Search

Introduction Patients that present to the emergency department (ED) with undifferentiated hypotension have a high mortality rate. Hypotension can be divided into four categories: obstructive, hypovolemic, distributive, and cardiogenic. While it is possible to have overlapping or concomitant shock states, being able to differentiate between cardiogenic shock and the other categories is important as it entails a different treatment regime and extra cautions. In this secondary analysis, we investigate if using focused cardiac ultrasonography (FOCUS) to determine left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) can serve as a reliable test for cardiogenic shock. Methods We prospectively collected FOCUS findings performed in 135 ED patients with undifferentiated hypotension as part of an international study. Patients with clearly identified etiologies for hypotension were excluded, along with other specific presumptive diagnoses. LVD was defined as the identification of a generally hypodynamic left ventricle in the setting of shock. FOCUS findings were collected using a standardized protocol and data collection form. All scans were performed by emergency physicians trained in ultrasound. Final shock type was defined as cardiogenic or noncardiogenic by independent specialist blinded chart review. Results In our findings, 135 patients had complete records for assessment of left ventricular function and additional follow-up data and so were included in this secondary analysis. The median age was 56 years and 53% of patients were male. Disease prevalence for cardiogenic shock was 12% and the mortality rate was 24%. The presence of LVD on FOCUS had a sensitivity of 62.50% (95% confidence interval 35.43% to 84.80%), specificity of 94.12% (88.26% to 97.60%), positive likelihood ratio (LR) 10.62 (4.71 to 23.95), negative LR 0.40 (0.21 to 0.75) and accuracy of 90.37% (84.10% to 94.77%) for detecting cardiogenic shock. Conclusion Detecting left ventricular dysfunction on FOCUS may be useful in the early identification of cardiogenic shock in otherwise undifferentiated hypotensive adult patients in the emergency department., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2021, Keefer et al.)

Introduction Point of Care Ultrasound (PoCUS) protocols are commonly used to guide resuscitation for patients with undifferentiated hypotension, yet there is a paucity of evidence for any outcome benefit. We undertook an international multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the impact of a PoCUS protocol on key clinical outcomes. Here we report on resuscitation markers.  Methods Adult patients presenting to six emergency departments (ED) in Canada and South Africa with undifferentiated hypotension (systolic blood pressure (SBP) <100mmHg or a Shock Index >1.0) were randomized to receive a PoCUS protocol or standard care (control). Reported physiological markers include shock index (SI), and modified early warning score (MEWS), with biochemical markers including venous bicarbonate and lactate, at baseline and four hours.  Results A total of 273 patients were enrolled, with data collected for 270. Baseline characteristics were similar for each group. Improvements in mean values for each marker during initial treatment were similar between groups: Shock Index; mean reduction in Control 0.39, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.44 vs. PoCUS 0.33, 0.29 to 0.38; MEWS, mean reduction in Control 2.56, 2.22 to 2.89 vs. PoCUS 2.91, 2.49 to 3.32; Bicarbonate, mean reduction in Control 2.71 mmol/L, 2.12 to 3.30 mmol/L vs. PoCUS 2.30 mmol/L, 1.75 to 2.84 mmol/L, and venous lactate, mean reduction in Control 1.39 mmol/L, 0.93 to 1.85 mmol/L vs. PoCUS 1.31 mmol/L, 0.88 to 1.74 mmol/L. Conclusion We found no meaningful difference in physiological and biochemical resuscitation markers with or without the use of a PoCUS protocol in the resuscitation of undifferentiated hypotensive ED patients. We are unable to exclude improvements in individual patients or in specific shock types., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2020, Atkinson et al.)

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., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2019, Atkinson et al.)