Search

Introduction: Thoracic ultrasound is frequently used in the emergency department (ED) to determine the etiology of dyspnea, yet its use is not widespread in the prehospital setting. We sought to investigate the feasibility and diagnostic performance of paramedic acquisition and assessment of thoracic ultrasound images in the prehospital environment, specifically for the detection of B-lines in congestive heart failure (CHF).Methods: This was a prospective observational study of a convenience sample of adult patients with a chief complaint of dyspnea. Paramedics participated in a didactic and hands-on session instructing them how to use a portable ultrasound device. Paramedics assessed patients for the presence of B-lines. Sensitivity and specificity for the presence of bilateral B-lines and any B-lines were calculated based on discharge diagnosis. Clips archived to the ultrasound units were reviewed and paramedic interpretations were compared to expert sonologist interpretations.Results: A total of 63 paramedics completed both didactic and hands-on training, and 22 performed ultrasounds in the field. There were 65 patients with B-line findings recorded and a discharge diagnosis for analysis. The presence of bilateral B-lines for diagnosis of CHF yielded a sensitivity of 80.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 51.4-94.7%) and specificity of 72.0% (95% CI, 57.3-83.3), while presence of any B-lines was 93.3% sensitive (95% CI, 66.0-99.7%), and 50% specific (95% CI, 35.7-64.2%) for CHF. Paramedics archived 117 ultrasound clips of which 63% were determined to be adequate for interpretation. Comparison of paramedic and expert sonologist interpretation of images showed good inter-rater agreement for detection of any B-lines (k = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.84).Conclusion: This observational pilot study suggests that prehospital lung ultrasound for B-lines may aid in identifying or excluding CHF as a cause of dyspnea. The presence of bilateral B-lines as determined by paramedics is reasonably sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of CHF and pulmonary edema, while the absence of B lines is likely to exclude significant decompensated heart failure. The study was limited by being a convenience sample and highlighted some of the difficulties related to prehospital research. Larger funded trials will be needed to provide more definitive data.

Objectives: To develop a consensus statement on the use of lung ultrasound (LUS) in the assessment of symptomatic general medical inpatients with known or suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Methods: Our LUS expert panel consisted of 14 multidisciplinary international experts. Experts voted in 3 rounds on the strength of 26 recommendations as "strong," "weak," or "do not recommend." For recommendations that reached consensus for do not recommend, a fourth round was conducted to determine the strength of those recommendations, with 2 additional recommendations considered. Results: Of the 26 recommendations, experts reached consensus on 6 in the first round, 13 in the second, and 7 in the third. Four recommendations were removed because of redundancy. In the fourth round, experts considered 4 recommendations that reached consensus for do not recommend and 2 additional scenarios; consensus was reached for 4 of these. Our final recommendations consist of 24 consensus statements; for 2 of these, the strength of the recommendations did not reach consensus. Conclusions: In symptomatic medical inpatients with known or suspected COVID‐19, we recommend the use of LUS to: (1) support the diagnosis of pneumonitis but not diagnose COVID‐19, (2) rule out concerning ultrasound features, (3) monitor patients with a change in the clinical status, and (4) avoid unnecessary additional imaging for patients whose pretest probability of an alternative or superimposed diagnosis is low. We do not recommend the use of LUS to guide admission and discharge decisions. We do not recommend routine serial LUS in patients without a change in their clinical condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Focused transthoracic echocardiography has been used to determine etiologies of cardiac arrest and evaluate utility of continuing resuscitation after cardiac arrest. Few guidelines exist advising ultrasound timing within the advanced cardiac life support algorithm. Natural timing of echocardiography occurs during the pulse check, when views are unencumbered by stabilization equipment or vigorous movements. However, recent studies suggest that ultrasound performance during pulse checks prolongs the pause duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Transesophageal echocardiography studies have demonstrated benefits in this regard, but there have been no transthoracic echocardiography studies assessing the physical performance of compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe cases where echocardiography performed at the beginning of the cardiac arrest algorithm offers actionable information to cardiopulmonary resuscitation itself without delaying provision of compressions. Conclusion: Providers using focused echocardiography to evaluate cardiac arrest patients should consider initiating scans at the start of compressions to identify the optimal location for compression delivery and to detect inadequate compressions. Subsequent visualization of full left ventricular compression may be seen after a location change, and combined with end tidal carbon dioxide values, gives indication for improved forward circulatory flow. Although it is not possible in all patients, doing so hastens provision of quality compressions that affect hemodynamic parameters without causing prolongations to the pulse check pause. Further research is needed to determine patient outcomes from both out-of-hospital and in-hospital cardiac arrest when cardiopulmonary resuscitation is visually guided by focused echocardiography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: An increasing number of medical schools are incorporating point‐of‐care ultrasound (POCUS) into preclinical and clinical curricula. The ultimate effect of this teaching is unclear, and there has been no distinct link between ultrasound (US) learning and existing standardized student assessments. Additionally, neither optimal timing nor methods of POCUS integration have been established. We aimed to demonstrate the effect of US teaching on standardized objective assessments that already exist within the curriculum and, in doing so, discern a route for POCUS curricular integration. Methods: A longitudinal POCUS pilot curriculum was started in 2013, with the class of 2017. We collected basic science course results, standardized objective structured clinical examination scores, and United States Medical Licensing Examination step 1 scores from both the pilot group (n = 34) and matched control participants (n = 34) from the classes of 2017 and 2018. Scores between POCUS students and controls were analyzed by Student t tests. Results: Students participating in the longitudinal POCUS program scored significantly higher on the physical examination portion of their clinical skill objective structured clinical examination assessment than the control group (mean score, 89.2 versus 85.7; P < .05). This parameter was the only area with a statistically significant difference. Conclusions: Point‐of‐care US program implementation may improve students' overall physical examination understanding and performance, even when US performance itself is not being tested. Introducing a POCUS curriculum may work best when designed in conjunction with the physical examination thread of a medical school curriculum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author presents his views on concept of developing a point-of-care ultrasound contest for medical students.

Competing Interests: JTN has received funding personally from Philips for consulting. RBL has received funding personally from Philips for consulting. MF has no disclosures. DLT has received funding from the Emergency Medicine Foundation for ultrasound research.