Does point-of-care ultrasonography improve diagnostic accuracy in emergency department patients with undifferentiated hypotension? An international randomized controlled trial from the SHOC-ED investigators.

PURPOSE: Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) is an established tool in the management of hypotensive patients in the emergency department (ED). We compared the diagnostic accuracy of a POCUS protocol versus standard assessment without POCUS in patients with undifferentiated hypotension. METHODS: This was an international, multicenter randomized controlled trial included three EDs in North America and three in South Africa from September 2012 to December 2016. Hypotensive patients were randomized to early POCUS protocol plus standard care (POCUS group) or standard care without POCUS (control group). Initial and secondary diagnoses were recorded at 0 and 60 min. The main outcome was measures of diagnostic accuracy of a POCUS protocol in differentiating between cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic shock. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic performance for shock sub-types, as well as changes in perceived category of shock and overall diagnosis. RESULTS: Follow-up was completed for 270 of 273 patients. For cardiogenic shock, the POCUS-based diagnostic approach (POCUS) performed similarly to the non-POCUS approach (control) for specificity [95.5% (89.9-98.5) vs.93.8% (87.7-97.5)]; positive likelihood ratio (17.92 vs 14.80); negative likelihood ratio (0.21 vs 0.09) and diagnostic odds ratio (85.6 vs 166.57), with a similar overall diagnostic accuracy between the two approaches [93.7% (88-97.2) vs 93.6% (87.8-97.2)]. Diagnostic performance measures were similar across sub-categories of shock. CONCLUSION: This is the first randomized controlled trial to compare diagnostic performance of a POCUS protocol to standard care without POCUS in undifferentiated hypotensive ED patients. POCUS performed well diagnostically in undifferentiated hypotensive patients, especially as a rule-in test; however, performance did not differ meaningfully from standard assessment.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'échographie au point d'intervention (POCUS) est un outil bien établi dans la gestion des patients hypotendus dans le service des urgences. Nous avons comparé la précision diagnostique d'un protocole POCUS par rapport à une évaluation standard sans POCUS chez des patients présentant une hypotension indifférenciée. MéTHODES: Il s'agissait d'un essai contrôlé randomisé international multicentrique incluant 3 services d'urgence en Amérique du Nord et 3 en Afrique du Sud de septembre 2012 à décembre 2016. Les patients hypotenseurs ont été répartis par randomisation selon le protocole POCUS précoce plus les soins standard (groupe POCUS) ou les soins standard sans POCUS (groupe témoin). Les diagnostics initiaux et secondaires ont été enregistrés à 0 et 60 minutes. Le principal résultat était la mesure de la précision diagnostique d'un protocole POCUS pour différencier le choc cardiogénique du choc non cardiogénique. Les résultats secondaires étaient la performance diagnostique pour les sous-types de chocs, ainsi que les changements dans la perception de la catégorie de choc et du diagnostic global. RéSULTATS: Le suivi a été complété pour 270 des 273 patients. Pour le choc cardiogénique, l'approche diagnostique basée sur le POCUS (POCUS) a donné des résultats similaires à l'approche non-POCUS (Contrôle) pour la spécificité (95,5 % (89,9­98,5) vs 93,8 % (87,7­97,5)) ; Rapport de vraisemblance positif (17,92 vs 14,80) ; Le rapport de vraisemblance négatif (0,21 vs 0,09) et le rapport de cotes diagnostiques (85,6 vs 166,57), avec une précision diagnostique globale similaire entre les deux approches (93,7 % (88­97,2) vs 93,6 % (87,8­97,2). Les mesures de performance diagnostique étaient similaires dans toutes les sous-catégories de choc. CONCLUSION: Il s'agit du premier essai contrôlé randomisé visant à comparer la performance diagnostique d'un protocole POCUS aux soins standard sans POCUS chez des patients hypotendus indifférenciés aux urgences. La POCUS a donné de bons résultats diagnostiques chez les patients hypotendus indifférenciés, surtout en tant que test de référence ; cependant, les performances ne diffèrent pas de manière significative de l'évaluation standard.

Reliability study in five languages of the translation of the pain behavioural scale Doloplus.

Non-verbal pain assessment scales are useful tools for pain evaluation in persons with communication disorders and moderate-severe dementia. The Doloplus was one of the first scales to be developed and validated as a pain assessment tool in older adults with dementia. This study aims at evaluating the translation of the Doloplus scale in five languages, as regards test-retest and inter-rater reliability. Results show that both tests are good or excellent for the English, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish versions and moderate for the Dutch version. These results bring a unique opportunity to include the translated Doloplus scale in daily assessment of elderly persons with communication disorders, and future studies should focus on enriching the validation of the scale in each language.

Propofol or midazolam for sedation and early extubation following cardiac surgery.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this randomized, double-blind study was to evaluate the efficacy of midazolam and propofol for postoperative sedation and early extubation following cardiac surgery. METHODS: ASA physical status II-III patients scheduled to undergo elective first-time cardiac surgery with an ejection fraction > 45% were eligible. All patients received a standardized sufentanil/isoflurane anaesthesia. During cardiopulmonary bypass 100 micrograms.kg-1.min-1 propofol was substituted for isoflurane. Upon arrival in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), patients were randomized to either 10 micrograms.kg-1.min-1 propofol (n = 21) or 0.25 microgram.kg-1.min-1 midazolam (n = 20). Infusion rates were adjusted to maintain sedation within a predetermined range (Ramsay 2-4). The infusion was terminated after four hours. Patients were weaned from mechanical ventilation and their tracheas extubated when Haemodynamic stability, haemostasis, normothermia and mental orientation were confirmed. Haemodynamic measurements, arterial blood gas tensions and pulmonary function tests were recorded at specified times. RESULTS: There were no differences between the two groups for the time spent at each level of sedation, number of infusion rate adjustments, amount of analgesic and vasoactive drugs, times to awakening and extubation. The costs of propofol were higher than those of midazolam. There were no differences in haemodynamic values, arterial blood gas tensions and pulmonary function. CONCLUSION: We conclude that midazolam and propofol are safe and effective sedative agents permitting early extubation in this selected cardiac patient population but propofol costs were higher.

Orientation for new teachers. Workshop on clinical teaching skills.

Since 1987, McGill University's Department of Family Medicine has invited new faculty to an orientation workshop. Workshop topics cover learning agreements and principles of adult learning, effective teaching methods, and feedback and evaluation. Workshop methods aim to promote active participation and experiential learning.