scholarly journals LO045: Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest (SHoC) - Cardiac Arrest: A consensus on the integration of point of care ultrasound into advanced cardiac life support during cardiac arrest

CJEM ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (S1) ◽  
pp. S45-S46
Author(s):  
P. Atkinson ◽  
J. Bowra ◽  
J. Milne ◽  
M. Lambert ◽  
B. Jarman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Medicine ◽  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Cardiac Activity ◽  
Advanced Cardiac Life Support ◽  
Pericardial Tamponade ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
International Consensus ◽  
Modified Delphi

Introduction: Point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) provides invaluable information during resuscitation efforts in cardiac arrest by determining presence/absence of cardiac activity and identifying reversible causes such as pericardial tamponade. There is no agreed guideline on how to safely and effectively incorporate PoCUS into the advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) algorithm. We consider that a consensus-based priority checklist using a “4 F’s” approach (Fluid; Form; Function; Filling), would provide a better algorithm during ACLS. Methods: The ultrasound subcommittee of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM) drafted a checklist incorporating PoCUS into the ACLS algorithm. This was further developed using the input of 24 international experts associated with five professional organizations led by the International Federation of Emergency Medicine. A modified Delphi tool was developed to reach an international consensus on how to integrate ultrasound into cardiac arrest algorithms for emergency department patients. Results: Consensus was reached following 3 rounds. The agreed protocol focuses on the timing of PoCUS as well as the specific clinical questions. Core cardiac windows performed during the rhythm check pause in chest compressions are the sub-xiphoid and parasternal cardiac views. Either view should be used to detect pericardial fluid, as well as examining ventricular form (e.g. right heart strain) and function, (e.g. asystole versus organized cardiac activity). Supplementary views include lung views (for absent lung sliding in pneumothorax and for pleural fluid), and IVC views for filling. Additional ultrasound applications are for endotracheal tube confirmation, proximal leg veins for DVT, or for sources of blood loss (AAA, peritoneal/pelvic fluid). Conclusion: The authors hope that this process will lead to a consensus-based SHoC-cardiac arrest guideline on incorporating PoCUS into the ACLS algorithm.

scholarly journals International Federation for Emergency Medicine Consensus Statement: Sonography in hypotension and cardiac arrest (SHoC): An international consensus on the use of point of care ultrasound for undifferentiated hypotension and during cardiac arrest

CJEM ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (06) ◽  
pp. 459-470 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Atkinson ◽  
Justin Bowra ◽  
James Milne ◽  
David Lewis ◽  
Mike Lambert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Medicine ◽  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Inferior Vena ◽  
Consensus Statement ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Disease Incidence ◽  
International Federation ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
International Consensus ◽  
Modified Delphi

Abstract Introduction The International Federation for Emergency Medicine (IFEM) Ultrasound Special Interest Group (USIG) was tasked with development of a hierarchical consensus approach to the use of point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) in patients with hypotension and cardiac arrest. Methods The IFEM USIG invited 24 recognized international leaders in PoCUS from emergency medicine and critical care to form an expert panel to develop the sonography in hypotension and cardiac arrest (SHoC) protocol. The panel was provided with reported disease incidence, along with a list of recommended PoCUS views from previously published protocols and guidelines. Using a modified Delphi methodology the panel was tasked with integrating the disease incidence, their clinical experience and their knowledge of the medical literature to evaluate what role each view should play in the proposed SHoC protocol. Results Consensus on the SHoC protocols for hypotension and cardiac arrest was reached after three rounds of the modified Delphi process. The final SHoC protocol and operator checklist received over 80% consensus approval. The IFEM-approved final protocol, recommend Core, Supplementary, and Additional PoCUS views. SHoC-hypotension core views consist of cardiac, lung, and inferior vena vaca (IVC) views, with supplementary cardiac views, and additional views when clinically indicated. Subxiphoid or parasternal cardiac views, minimizing pauses in chest compressions, are recommended as core views for SHoC-cardiac arrest; supplementary views are lung and IVC, with additional views when clinically indicated. Both protocols recommend use of the “4 F” approach: fluid, form, function, filling. Conclusion An international consensus on sonography in hypotension and cardiac arrest is presented. Future prospective validation is required.

scholarly journals MP012: Is there an association between the use of cardiac ultrasound and survival outcomes in patients arriving to the emergency department in cardiac arrest? The second Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHOC-ED 2) Study

CJEM ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (S1) ◽  
pp. S70-S70
Author(s):  
N. Beckett ◽  
P.R. Atkinson ◽  
J. Fraser ◽  
J. French ◽  
D. Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Hospital Admission ◽  
Hospital Discharge ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Cardiac Activity ◽  
Advanced Cardiac Life Support ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound

Introduction: The use of cardiac point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) to assess cardiac arrest patients is widespread, although not mandated by advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) guidelines. This study aims to examine if the use of ultrasound, along with the findings on ultrasound are associated with a difference in outcomes of cardiac arrest patients in the emergency department (ED). Methods: A retrospective database and chart analysis was completed for patients arriving to a tertiary ED in asystole or PEA cardiac arrest, between 2010 and 2014. Patients were excluded if aged under 19, or with a previous DNR order. Patients were grouped based on whether PoCUS was used during ACLS (PoCUS group) and those without PoCUS (control group). Multiple data were abstracted from charts using a standardized form. Data was analyzed for the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission (SHA), and survival to hospital discharge (SHD), as well as initial cardiac activity findings on PoCUS. Results: 230 patients met the study inclusion criteria, with 44 (19%) in the control group, and 186 (81%) in the PoCUS group. In the PoCUS group 20 (11%) had cardiac activity (Positive PoCUS) and 166 (89%) had no cardiac activity recorded. The control group had a higher rate of SHA than the PoCUS group (27%; 95% CI 15-43% vs. 10%: 6-15%, p = 0.0046), however there was no difference in frequency of ROSC (control: 37%; 24-55% vs. PoCUS 26%; 20-33%, p = 0.1373) or SHD (control: 7%, 95% CI 1-19%; PoCUS: 2%, 95% CI 0-5%, p = 0.0858). Positive PoCUS patients had a higher frequency of ROSC (75%; 50-91% vs. 20%; 15-27%, p < 0.001) and SHA (25%; 9-49% vs. 8%; 4-13%, p = 0.0294) than patients with no PoCUS cardiac activity, however there was no difference in the rate of SHD between the positive PoCUS patients (0%; 0-17%) and patients with no PoCUS cardiac activity (2%; 0-5%, p = 1.0000). Conclusion: Our results suggest that there is no difference in survival between cardiac arrest patients receiving PoCUS and those who do not. Although finding positive cardiac activity on PoCUS is associated with greater ROSC and survival to hospital admission, it does not identify patients with a final outcome of survival to hospital discharge.

scholarly journals LO043: Is there an association between resuscitation effort and the use of cardiac ultrasound in patients arriving to the emergency department in cardiac arrest? The second Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHOC-ED 2) Study

CJEM ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (S1) ◽  
pp. S45-S45
Author(s):  
N. Beckett ◽  
P.R. Atkinson ◽  
J. Fraser ◽  
J. French ◽  
D. Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Endotracheal Intubation ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Cardiac Activity ◽  
Advanced Cardiac Life Support ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Multiple Data

Introduction: The use of cardiac point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) to assess cardiac arrest patients is widespread, although not mandated by advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) guidelines. This study aims to examine if the use of ultrasound is associated with a difference in the length of resuscitation and the frequency of interventions during ACLS in the emergency department (ED). Methods: A retrospective database and chart analysis was completed for patients arriving to a tertiary ED in cardiac arrest, between 2010 and 2014. Patients were excluded if aged under 19, or with a previous DNR order. Patients were grouped based on whether PoCUS was used during ACLS (PoCUS group) and those without PoCUS (control group). Multiple data were abstracted from charts using a standardized form. Data was analyzed for the length of resuscitation, frequency of common ACLS interventions such as endotracheal intubation, administration of epinephrine, and defibrillation, as well as initial cardiac activity findings on PoCUS. Results: 263 patients met the study inclusion criteria, with 51 (19%) in the control group, and 212 (81%) in the PoCUS group. In the PoCUS group 23 (11%) had cardiac activity (Positive PoCUS) and 189 (89%) had no cardiac activity recorded. Positive PoCUS patients had longer mean resuscitation times (26.13 min, 95% CI 17.80-34.46 min) compared to patients with no PoCUS cardiac activity (12.63 min, 95% CI 11.07-14.19 min, p < 0.05) as well as to the control group (14.20 min, 95% CI 10.30-18.09 min, p < 0.05). Positive PoCUS patients were more likely to receive endotracheal intubation (91%, 95% CI 72-99%), and epinephrine (100%, 95% CI 85-100%) than patients with no PoCUS cardiac activity (ET: 47%, 95% CI 40-54%, p < 0.0001; Epi: 81%, 95% CI 75-86%, p < 0.0172) and than the control group (ET: 65%, 95% CI 50-78%, p < 0.0227; Epi: 80%, 95% CI 67-90%, p < 0.0258). There was no difference in numbers receiving defibrillation between groups. Conclusion: Our results suggest emergency physicians may be making increased resuscitative effort for patients with positive cardiac activity findings on PoCUS compared to those with negative findings or when no PoCUS was performed.

Point-of-care Ultrasound in Cardiac Arrest

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan A. Paul ◽  
Oliver P. F. Panzer
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Advanced Cardiac Life Support ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound

This review explains the role of point-of-care ultrasound in cardiac arrest rhythm classification and the diagnosis of reversible causes, discusses available protocols for the application of ultrasound to Advanced Cardiac Life Support, and summarizes principles for its safe implementation.

scholarly journals LO042: Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest (SHoC) - Hypotension: derivation of an evidence-based consensus algorithm for the integration of point of care ultrasound into resuscitation of hypotensive patients

CJEM ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (S1) ◽  
pp. S44-S44 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Atkinson ◽  
J. Bowra ◽  
J. Milne ◽  
M. Lambert ◽  
B. Jarman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Point Of Care ◽  
Disease Incidence ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Consensus Algorithm ◽  
Professional Organizations ◽  
Clinical Indication ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
International Consensus ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Delphi Approach

Introduction: Point of care ultrasound has become an established tool in the initial management of patients with undifferentiated hypotension. Current established protocols (RUSH, ACES, etc) were developed by expert user opinion, rather than objective, prospective data. We wished to use reported disease incidence to develop an informed approach to PoCUS in hypotension using a “4 F’s” approach: Fluid; Form; Function; Filling. Methods: We summarized the incidence of PoCUS findings from an international multicentre RCT, and using a modified Delphi approach incorporating this data we obtained the input of 24 international experts associated with five professional organizations led by the International Federation of Emergency Medicine. The modified Delphi tool was developed to reach an international consensus on how to integrate PoCUS for hypotensive emergency department patients. Results: Rates of abnormal PoCUS findings from 151 patients with undifferentiated hypotension included left ventricular dynamic changes (43%), IVC abnormalities (27%), pericardial effusion (16%), and pleural fluid (8%). Abdominal pathology was rare (fluid 5%, AAA 2%). After two rounds of the survey, using majority consensus, agreement was reached on a SHoC-hypotension protocol comprising: A. Core: 1. Cardiac views (Sub-xiphoid and parasternal windows for pericardial fluid, cardiac form and ventricular function); 2. Lung views for pleural fluid and B-lines for filling status; and 3. IVC views for filling status; B. Supplementary: Additional cardiac views; and C. Additional views (when indicated) including peritoneal fluid, aorta, pelvic for IUP, and proximal leg veins for DVT. Conclusion: An international consensus process based on prospectively collected disease incidence has led to a proposed SHoC-hypotension PoCUS protocol comprising a stepwise clinical-indication based approach of Core, Supplementary and Additional PoCUS views.

scholarly journals Do combined ultrasound and electrocardiogram-rhythm findings predict survival in emergency department cardiac arrest patients? The Second Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHoC-ED2) study

CJEM ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 739-743 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Beckett ◽  
Paul Atkinson ◽  
Jacqueline Fraser ◽  
Ankona Banerjee ◽  
James French ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Hospital Discharge ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Cardiac Activity ◽  
Pulseless Electrical Activity ◽  
Spontaneous Circulation ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Electrocardiogram Ecg ◽  
Higher Sensitivity

ABSTRACTObjectivesPoint-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is used increasingly during resuscitation. The aim of this study was to assess whether combining POCUS and electrocardiogram (ECG) rhythm findings better predicts outcomes during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the emergency department (ED).MethodsWe completed a health records review on ED cardiac arrest patients who underwent POCUS. Primary outcome measurements included return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, and survival to hospital discharge.ResultsPOCUS was performed on 180 patients; 45 patients (25.0%; 19.2%–31.8%) demonstrated cardiac activity on initial ECG, and 21 (11.7%; 7.7%–17.2%) had cardiac activity on initial POCUS; 47 patients (26.1%; 20.2%–33.0%) achieved ROSC, 18 (10.0%; 6.3%–15.3%) survived to admission, and 3 (1.7%; 0.3%–5.0%) survived to hospital discharge. As a predictor of failure to achieve ROSC, ECG had a sensitivity of 82.7% (95% CI 75.2%–88.7%) and a specificity of 46.8% (32.1%–61.9%). Overall, POCUS had a higher sensitivity of 96.2% (91.4%–98.8%) but a similar specificity of 34.0% (20.9%–49.3%). In patients with ECG-asystole, POCUS had a sensitivity of 98.18% (93.59%–99.78%) and a specificity of 16.00% (4.54%–36.08%). In patients with pulseless electrical activity, POCUS had a sensitivity of 86.96% (66.41%–97.22%) and a specificity of 54.55% (32.21%–75.61%). Similar patterns were seen for survival to admission and discharge. Only 0.8% (0.0–4.7%) of patients with ECG-asystole and standstill on POCUS survived to hospital discharge.ConclusionThe absence of cardiac activity on POCUS, or on both ECG and POCUS together, better predicts negative outcomes in cardiac arrest than ECG alone. No test reliably predicted survival.

scholarly journals LO040: Do combined electrocardiogram rhythm and point of care ultrasound findings predict outcome during cardiac arrest? The second Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHOC-ED 2) Study

CJEM ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (S1) ◽  
pp. S43-S44
Author(s):  
N. Beckett ◽  
P.R. Atkinson ◽  
J. Fraser ◽  
J. French ◽  
D. Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Hospital Discharge ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Cardiac Activity ◽  
Spontaneous Circulation ◽  
Final Outcome ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Negative Group ◽  
Positive Group ◽  
Negative Findings

Introduction: Survival to hospital discharge is better for PEA than asystole in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) is widely used in cardiac arrest, although not mandated by ACLS guidelines. This study examines if initial PoCUS findings combined with cardiac rhythm are predictive of outcomes including return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission (SHA), and hospital discharge (SHD). Methods: A database review was completed for patients arriving to a tertiary ED in asystole or PEA arrest from 2010 to 2014. Patients under 19y or with a previous DNR were excluded. Patients were grouped into those with cardiac activity on PoCUS and PEA on ECG (Positive group); those with no cardiac activity recorded on PoCUS and asystole on ECG (Negative group); and those with a mix of positive and negative findings (Indeterminate group). Data was analyzed for the frequency of ROSC, SHA, and SHD. Results: 186 patients met the study criteria, with 14 (8%) in the positive group, 134 (72%) in the negative group, and 38 (20%) in the indeterminate group. The positive group had significantly better initial outcomes than the negative group: ROSC: 78% (95% CI 49-95%) vs 17% (11-25%); OR 17.70 (4.57-168.5; p < 0.0001) and SHA: 29% (8-58%) vs 7% (3-12%); OR 5.56 (1.45-21.28; p = 0.022), and then the combined negative and indeterminate groups: ROSC: 22% (16-29%), OR 12.93 (3.43-48.73; p < 0.0001; SHA: 8% (5-13%); OR 4.51 (1.25-16.27; p = 0.033). There was no difference between the positive group and either the negative or combined groups for final outcome of SHD: 0% (0-23%) vs 1% (0-5%); OR 1.83 (0.08-39.97; p = 1.00; and vs 1% (0-5%); OR 1.67 (0.08-33.96; p = 1.00). The negative group had worse initial outcomes than the combined positive and indeterminate groups: ROSC 17% (11-25%) vs. 50% (36-64%) OR 0.21 (0.10-0.42; p < 0.0001); SHA 6% (3-12%) vs. 8% (5-13%) OR 0.34 (0.13-0.92; p = 0.0490). There was no difference in SHD: 1% (0-5%) vs. 1% (0-5%) OR 0.77 (0.07-8.71; p = 1.00). Conclusion: Our results suggest that although finding positive cardiac activity on ECG (PEA) and also on PoCUS is associated with greater ROSC and SHA, it does not identify patients with a final outcome of SHD.

scholarly journals LO42: Is point-of-care ultrasound a reliable predictor of outcome during atraumatic, non-shockable cardiac arrest? A systematic review and meta-analysis

CJEM ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (S1) ◽  
pp. S22-S23
Author(s):  
E. Lalande ◽  
T. Burwash-Brennan ◽  
K. Burns ◽  
P. Atkinson ◽  
M. Lambert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Positive Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Cardiac Activity ◽  
World Health ◽  
Lower Sensitivity ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound

Introduction: Point-of-Care Ultrasound (PoCUS) is being increasingly utilized during cardiac arrests for prognosis. Following the publication of recent studies, the goal of this study was to systematically review and analyze the literature to evaluate the accuracy of PoCUS in predicting return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission (SHA), and survival to hospital discharge (SHD) in adult patients with non-traumatic, non- shockable out- of-hospital or emergency department cardiac arrest. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was completed. A search of Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Registry was completed from 1974 until August 24th 2018. Adult randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included. The QUADAS-2 tool was applied by two independent reviewers. Data analysis was completed according to PRISMA guidelines and with a random effects model for the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using I-squared statistics. Results: Ten studies (1,485 participants) were included. Cardiac activity on PoCUS had a pooled sensitivity of 59.9% (95% confidence interval 36.5%-79.4%) and specificity of 91.5% (80.8%-96.5%) for ROSC; 74.7% (58.3%-86.2%) and 80.5% (71.7%-87.4%) for SHA; and 69.4% (45.5%-86.0%) and 74.6% (59.8%-85.3%) for SHD. The sensitivity of cardiac activity on PoCUS for predicting ROSC was 24.7%(6.8%-59.4%) in the asystole subgroup compared with 77% (59.4%-88.5%) within the PEA subgroup. Cardiac activity on PoCUS, compared to an absence had an odd ratio of 15.9 (5.9-42.5) for ROSC, 9.8 (4.9-19.4) for SHA and 5.7 (2.1-15.6) for SHD. Positive likelihood ratio (LR) was 6.65 (3.16-14.0) and negative LR was 0.27 (0.12-0.61) for ROSC. Conclusion: Cardiac activity on PoCUS was associated with improved odds for ROSC, SHA, and SHD among adults with non-traumatic asystole and PEA. We report lower sensitivity and higher negative likelihood ratio, but with greater heterogeneity compared to previous systematic reviews. PoCUS may provide valuable information in the management of non-traumatic PEA or asystole, but should not be viewed as the sole predictor in determining outcomes in these patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document