RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To compare emergency medicine (EM) resident physicians' ability to identify long-bone fractures using ultrasound (US) versus plain radiography (X-ray). METHODS: This was an IRB-approved, randomized prospective study. Study participants included 40 EM residents at a single site. Fractures were mechanically induced in five chicken legs, and five legs were left unfractured. Chicken legs were imaged by both modalities. Participants were given 2 min to view each of the images. Participants were randomized to either US or X-ray interpretation first and randomized to viewing order within each arm. Participants documented the presence or absence of fracture and location and type of fracture when pertinent. Mean proportions and standard deviations (SDs) were analyzed using paired t-test and linear models. RESULTS: Forty residents (15 postgraduate years (PGY)-1, 12 PGY-2, 13 PGY-3) participated in the study. Thirty-one participants were male, and 19 were randomized to US first. Residents completed a mean of 185 (SD 95.8) US scans before the study in a variety of applications. Accurate fracture identification had a higher mean proportion in the US arm than the X-ray arm, 0.89 (SD 0.11) versus 0.75 (SD 0.11), respectively (P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in US arm and X-ray arm for endpoints of fracture location and type. CONCLUSION: EM residents were better able to identify fractures using US compared to X-ray, especially as level of US and ED experience increased. These results encourage the use of US for the assessment of isolated extremity injury, particularly when the injury is diaphyseal.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: This study analyzed outcomes associated with nurse-performed ultrasound (US)-guided intravenous (IV) placement compared to standard of care (SOC) palpation IV technique on poor vascular access patients. METHODS: This was a randomized, prospective single-site study. Phase 1 involved education/training of a cohort of nurses to perform US-guided IVs. This consisted of a didactic module and hands-on requirement of 10 proctored functional IVs on live subjects. Phase 2 involved patient enrollment. emergency department patients meeting strict criteria of poor access were randomized to US-guided or SOC palpation arm. A functional IV placed by a study nurse was considered successful. Unsuccessful placement implied the study nurse failed, and a rescue IV was attempted. Time to IV placement was the total time required to obtain a functional IV and, if needed, a rescue IV. RESULTS: A total of 124 subjects were enrolled; 63 were randomized to the US-guided arm, and 61 were randomized into the SOC arm; 2 patients were excluded, leaving 59 patients. Success rate was 76% for the US-guided arm and 56% for the SOC arm (P=.02). Compared to the SOC arm, the odds ratio for success for the US-guided arm was 2.52 (95% confidence interval, 1.09-5.92). The mean time to IV placement for the US-guided arm was 15.8 and 20.7 minutes for the SOC arm (P=.75). CONCLUSION: In difficult access patients, nurses were more successful in obtaining IV access using US guidance than palpation SOC technique. Lengthier placement times were observed more frequently when the SOC IV technique was used.
