Dataset Information

Reporting focused lung ultrasound studies in critical care. Recommendations from the College of Intensive Care Medicine Ultrasound Special Interest Group

ABSTRACT: Abstract

Objective

To describe the recommended procedure and common ultrasonographic findings and present a framework for labelling, recording and reporting of images obtained during a focused lung ultrasound study.

Background

Lung ultrasound is a widely utilised point‐of‐care investigation in acute care, providing valuable diagnostic information in patients with dyspnoea or haemodynamic instability. It has a number of recognised advantages and has been incorporated into a variety of clinical algorithms. Recommendations for performing lung ultrasound and description of common artefacts are readily available; however, there is a lack of a recognised framework for labelling and reporting a lung ultrasound study. Standardised recording, labelling and reporting are important clinically, while promoting consistency, quality assurance, teaching and research opportunities. Documenting lung ultrasound also has potential medico‐legal implications.

Results

For focused lung ultrasound, an extended bilateral four‐quadrant approach is recommended. Acquired images and loops should be clearly labelled identifying left or right, anterior or lateral and inferior, superior or posterior locations. 2D loops should be of sufficient length to clearly demonstrate pleural sliding, complemented by M‐mode stills if required. Reports should provide information regarding the presence or absence of an intact pleural interface, the presence or absence and the size and nature of pleural collections as well as any parenchymal artefacts or consolidation, in all examined locations. It is important to use internationally accepted terminology to describe findings, and it is also recommended to conclude the report with a clear summary that can be interpreted by healthcare providers without specific training in lung ultrasound.

SUBMITTER: Rudas M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8411676 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background. Few Americans obtain all 41 guideline-recommended preventive services for nonpregnant adults. We assessed patient interest in prioritizing their preventive care needs. Methods. We conducted a mixed-methods study, with 4 focus groups (N = 28) at a single institution and a nationwide survey (N = 2,103). Participants were middle-aged and older adults with preventive care needs. We obtained reactions to written materials describing the magnitude of benefit from major preventive services, including both absolute and relative benefits. Recommendations were individualized for patient risk factors ("individualized preventive care recommendations"). Focus groups assessed patient interest, how patients would want to discuss individualized recommendations with their providers, and potential for individualized recommendations to influence patient decision making. Survey content was based on focus groups and analyzed with logistic regression. Results. Patients expressed strong interest in individualized recommendations. Among survey respondents, an adjusted 88.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 86.7% to 89.7%) found individualized recommendations very easy to understand, 77.2% (95% CI = 75.3% to 79.1%) considered them very useful, and 64.9% (95% CI = 62.8% to 67.0%) highly trustworthy (each ≥6/7 on Likert scale). Three quarters of participants wanted to receive their own individualized recommendations in upcoming primary care visits (adjusted proportion = 77.5%, 95% CI = 75.6% to 79.4%). Both focus group and survey participants supported shared decision making and reported that individualized recommendations would improve motivation to obtain preventive care. Half of survey respondents reported that they would be much more likely to visit their doctor if they knew individualized recommendations would be discussed, compared with 4.2% who would not be more likely to visit their doctor. Survey respondents already prioritized preventive services, stating they were most likely to choose quick/easy preventive services and least likely to choose expensive preventive services (adjusted proportions, 63.8% and 8.5%, respectively). Results were consistent in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions. Individualized preventive care recommendations are likely to be well received in primary care and might motivate patients to improve adherence to evidence-based care.

Project description:IntroductionThe GAIA (Global Alignment on Immunisation Safety Assessment in Pregnancy) consortium was established in 2014 with the aim of creating a standardised, globally coordinated approach to monitoring the safety of vaccines administered in pregnancy. The consortium developed twenty-six standardised definitions for classifying obstetric and infant adverse events. This systematic review sought to evaluate the current state of adverse event reporting in maternal vaccine trials following the publication of the case definitions by GAIA, and the extent to which these case definitions have been adopted in maternal vaccine safety research.MethodsA comprehensive search of published literature was undertaken to identify maternal vaccine research studies. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched using a combination of MeSH terms and keyword searches to identify observational or interventional studies that examined vaccine safety in pregnant women with a comparator group. A two-reviewer screening process was undertaken, and a narrative synthesis of the results presented.Results14,737 titles were identified from database searches, 435 titles were selected as potentially relevant, 256 were excluded, the remaining 116 papers were included. Influenza vaccine was the most studied (25.0%), followed by TDaP (20.7%) and SARS-CoV-2 (12.9%).Ninety-one studies (78.4%) were conducted in high-income settings. Forty-eight (41.4%) utilised electronic health-records. The majority focused on reporting adverse events of special interest (AESI) in pregnancy (65.0%) alone or in addition to reactogenicity (27.6%). The most frequently reported AESI were preterm birth, small for gestational age and hypertensive disorders. Fewer than 10 studies reported use of GAIA definitions. Gestational age assessment was poorly described; of 39 studies reporting stillbirths 30.8% provided no description of the gestational age threshold.ConclusionsLow-income settings remain under-represented in comparative maternal vaccine safety research. There has been poor uptake of GAIA case definitions. A lack of harmonisation and standardisation persists limiting comparability of the generated safety data.

Project description:Echocardiography is increasingly used in the management of the critically ill patient as a non-invasive diagnostic and monitoring tool. Whilst in few countries specialized national training schemes for intensive care unit (ICU) echocardiography have been developed, specific guidelines for ICU physicians wishing to incorporate echocardiography into their clinical practice are lacking. Further, existing echocardiography accreditation does not reflect the requirements of the ICU practitioner. The WINFOCUS (World Interactive Network Focused On Critical UltraSound) ECHO-ICU Group drew up a document aimed at providing guidance to individual physicians, trainers and the relevant societies of the requirements for the development of skills in echocardiography in the ICU setting. The document is based on recommendations published by the Royal College of Radiologists, British Society of Echocardiography, European Association of Echocardiography and American Society of Echocardiography, together with international input from established practitioners of ICU echocardiography. The recommendations contained in this document are concerned with theoretical basis of ultrasonography, the practical aspects of building an ICU-based echocardiography service as well as the key components of standard adult TTE and TEE studies to be performed on the ICU. Specific issues regarding echocardiography in different ICU clinical scenarios are then described. Obtaining competence in ICU echocardiography may be achieved in different ways - either through completion of an appropriate fellowship/training scheme, or, where not available, via a staged approach designed to train the practitioner to a level at which they can achieve accreditation. Here, peri-resuscitation focused echocardiography represents the entry level--obtainable through established courses followed by mentored practice. Next, a competence-based modular training programme is proposed: theoretical elements delivered through blended-learning and practical elements acquired in parallel through proctored practice. These all linked with existing national/international echocardiography courses. When completed, it is anticipated that the practitioner will have performed the prerequisite number of studies, and achieved the competency to undertake accreditation (leading to Level 2 competence) via a recognized National or European examination and provide the appropriate required evidence of competency (logbook). Thus, even where appropriate fellowships are not available, with support from the relevant echocardiography bodies, training and subsequently accreditation in ICU echocardiography becomes achievable within the existing framework of current critical care and cardiological practice, and is adaptable to each countrie's needs.

Project description:ImportanceThis randomized clinical trial examines the feasibility and acceptability of a decision-making tool for increasing patient interest in individualized recommendations for preventive care services.ObjectiveTo pilot a tool to help patients compare life expectancy gains from evidence-based preventive services.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial examined patient and physician responses to a pilot decision tool incorporating personalized risk factors at 3 US primary care clinics between 2017 and 2020. Eligible patients were between ages 45 to 70 years with 2 or more high-risk factors. Patients were followed-up after 1 year.InterventionsThe gain in life expectancy associated with guideline adherence to each recommended preventive service was estimated. Personalized estimates incorporating risk factors in electronic health records were displayed in a physician-distributed visual aid. During development, physicians discussed individualized results with patients using shared decision-making (SDM). During the trial, patients were randomized to receive individualized recommendations or usual care (nonmasked, parallel, 1:1 ratio).Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was patient interest in individualized recommendations, assessed by survey. Secondary outcomes were use of SDM, decisional comfort, readiness to change, and preventive services received within 1 year.ResultsThe study enrolled 104 patients (31 development, 39 intervention, 34 control), of whom 101 were included in analysis (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [5.3] years; 73 [72.3%] women; 80 [79.2%] Black patients) and 20 physicians. Intervention patients found the tool helpful and wanted to use it again, rating it a median 9 of 10 (IQR, 8-10) and 10 of 10 (8-10), respectively. Compared with the control group, intervention patients more often correctly identified the service least likely (18 [46%] vs 0; P = .03) to improve their life expectancy. A greater number of patients also identified the service most likely to improve their life expectancy (26 [69%] vs 10 [30%]; P = .07), although this result was not statistically significant. Intervention patients reported greater mean [SD] improvement in SDM (4.7 [6.9] points) and near-term readiness to change (13.8 points for top-3-ranked recommendations). Point estimates indicated that patients in the intervention group experienced greater, although non-statistically significant, reductions in percentage of body weight (-2.96%; 95% CI, -8.18% to 2.28%), systolic blood pressure (-6.42 mm Hg; 95% CI, -16.12 to 3.27 mm Hg), hemoglobin A1c (-0.68%; 95% CI, -1.82% to 0.45%), 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk score (-1.20%; 95% CI, -3.65% to 1.26%), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-8.46 mg/dL; 95% CI, -26.63 to 9.70 mg/dL) than the control group. Nineteen of 20 physicians wanted to continue using the decision tool in the future.Conclusions and relevanceIn this clinical trial, an individualized preventive care decision support tool improved patient understanding of primary prevention and demonstrated promise for improved shared decision-making and preventive care utilization.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03023813.