scholarly journals Does Point of Care Ultrasound Improve Resuscitation Markers in Undifferentiated Hypotension? An International Randomized Controlled Trial From The Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHoC-ED) Series

Cureus ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Atkinson ◽  
Luke Taylor ◽  
James Milne ◽  
Laura Diegelmann ◽  
Hein Lamprecht ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Randomized Controlled

scholarly journals LO43: Does point of care ultrasound improve resuscitation markers in emergency department patients with undifferentiated hypotension? The first Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHOC-ED 1) Study; an international randomized controlled trial

CJEM ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (S1) ◽  
pp. S42
Author(s):  
L. Taylor ◽  
J. Milne ◽  
D. Lewis ◽  
L. Diegelmann ◽  
H. Lamprecht ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Volume Of Fluid ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Shock Index ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Introduction: Point of Care Ultrasound (PoCUS) protocols are commonly used to guide resuscitation for emergency department (ED) patients with undifferentiated non-traumatic hypotension. While PoCUS has been shown to improve early diagnosis, there is a minimal evidence for any outcome benefit. We completed an international multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the impact of a PoCUS protocol on key resuscitation markers in this group. We report diagnostic impact and mortality elsewhere. Methods: The SHoC-ED1 study compared the addition of PoCUS to standard care within the first hour in the treatment of adult patients presenting with undifferentiated hypotension (SBP<100 mmHg or a Shock Index >1.0) with a control group that did not receive PoCUS. Scans were performed by PoCUS-trained physicians. 4 North American, and 3 South African sites participated in the study. Resuscitation outcomes analyzed included volume of fluid administered in the ED, changes in shock index (SI), modified early warning score (MEWS), venous acid-base balance, and lactate, at one and four hours. Comparisons utilized a T-test as well as stratified binomial log-regression to assess for any significant improvement in resuscitation amount the outcomes. Our sample size was powered at 0.80 (α:0.05) for a moderate effect size. Results: 258 patients were enrolled with follow-up fully completed. Baseline comparisons confirmed effective randomization. There was no significant difference in mean total volume of fluid received between the control (1658 ml; 95%CI 1365-1950) and PoCUS groups (1609 ml; 1385-1832; p=0.79). Significant improvements were seen in SI, MEWS, lactate and bicarbonate with resuscitation in both the PoCUS and control groups, however there was no difference between groups. Conclusion: SHOC-ED1 is the first RCT to compare PoCUS to standard of care in hypotensive ED patients. No significant difference in fluid used, or markers of resuscitation was found when comparing the use of a PoCUS protocol to that of standard of care in the resuscitation of patients with undifferentiated hypotension.

scholarly journals Impact of point-of-care ultrasound on the hospital length of stay for internal medicine inpatients with cardiopulmonary diagnosis at admission. – Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial: the IMFCU-1 (Internal Medicine Focused Clinical Ultrasound) study

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ximena Anaite Cid ◽  
David Canty ◽  
Alistair Royse ◽  
Andrea Maier ◽  
Douglas Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Patient Management ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is emerging as a reliable and valid clinical tool that impacts diagnosis and clinical decision making, and timely intervention for optimal patient management. This makes its utility in patients admitted to internal medicine wards attractive. However, there is still an evidence gap in all the medical setting of how its use affects clinical variables such as length of stay, morbidity and mortality. Methods/design A prospective randomized controlled trial assessing the effect of a surface POCUS of the heart, lungs, and femoral and popliteal veins performed by an internal medicine physician during the first 24 hours of patient admission to the unit with a presumptive cardiopulmonary diagnosis. The University of Melbourne iHeartScan, iLungScan and 2-point venous compression protocols are followed to identify left and right ventricular function, significant valvular heart disease, pericardial and pleural effusion, consolidation, pulmonary edema, pneumothorax and proximal deep venous thrombosis. Patient management is not commanded by the protocol and is at the discretion of the treating team. A total of 250 patients will be recruited at one tertiary hospital. Participants are randomized to receive POCUS or no POCUS. The primary outcome measured will be hospital length of stay. Secondary outcomes include the change in diagnosis and management, 30-day hospital readmission and health care costs. Discussion This study will evaluate the clinical impact of multi-organ POCUS in internal medicine patients admitted with cardiopulmonary diagnosis on the hospital length of stay. Recruitment of participants has commenced in September of 2018 and is estimated to be completed by March 2020.

scholarly journals Impact of point-of-care ultrasound on the hospital length of stay for internal medicine inpatients with cardiopulmonary diagnosis at admission: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial—the IMFCU-1 (Internal Medicine Focused Clinical Ultrasound) study

Trials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ximena Cid ◽  
David Canty ◽  
Alistair Royse ◽  
Andrea B. Maier ◽  
Douglas Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Patient Management ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is emerging as a reliable and valid clinical tool that impacts diagnosis and clinical decision-making as well as timely intervention for optimal patient management. This makes its utility in patients admitted to internal medicine wards attractive. However, there is still an evidence gap in all the medical setting of how its use affects clinical variables such as length of stay, morbidity, and mortality. Methods/design A prospective randomized controlled trial assessing the effect of a surface POCUS of the heart, lungs, and femoral and popliteal veins performed by an internal medicine physician during the first 24 h of patient admission to the unit with a presumptive cardiopulmonary diagnosis. The University of Melbourne iHeartScan, iLungScan, and two-point venous compression protocols are followed to identify left and right ventricular function, significant valvular heart disease, pericardial and pleural effusion, consolidation, pulmonary edema, pneumothorax, and proximal deep venous thrombosis. Patient management is not commanded by the protocol and is at the discretion of the treating team. A total of 250 patients will be recruited at one tertiary hospital. Participants are randomized to receive POCUS or no POCUS. The primary outcome measured will be hospital length of stay. Secondary outcomes include the change in diagnosis and management, 30-day hospital readmission, and healthcare costs. Discussion This study will evaluate the clinical impact of multi-organ POCUS in internal medicine patients admitted with cardiopulmonary diagnosis on the hospital length of stay. Recruitment of participants commenced in September 2018 and is estimated to be completed by March 2020. Trial registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12618001442291. Registered on 28 August 2018.

scholarly journals LO45: Does the use of point of care ultrasonography improve survival in emergency department patients with undifferentiated hypotension? The first Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHOC-ED1) Study; an international randomized controlled trial

CJEM ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (S1) ◽  
pp. S43
Author(s):  
P.R. Atkinson ◽  
J. Milne ◽  
L. Diegelmann ◽  
H. Lamprecht ◽  
M. Stander ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Secondary Outcomes

Introduction: Point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) is an established tool in the initial management of patients with undifferentiated hypotension in the emergency department (ED). While PoCUS protocols have been shown to improve early diagnostic accuracy, there is little published evidence for any mortality benefit. We report the findings from our international multicenter randomized controlled trial, assessing the impact of a PoCUS protocol on survival and key clinical outcomes. Methods: Recruitment occurred at 7 centres in North America (4) and South Africa (3). Scans were performed by PoCUS-trained physicians. Screening at triage identified patients (SBP<100 or shock index>1), randomized to PoCUS or control (standard care and no PoCUS) groups. Demographics, clinical details and study findings were collected prospectively. Initial and secondary diagnoses were recorded at 0 and 60 minutes, with ultrasound performed in the PoCUS group prior to secondary assessment. The primary outcome measure was 30-day/discharge mortality. Secondary outcome measures included diagnostic accuracy, changes in vital signs, acid-base status, and length of stay. Categorical data was analyzed using Fishers test, and continuous data by Student T test and multi-level log-regression testing. (GraphPad/SPSS) Final chart review was blinded to initial impressions and PoCUS findings. Results: 258 patients were enrolled with follow-up fully completed. Baseline comparisons confirmed effective randomization. There was no difference between groups for the primary outcome of mortality; PoCUS 32/129 (24.8%; 95% CI 14.3-35.3%) vs. Control 32/129 (24.8%; 95% CI 14.3-35.3%); RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.869 to 1.15; p=1.00). There were no differences in the secondary outcomes; ICU and total length of stay. Our sample size has a power of 0.80 (α:0.05) for a moderate effect size. Other secondary outcomes are reported separately. Conclusion: This is the first RCT to compare PoCUS to standard care for undifferentiated hypotensive ED patients. We did not find any mortality or length of stay benefits with the use of a PoCUS protocol, though a larger study is required to confirm these findings. While PoCUS may have diagnostic benefits, these may not translate into a survival benefit effect.

Point-of-care ultrasound before attempting clean-catch urine collection in infants: a randomized controlled trial

CJEM ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 646-652 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivia Weill ◽  
Mélanie Labrosse ◽  
Arielle Levy ◽  
Marie Pier Desjardins ◽  
Evelyne D. Trottier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Urine Collection ◽  
Feeding Period ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Feeding Group ◽  
Stimulation Technique

ABSTRACTObjectiveA new non-invasive bladder stimulation technique has been described to obtain clean-catch urine specimens in infants. This study aimed to evaluate if point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) guided feeding protocol to measure bladder volume prior to stimulation techniques improves clean-catch urine collection success.MethodsA prospective randomized controlled trial study was conducted in a tertiary care pediatric emergency department. Infants aged less than 6 months needing a urine sample were randomized to either POCUS group or feeding group (standard procedure) before performing a standardized clean-catch urine stimulation technique. In the POCUS group, a feeding period was permitted if the bladder width was less than 2 cm, otherwise the clean-catch urine was performed immediately. The primary outcome was the success of the procedure defined by the collection of at least 2 mL of urine, obtained within 300 seconds of bladder stimulation manoeuvres. It was estimated that the recruitment of 200 children was necessary to yield 80% power to identify an improvement of 20% in the success rate.ResultsA total of 201 infants were included. The procedure was not more successful in the POCUS group (48%) compared to the feeding group (54%) (Difference: 6.5%; 95% CI: -7.3 to 19.8%). The mean time to collect urine samples from randomization to sample collection was not different between the two groups.ConclusionsOur study failed to show a benefit of using POCUS to improve the success rate of stimulated clean-catch urine. Moreover, the importance of the feeding period prior to clean-catch urine manoeuvres should be evaluated further.Clinical Trial RegistrationNCT02751671

scholarly journals LO44: Initial validation of the core components in the SHoC-Hypotension Protocol. What rates of ultrasound findings are reported in emergency department patients with undifferentiated hypotension? Results from the first Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHOC-ED1) Study; an international randomized controlled trial

CJEM ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (S1) ◽  
pp. S42-S43
Author(s):  
D. Lussier ◽  
C. Pham ◽  
J. Milne ◽  
D. Lewis ◽  
L. Diegelmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Peritoneal Fluid ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Lv Function ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
The Core ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Ultrasound Findings

Introduction: Point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) has become an established tool in the initial management of patients with undifferentiated hypotension in the emergency department (ED). Current established protocols (e.g. RUSH and ACES) were developed by expert user opinion, rather than objective, prospective data. Recently the SHoC Protocol was published, recommending 3 core scans; cardiac, lung, and IVC; plus other scans when indicated clinically. We report the abnormal ultrasound findings from our international multicenter randomized controlled trial, to assess if the recommended 3 core SHoC protocol scans were chosen appropriately for this population. Methods: Recruitment occurred at seven centres in North America (4) and South Africa (3). Screening at triage identified patients (SBP<100 or shock index>1) who were randomized to PoCUS or control (standard care with no PoCUS) groups. All scans were performed by PoCUS-trained physicians within one hour of arrival in the ED. Demographics, clinical details and study findings were collected prospectively. A threshold incidence for positive findings of 10% was established as significant for the purposes of assessing the appropriateness of the core recommendations. Results: 138 patients had a PoCUS screen completed. All patients had cardiac, lung, IVC, aorta, abdominal, and pelvic scans. Reported abnormal findings included hyperdynamic LV function (59; 43%); small collapsing IVC (46; 33%); pericardial effusion (24; 17%); pleural fluid (19; 14%); hypodynamic LV function (15; 11%); large poorly collapsing IVC (13; 9%); peritoneal fluid (13; 9%); and aortic aneurysm (5; 4%). Conclusion: The 3 core SHoC Protocol recommendations included appropriate scans to detect all pathologies recorded at a rate of greater than 10 percent. The 3 most frequent findings were cardiac and IVC abnormalities, followed by lung. It is noted that peritoneal fluid was seen at a rate of 9%. Aortic aneurysms were rare. This data from the first RCT to compare PoCUS to standard care for undifferentiated hypotensive ED patients, supports the use of the prioritized SHoC protocol, though a larger study is required to confirm these findings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document