4%) and bedside echocardiographic assessment (33.9%). Two hundred and fifty-eight (80.0%) reported having at least one POCUS-trained intensivist in their staff (trained units). Trained units were more likely to perform routine ultrasound-guided jugular vein catheterization than non-trained units (38.6 vs. 16.4%; RR?=?2.35 [1.31-4.23], p?=?0.001). The proportion of POCUS-trained intensivists and availability of a dedicated ultrasound machine were both independently associated with performing ultrasound-guided jugular vein catheterization (RR?=?1.91 [1.32-2.77], p?=?0.001) and (RR?=?2.20 [1.26-3.29], p?=?0.005), respectively. CONCLUSIONS:A significant proportion of Brazilian ICUs had at least one intensivist with POCUS capability in their staff. Although ultrasound-guided central vein catheterization constitutes the main application of POCUS, adherence to guideline recommendations is still suboptimal.

Project description:We determine whether renal point-of-care limited ultrasonography (PLUS) used in conjunction with the Sex, Timing, Origin, Nausea, Erythrocytes (STONE) clinical prediction score can aid identification of emergency department (ED) patients with uncomplicated ureteral stone or need for urologic intervention.This was a prospective observational study of adult ED patients undergoing computed tomography (CT) scan for suspected ureteral stone. The previously validated STONE score classifies patients into risk categories of low (?10%), moderate (?50%), or high (?90%) for symptomatic stone. Renal PLUS assessed for presence of hydronephrosis before CT scanning. The primary outcomes of symptomatic ureteral stone or acutely important alternative finding were abstracted from CT reports. The secondary outcome, urologic intervention, was assessed by 90-day follow-up interview and record review.Of 835 enrolled patients, ureteral stone was identified in 53%, whereas 6.5% had an acutely important alternative finding on CT. Renal PLUS modestly increased sensitivity for symptomatic stone among low and moderate STONE score categories. Moderate or greater hydronephrosis improved specificity from 67% (62% to 72%) to 98% (93% to 99%) and 42% (37% to 47%) to 92% (86% to 95%) in low- and moderate-risk patients, with likelihood ratios of 22 (95% CI, 4.2-111) and 4.9 (95% CI, 2.9-8.3), respectively. Test characteristics among high-risk patients were unchanged by renal PLUS. For urologic intervention, any hydronephrosis was 66% sensitive (57% to 74%), whereas moderate or greater hydronephrosis was 86% specific overall (83% to 89%) and 81% (69% to 90%) sensitive and 79% 95% CI, (73-84) specific among patients with the highest likelihood of symptomatic stone.Hydronephrosis on renal PLUS modestly improved risk stratification in low- and moderate-risk STONE score patients. The presence or absence of hydronephrosis among high-risk patients did not significantly alter likelihood of symptomatic stone but may aid in identifying patients more likely to require urologic intervention.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To describe how general practitioners (GPs) use point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) and how it influences the diagnostic process and treatment of patients. DESIGN:Prospective observational study using an online questionnaire before and after POCUS. SETTING:Office-based general practice. PARTICIPANTS:Twenty GPs consecutively recruited all patients examined with POCUS in 1 month. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:We estimated the use of POCUS through the indication for use, the frequency of use, the time consumption, the extent of modification of the examination and the findings.The influence on the diagnostic process was estimated through change in the tentative diagnoses, change in confidence, the ability to produce ultrasound images and the relationship between confidence and organs scanned or tentative diagnoses.The influence of POCUS on patient treatment was estimated through change in plan for the patient, change in patient's treatment and the relationship between such changes and certain findings. RESULTS:The GPs included 574 patients in the study. POCUS was used in patient consultations with a median frequency of 8.6% (IQR: 4.9-12.6). Many different organs were scanned covering more than 100 different tentative diagnoses. The median time taken to perform POCUS was 5 min (IQR: 3-8). Across applications and GPs, POCUS entailed a change in diagnoses in 49.4% of patients; increased confidence in a diagnosis in 89.2% of patients; a change in the management plan for 50.9% of patients including an absolute reduction in intended referrals to secondary care from 49.2% to 25.6%; and a change in treatment for 26.5% of patients. CONCLUSIONS:The clinical utilisation of POCUS was highly variable among the GPs included in this study in terms of the indication for performing POCUS, examined scanning modalities and frequency of use. Overall, using POCUS altered the GPs' diagnostic process and clinical decision-making in nearly three out of four consultations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03375333.

Dataset Information

Does Point-of-care Ultrasonography Change Emergency Department Care Delivered to Hypotensive Patients When Categorized by Shock Type? A Post-Hoc Analysis of an International Randomized Controlled Trial from the SHoC-ED Investigators.

Publications

Does Point-of-care Ultrasonography Change Emergency Department Care Delivered to Hypotensive Patients When Categorized by Shock Type? A Post-Hoc Analysis of an International Randomized Controlled Trial from the SHoC-ED Investigators.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets