Diagnosis of acute aortic syndromes with ultrasound and d-dimer: the PROFUNDUS study.

BACKGROUND: In patients complaining common symptoms such as chest/abdominal/back pain or syncope, acute aortic syndromes (AAS) are rare underlying causes. AAS diagnosis requires urgent advanced aortic imaging (AAI), mostly computed tomography angiography. However, patient selection for AAI poses conflicting risks of misdiagnosis and overtesting. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the safety and efficiency of a diagnostic protocol integrating clinical data with point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) and d-dimer (single/age-adjusted cutoff), to select patients for AAI. METHODS: This prospective study involved 12 Emergency Departments from 5 countries. POCUS findings were integrated with a guideline-compliant clinical score, to define the integrated pre-test probability (iPTP) of AAS. If iPTP was high, urgent AAI was requested. If iPTP was low and d-dimer was negative, AAS was ruled out. Patients were followed for 30 days, to adjudicate outcomes. RESULTS: Within 1979 enrolled patients, 176 (9 %) had an AAS. POCUS led to net reclassification improvement of 20 % (24 %/-4 % for events/non-events, P < 0.001) over clinical score alone. Median time to AAS diagnosis was 60 min if POCUS was positive vs 118 if negative (P = 0.042). Within 941 patients satisfying rule-out criteria, the 30-day incidence of AAS was 0 % (95 % CI, 0-0.41 %); without POCUS, 2 AAS were potentially missed. Protocol rule-out efficiency was 48 % (95 % CI, 46-50 %) and AAI was averted in 41 % of patients. Using age-adjusted d-dimer, rule-out efficiency was 54 % (difference 6 %, 95 % CI, 4-9 %, vs standard cutoff). CONCLUSIONS: The integrated algorithm allowed rapid triage of high-probability patients, while providing safe and efficient rule-out of AAS. Age-adjusted d-dimer maximized efficiency. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04430400.

A Computational Approach in the Diagnostic Process of COVID-19: The Missing Link between the Laboratory and Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic and so it is crucial the right evaluation of viral infection. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Real-Time Reverse Transcription PCR (RT-PCR) in respiratory samples is the gold standard for confirming the disease. However, it has practical limitations as time-consuming procedures and a high rate of false-negative results. We aim to assess the accuracy of COVID-19 classifiers based on Arificial Intelligence (AI) and statistical classification methods adapted on blood tests and other information routinely collected at the Emergency Departments (EDs). METHODS: Patients admitted to the ED of Careggi Hospital from April 7th-30th 2020 with pre-specified features of suspected COVID-19 were enrolled. Physicians prospectively dichotomized them as COVID-19 likely/unlikely case, based on clinical features and bedside imaging support. Considering the limits of each method to identify a case of COVID-19, further evaluation was performed after an independent clinical review of 30-day follow-up data. Using this as a gold standard, several classifiers were implemented: Logistic Regression (LR), Quadratic Discriminant Analysis (QDA), Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Neural Networks (NN), K-nearest neighbor (K-NN), Naive Bayes (NB). RESULTS: Most of the classifiers show a ROC >0.80 on both internal and external validation samples but the best results are obtained applying RF, LR and NN. The performance from the external validation sustains the proof of concept to use such mathematical models fast, robust and efficient for a first identification of COVID-19 positive patients. These tools may constitute both a bedside support while waiting for RT-PCR results, and a tool to point to a deeper investigation, by identifying which patients are more likely to develop into positive cases within 7 days. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the obtained results and with a rapidly changing virus, we believe that data processing automated procedures may provide a valid support to the physicians facing the decision to classify a patient as a COVID-19 case or not.

Retrospective analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound for pulmonary embolism in patients with and without pleuritic chest pain.

BACKGROUND: Lung ultrasound (LUS) has a role in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) mainly based on the visualization of pulmonary infarctions. However, examining the whole chest to detect small peripheral infarctions by LUS may be challenging. Pleuritic pain, a frequent presenting symptom in patients with PE, is usually localized in a restricted chest area identified by the patient itself. Our hypothesis is that sensitivity of LUS for PE in patients with pleuritic chest pain may be higher due to the possibility of focusing the examination in the painful area. We combined data from three prospective studies on LUS in patients suspected of PE and extracted data regarding patients with and without pleuritic pain at presentation to compare the performances of LUS. RESULTS: Out of 872 patients suspected of PE, 217 (24.9%) presented with pleuritic pain and 279 patients (32%) were diagnosed with PE. Pooled sensitivity of LUS for PE in patients with and without pleuritic chest pain was 81.5% (95% CI 70-90.1%) and 49.5% (95% CI 42.7-56.4%) (p < 0.001), respectively. Specificity of LUS was similar in the two groups, respectively 95.4% (95% CI 90.7-98.1%) and 94.8% (95% CI 92.3-97.7%) (p = 0.86). In patients with pleuritic pain, a diagnostic strategy combining Wells score with LUS performed better both in terms of sensitivity (93%, 95% CI 80.9-98.5% vs 90.7%, 95% CI 77.9-97.4%) and negative predictive value (96.2%, 95% CI 89.6-98.7% vs 93.3%, 95% CI 84.4-97.3%). Efficiency of Wells score + LUS outperformed the conventional strategy based on Wells score + d-dimer (56.7%, 95% CI 48.5-65% vs 42.5%, 95% CI 34.3-51.2%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In a population of patients suspected of PE, LUS showed better sensitivity for the diagnosis of PE when applied to the subgroup with pleuritic chest pain. In these patients, a diagnostic strategy based on Wells score and LUS performed better to exclude PE than the conventional strategy combining Wells score and d-dimer.

Estimating Prognosis and Frailty in Persons Aged ≥75 Years in the Emergency Department: Further Validation of Dynamic Silver Code.

OBJECTIVES: To assess concurrent validity of the Dynamic Silver Code (DSC), a tool based on administrative data that predicts prognosis in older adults accessing the emergency department (ED), in terms of association with markers of poor functional and cognitive status. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were obtained in the AIDEA study, which enrolled a cohort of ≥75-year-old patients, accessing the ED of 2 hospitals in Florence, Italy. METHODS: The DSC score and classes (I to IV, corresponding to an increasing risk of death) were obtained from administrative data. Information on health and functional status prior to ED access were collected from face-to-face, direct, or proxy interviews. The 4AT test was administered to screen for possible delirium. Bivariate comparisons of the prevalence of each functional and cognitive marker across 4 DSC classes were performed. Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess the multivariable risk of being in II, III, or IV DSC class vs I. RESULTS: Among 3358 participants (mean age 83 years, men 44%), 32.9%, 30.3%, 19.5%, and 17.2% were in DSC class I, II, III, and IV. Preadmission abnormal functional and cognitive conditions, and delirium in the ED, were increasingly more common from DSC class I through IV (P < .001). In particular, the prevalence of total inability to walk increased from 2.9% (class I) to 23.4% (class IV). In multivariable analyses, this was the strongest predictor of being in progressively worse DSC classes, whereas feeling of exhaustion, reporting of serious falls, weight loss, and severe memory loss or diagnosis of dementia gave some contribution. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The ability of the DSC to predict survival in older persons appears to rely on its prevailing association with markers of functional impairment. These results may support clinical use of the tool.

The presentations/physician ratio predicts door-to-physician time but not global length of stay in the emergency department: an Italian multicenter study during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

To investigate the effects of the dramatic reduction in presentations to Italian Emergency Departments (EDs) on the main indicators of ED performance during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. From February to June 2020 we retrospectively measured the number of daily presentations normalized for the number of emergency physicians on duty (presentations/physician ratio), door-to-physician and door-to-final disposition (length-of-stay) times of seven EDs in the central area of Tuscany. Using the multivariate regression analysis we investigated the relationship between the aforesaid variables and patient-level (triage codes, age, admissions) or hospital-level factors (number of physician on duty, working surface area, academic vs. community hospital). We analyzed data from 105,271 patients. Over ten consecutive 14-day periods, the number of presentations dropped from 18,239 to 6132 (- 67%) and the proportion of patients visited in less than 60 min rose from 56 to 86%. The proportion of patients with a length-of-stay under 4 h decreased from 59 to 52%. The presentations/physician ratio was inversely related to the proportion of patients with a door-to-physician time under 60 min (slope - 2.91, 95% CI - 4.23 to - 1.59, R2 = 0.39). The proportion of patients with high-priority codes but not the presentations/physician ratio, was inversely related to the proportion of patients with a length-of-stay under 4 h (slope - 0.40, 95% CI - 0.24 to - 0.27, R2 = 0.36). The variability of door-to-physician time and global length-of-stay are predicted by different factors. For appropriate benchmarking among EDs, the use of performance indicators should consider specific, hospital-level and patient-level factors.

Comparison of out of hospital cardiac arrest due to acute brain injury vs other causes.

BACKGROUND: Acute brain injury (ABI) can cause out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). The aim of this study was to compare clinical features, mortality and potential for organ donation in patients with OHCA due to ABI vs other causes. METHODS: From January 2017 to December 2018, all adult patients presenting to ED for OHCA were considered for the study. Two physicians established the definitive cause of OHCA, according to clinical, laboratory, diagnostic imaging and autoptic findings. Clinical features in patients with OHCA due to ABI or other causes were compared. RESULTS: 280 patients were included in the analysis. ABI was the third most frequent cause of OHCA (21, 7.5%); ABIs were 8 subarachnoid hemorrhage, 8 intracerebral hemorrhage, 2 ischemic stroke, 2 traumatic spinal cord injury and 1 status epilepticus respectively. Neurological prodromes such as seizure, headache and focal neurological signs were significantly more frequent in patients with OHCA due to ABI (OR 5.34, p = 0.03; OR 12.90, p = 0.02; and OR 66.53, p < 0.01 respectively) while among non-neurological prodromes chest pain and dyspnea were significantly more frequent in patients with OHCA due to other causes (OR 14.5, p < 0.01; and OR 10.4, p = 0.02 respectively). Anisocoria was present in 19% of patients with OHCA due to ABI vs 2.7% due to other causes (OR 8.47, p < 0.01). In 90.5% of patients with ABI and in 53.1% of patients with other causes the first cardiac rhythm was non shockable (OR 8.1; p = 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that older age, active smoking, post-traumatic OHCA, neurological prodromes, anisocoria at pupillary examination were independently associated with OHCA due to ABI. Patients with ABI showed a higher mortality compared with the other causes group (19 pts., 90.5% versus 167 pts., 64.5%; p = 0.015). Potential organ donors were more frequent among ABI than other causes group (10 pts., 47.6% vs 75 pts., 28.9%) however the difference did not reach the statistical significance (p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: ABI is the third cause of OHCA. Neurological prodromes, absence of chest pain and dyspnea before cardiac arrest, anisocoria and initial non-shockable rhythm might suggest a neurological etiology of the cardiac arrest. Patients with OHCA due to ABI has an unfavorable outcome, however, they could be candidate to organ donation.

Laryngotracheal aspiration test reduce the false negative rate in patients with suspected SARS-COV-2 pneumonia despite a negative nasopharyngeal swab.

BACKGROUND: In the emergency department (ED) definitive diagnosis of SARS-COV-2 pneumonia is challenging as nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) can give false negative results. Strategies to reduce false negative rate of NPS have limitations. Serial NPSs (24-48 h from one another) are time-consuming, sputum can not be collected in the majority of patients, and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), the most sensitive test, requires specific expertise. Laryngotracheal aspiration (LTA) is easy to perform and showed a similar accuracy to BAL for diagnosis of other pulmonary diseases, however it was not studied to diagnose SARS-COV-2 pneumonia. OBJECTIVE: An observational cross-sectional study was performed to evaluate the negative predictive value of LTA in patients with suspected SARS-COV-2 pneumonia despite a negative NPS. METHODS: In the EDs of two university hospitals, consecutive patients with suspected SARS-COV-2 pneumonia despite a negative NPS underwent LTA performed with a nasotracheal tube connected to a vacuum system. Final diagnosis based on all respiratory specimen tests (NPS, LTA and BAL) and hospital data was established by two reviewers and in case of discordance by a third reviewer. RESULTS: 117 patients were enrolled. LTA was feasible in all patients and no patients experienced adverse events. Fifteen (12.7%) patients were diagnosed with community-acquired SARS-COV-2 pneumonia: 13 LTA positive and only 2 (1.7%) LTA negative. The negative predictive value of NPS and LTA was 87.3% (79.9% - 92.7%) and 98.1% (93.3%99.8%) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: LTA resulted feasible, safe and reduced false negative rate in patients with suspected SARS-COV-2 pneumonia despite a negative NPS.

Blood-brain barrier leakage and hemorrhagic transformation: The Reperfusion Injury in Ischemic StroKe (RISK) study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with reperfusion therapy we aimed to evaluate whether pretreatment blood-brain barrier (BBB) leakage is associated with subsequent hemorrhagic transformation (HT). METHODS: We prospectively screened patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with intravenous thrombolysis and/or endovascular treatment. Before treatment, each patient received computed tomography (CT), CT angiography, and CT perfusion. We assessed pretreatment BBB leakage within the ischemic area using the volume transfer constant (Ktrans ) value. Our primary outcome was relevant HT, defined as hemorrhagic infarction type 2 or parenchymal hemorrhage type 1 or 2. We evaluated independent associations between BBB leakage and HT using logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, baseline stroke severity, Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) ≥ 6, treatment type, and onset-to-treatment time. RESULTS: We enrolled 171 patients with available assessment of BBB leakage. The patients' mean (±SD) age was 75.5 (±11.8) years, 86 (50%) were men, and the median (interquartile range) National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 18 (12-23). A total of 32 patients (18%) received intravenous thrombolysis, 102 (60%) underwent direct endovascular treatment, and 37 (22%) underwent both. Patients with relevant HT (N = 31;18%) had greater mean BBB leakage (Ktrans 0.77 vs. 0.60; p = 0.027). After adjustment in the logistic regression model, we found that BBB leakage was associated both with a more than twofold risk of relevant HT (odds ratio [OR] 2.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-6.03 per Ktrans point increase; OR 2.34; 95% CI 1.06-5.17 for Ktrans values > 0.63 [mean BBB leakage value]) and with symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (OR 4.30; 95% CI 1.13-13.77 per Ktrans point increase). CONCLUSION: Pretreatment BBB leakage before reperfusion therapy was associated with HT, and may help to identify patients at risk of HT.

Diagnostic accuracy of physician's gestalt in suspected COVID-19: Prospective bicentric study.

OBJECTIVES: Physicians' gestalt is central in the diagnostic pipeline of suspected COVID-19, due to the absence of a single tool allowing conclusive rule in or rule out. The aim of this study was to estimate the diagnostic test characteristics of physician's gestalt for COVID-19 in the emergency department (ED), based on clinical findings or on a combination of clinical findings and bedside imaging results. METHODS: From April 1 to April 30, 2020, patients with suspected COVID-19 were prospectively enrolled in two EDs. Physicians prospectively dichotomized patients in COVID-19 likely or unlikely twice: after medical evaluation of clinical features (clinical gestalt [CG]) and after evaluation of clinical features and results of lung ultrasound or chest x-ray (clinical and bedside imaging-integrated gestalt [CBIIG]). The final diagnosis was adjudicated after independent review of 30-day follow-up data. RESULTS: Among 838 ED enrolled patients, 193 (23%) were finally diagnosed with COVID-19. The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of CG and CBIIG for COVID-19 were 80.8% and 91.6% (p < 0.01), 82.9% and 91.4% (p = 0.01), and 78.6% and 91.8% (p < 0.01), respectively. CBIIG had similar AUC and sensitivity to reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 on the first nasopharyngeal swab per se (93.5%, p = 0.24; and 87%, p = 0.17, respectively). CBIIG plus RT-PCR had a sensitivity of 98.4% for COVID-19 (p < 0.01 vs. RT-PCR alone) compared to 95.9% for CG plus RT-PCR (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In suspected COVID-19, CG and CBIIG have fair diagnostic accuracy, in line with physicians' gestalt for other acute conditions. Negative RT-PCR plus low probability based on CBIIG can rule out COVID-19 with a relatively low number of false-negative cases.

Development and Validation of a Simplified Probability Assessment Score Integrated With Age-Adjusted d-Dimer for Diagnosis of Acute Aortic Syndromes.

Background When acute aortic syndromes (AASs) are suspected, pretest clinical probability assessment and d-dimer (DD) testing are diagnostic options allowing standardized care. Guidelines suggest use of a 12-item/3-category score (aortic dissection detection) and a DD cutoff of 500 ng/mL. However, a simplified assessment tool and a more specific DD cutoff could be advantageous. Methods and Results In a prospective derivation cohort (n=1848), 6 items identified by logistic regression (thoracic aortic aneurysm, severe pain, sudden pain, pulse deficit, neurologic deficit, hypotension), composed a simplified score (AORTAs) assigning 2 points to hypotension and 1 to the other items. AORTAs≤1 and ≥2 defined low and high clinical probability, respectively. Age-adjusted DD was calculated as years/age × 10 ng/mL (minimum 500). The AORTAs score and AORTAs≤1/age-adjusted DD rule were validated in 2 patient cohorts: a high-prevalence retrospective cohort (n=1035; 22% AASs) and a low-prevalence prospective cohort (n=447; 11% AASs) subjected to 30-day follow-up. The AUC of the AORTAs score was 0.729 versus 0.697 of the aortic dissection detection score (P=0.005). AORTAs score assessment reclassified 16.6% to 25.1% of patients, with significant net reclassification improvement of 10.3% to 32.7% for AASs and -8.6 to -17% for alternative diagnoses. In both cohorts, AORTAs≥2 had superior sensitivity and slightly lower specificity than aortic dissection detection ≥2. In the prospective validation cohort, AORTAs≤1/age-adjusted DD had a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 48.6%, and an efficiency of 43.3%. Conclusions AORTAs is a simplified score with increased sensitivity, improved AAS classification, and minor trade-off in specificity, amenable to integration with age-adjusted DD for diagnostic rule-out.

Chest X-ray in the emergency department during COVID-19 pandemic descending phase in Italy: correlation with patients' outcome.

PURPOSE: The aims of our study are: (1) to estimate admission chest X-ray (CXR) accuracy during the descending phase of pandemic; (2) to identify specific CXR findings strictly associated with COVID-19 infection; and (3) to correlate lung involvement of admission CXR with patients' outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the admission CXR of 327 patients accessed to our institute during the Italian pandemic descending phase (April 2020). For each CXR were searched ground glass opacification (GGO), consolidation (CO), reticular-nodular opacities (RNO), nodules, excavations, pneumothorax, pleural effusion, vascular congestion and cardiac enlargement. For lung alterations was defined the predominance (upper or basal, focal or diffuse, central or peripheric, etc.). Then radiologists assessed whether CXRs were suggestive or not for COVID-19 infection. For COVID-19 patients, a prognostic score was applied and correlated with the patients' outcome. RESULTS: CXR showed 83% of specificity and 60% of sensitivity. GGO, CO, RNO and a peripheric, diffuse and basal prevalence showed good correlation with COVID-19 diagnosis. A logistic regression analysis pointed out GGO and a basal or diffuse distribution as independent predictors of COVID-19 diagnosis. The prognostic score showed good correlation with the patients' outcome. CONCLUSION: In our study, admission CXR showed a fair specificity and a good correlation with patients' outcome. GGO and others CXR findings showed a good correlation with COVID-19 diagnosis; besides GGO a diffuse or bibasal distribution resulted in independent variables highly suggestive for COVID-19 infection thus enabling radiologists to signal to clinicians radiologically suspect patients during the pandemic descending phase.

Diagnosis and management of acute aortic syndromes in the emergency department.

Acute aortic syndromes (AASs) are deadly cardiovascular emergencies involving the thoracic aorta. AASs are relatively rare conditions, have unspecific signs and symptoms (including truncal pain, syncope, neurologic deficit and limb ischemia) and require contrast-enhanced tomography angiography (CTA) of the chest and abdomen for conclusive diagnosis and subsequent therapeutic planning. In the Emergency Department (ED), most patients with potential signs/symptoms of AASs are finally found affected by other alternative diagnoses. Hence, misdiagnosis and delayed diagnosis of AASs are major concerns. In critically ill patients, decision to perform CTA is usually straightforward, as exam benefits largely outweigh risks. In patients with ST-tract elevation on ECG, suspected primary ischemic stroke and in stable patients (representing the most prevalent ED scenarios), proper selection of patients necessitating CTA is cumbersome, due to concurrent risks of misdiagnosis and over-testing. Available studies support an algorithm integrating clinical probability assessment, bedside echocardiography and D-dimer (if the clinical probability is not high). Therapeutic management includes medical therapy for all patients including an opioid and anti-impulse drugs (a beta-blocker and a vasodilator), targeting a heart rate of 60 bpm and systolic blood pressure of 100-120 mmHg. Patients with AASs involving the ascending aorta are likely candidate for urgent surgery, and complicated type B AASs (severe aortic dilatation, impending or frank rupture, organ malperfusion, refractory pain, severe hypertension) necessitate evaluation for urgent endovascular treatment. For uncomplicated type B AASs, optimal medical therapy is the current standard of care.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Point-of-Care Ultrasound Integrated into Clinical Examination for Acute Diverticulitis: A Prospective Multicenter Study.

PURPOSE: Diverticulitis is a common cause of abdominal pain and CT scan is commonly used for its diagnosis in the emergency department (ED). The diagnostic performance of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) integrated into a clinical exam for diverticulitis is still not established. We evaluate the accuracy of clinical-sonographic assessment for the diagnosis of diverticulitis and whether POCUS could improve the selection of patients needing CT scan for complicated diverticulitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a multicentric observational study involving adult patients suspected of having diverticulitis presenting at 4 EDs. 21 sonographer physicians were asked to diagnose diverticulitis and complicated diverticulitis based on clinical-sonographic assessment. The final diagnosis was established by two reviewers, blinded to POCUS, based on data collected during the one-month follow-up comprehensive CT scan. RESULTS: Among 393 enrolled patients, 218 (55.5 %) were diagnosed with diverticulitis and 33 (8 %) had complicated diverticulitis. The time to diagnosis by the sonographer physicians was shorter compared to standard care (97 ±â€Š102 vs. 330 ±â€Š319 minutes, p < 0.001). Clinical-sonographic assessment showed optimal sensitivity (92.7 %) and specificity (90.9 %) for diverticulitis. However, the sensitivity (50 %) for complicated diverticulitis was low. The sonographer physician would have proceeded to CT scan in 194 (49.4 %) patients and the CT scan request compared to the final diagnosis of complicated diverticulitis demonstrated 94 % sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Clinical-sonographic assessment is rapid and accurate for the diagnosis of diverticulitis. Even if POCUS has low sensitivity for complicated diverticulitis, it can be used to safely select patients needing CT.

Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in cardiac arrest: results of a hands-on training for a simplified TEE protocol.

BACKGROUND: Integration of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) with Focused Cardiac Ultrasound (FoCUS) can impact decision-making, assist in the diagnosis of reversible etiologies and help guiding resuscitation of patients with cardiac arrest. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of emergency physicians (EPs) to obtain and maintain skills in performing resusTEE after a course with clinical training in the cardiac surgery theatre. METHODS: Ten EPs without previous TEE experience underwent a resusTEE course, based on a 2-h workshop and an 8-h hands-on training. The training was performed in a cardiac surgery theatre tutored by cardiovascular anesthesiologists. The six taught views were mid-esophageal four-chamber (ME4CH), mid-esophageal long axis (MELAX), mid-esophageal two-chamber (ME2CH), mid-esophageal bicaval view (MEbicaval), transgastric short axis (TGSAX) and aorta view (AOview). The EPs were evaluated by a cardiovascular anesthesiologist at the end of the course as well as after 12 weeks according to a standardized evaluation method. Once the course was completed, resusTEE exams, performed by EPs in Emergency Department (ED), were monitored for a 12-week period. RESULTS: The average assessment of the ten EPs by the tutors was higher than 4 points out of 5, both at the end of the course and after 12 weeks. Probe insertion, acquisition and interpretation of the different views scored on average more than 4 points out of 5 except for TGSAX that showed worsening after 12 weeks. Trainees performed twelve resusTEE exams in ED in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) over 12 weeks after the course. EPs used only four out of six taught views in clinical practice, in the following order of frequency: ME4CH, AOview, MEbicaval and MELAX. CONCLUSIONS: EPs, after a course with clinical training in the cardiac surgery theatre, can successfully acquire and maintain the skills needed to perform resusTEE. However, among the six views learned in the course, EPs used only four of them (ME4CH, MEbicaval, MELAX and AOview).

Integration of transthoracic focused cardiac ultrasound in the diagnostic algorithm for suspected acute aortic syndromes.

AIMS: The diagnosis of acute aortic syndromes (AASs) is challenging and requires integrated strategies. Transthoracic focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) is endorsed by guidelines as a first-line/triage tool allowing rapid bedside assessment of the aorta. However, the performance of FoCUS in the European Society of Cardiology-recommended workup of AASs awaits validation. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a prespecified subanalysis of the ADvISED multicentre prospective study. Patients with suspected AAS underwent FoCUS for detection of direct/indirect signs of AAS. Clinical probability assessment was performed with the aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS). Case adjudication was based on advanced imaging, surgery, autopsy, or 14-day follow-up. An AAS was diagnosed in 146 (17.4%) of 839 patients. Presence of direct FoCUS signs had a sensitivity and specificity of 45.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 37-53.6%] and 97.4% (95% CI 95.9-98.4%), while presence of any FoCUS sign had a sensitivity and specificity of 89% (95% CI 82.8-93.6%) and 74.5% (95% CI 71-77.7%) for AAS. The additive value of FoCUS was most evident within low clinical probability (ADD-RS ≤1). Herein, direct FoCUS signs were identified in 40 (4.8%) patients (P < 0.001), including 29 with AAS. ADD-RS ≤1 plus negative FoCUS for AAS rule-out had a sensitivity of 93.8% (95% CI 88.6-97.1%) and a failure rate of 1.9% (95% CI 0.9-3.6%). Addition of negative D-dimer led to a failure rate of 0% (95% CI 0-1.2%). CONCLUSION: FoCUS has additive value in the workup of AASs. Direct FoCUS signs can rapidly identify patients requiring advanced imaging despite low clinical probability. In integrated bundles, negative FoCUS is useful for rule-out of AASs.

Integrated Use of Conventional Chest Radiography Cannot Rule Out Acute Aortic Syndromes in Emergency Department Patients at Low Clinical Probability.

OBJECTIVES: Guidelines recommend chest radiography (CR) in the workup of suspected acute aortic syndromes (AASs) if the pretest clinical probability is low. However, the diagnostic impact of CR integration for the rule-in and rule-out of AASs is unknown. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of the ADvISED multicenter study. Emergency department outpatients were eligible if an AAS was clinically suspected. Clinical probability was defined with the aortic dissection detection risk score (ADD-RS). CR was evaluated blindly by a radiologist, who judged on mediastinum enlargement (ME) and other signs. RESULTS: In 2014 through 2016, a total of 1,129 patients were enrolled and 1,030 were analyzed, including 48 (4.7%) with AASs. ADD-RS/ME and ADD-RS/any CR sign (aCRs) integration were more accurate than ADD-RS alone (area under the curve = 0.8 and 0.78 vs. 0.66, p < 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of the integrated strategies were 66.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 51.5% to 79.9%) and 82.5% (95% CI = 79.9% to 84.8%) for ADD-RS/ME and 68.8% (95% CI = 53.6% to 80.9%) and 76.5% (95% CI = 73.7% to 79.1%) for ADD-RS/aCRs, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of CR per se were 54.2% (95% CI = 39.2% to 68.6%) and 92.4% (95% CI = 90.5% to 93.9%) for ME and 60.4% (95% CI = 45.3% to 74.2%) and 85.2% (95% CI = 82.9% to 87.4%) for aCRs. The agreement (κ) between attending physicians and radiologists for ME was 0.44 (95% CI = 0.35 to 0.54). ADD-RS/ME rule-in (ADD-RS ≤ 1 and ME-present, or ADD-RS > 1) applied to 204 versus 130 patients with ADD-RS > 1, including 14 with AAS and 60 false-positives (FP). ADD-RS/aCRs rule-in (ADD-RS ≤ 1 and aCRs-present, or ADD-RS > 1) applied to 264 patients, including 15 with AAS and 119 FP. ADD-RS/ME rule-out (ADD-RS ≤ 1 and ME-absent) applied to 826 (80.2%) patients, including 16 with AAS (33.3% of cases). ADD-RS/aCRs rule-out (ADD-RS ≤ 1 and aCRs-absent) applied to 766 patients (74.4%), including 15 with AAS (31.3% of cases). CONCLUSIONS: CR integration with clinical probability assessment showed modest rule-in efficiency and insufficient sensitivity for conclusive rule-out.