Renal and Genitourinary Ultrasound Evaluation in Emergency and Critical Care: An Overview.

Renal and genitourinary ultrasound are fundamental resources employed by emergency and critical care healthcare providers to make prompt diagnoses and perform ultrasound-guided procedures. At the bedside, ultrasound can aid in the diagnosis of relevant pathologies, such as post-renal obstruction or kidney stones, and life-threatening conditions such as aortic dissection or hemoperitoneum. A narrative overview was performed, providing an updated review of renal and genitourinary ultrasound for emergency and critical care healthcare providers, emphasizing its advantages and the latest advances in the field. A thorough summary that can be utilized as a guide for emergency and critical care healthcare providers is presented. The daily hemodynamic management of critically ill patients involves the implementation of new protocols, such as VexUS or the evaluation of the renal resistance index. The role of ultrasound in managing acute nephropathy and genitourinary issues is increasingly crucial given its bedside availability, thus this imaging modality not only facilitates the initiation of therapeutic interventions but also provides swift prognostic insights that are vital to provide tailored patient care. As further advances in ultrasound will arise, it is important for healthcare providers to foster the use of these technologies capable of improving patient outcomes.

Lung ultrasound in ruling out COVID-19 pneumonia in the ED: a multicentre prospective sensitivity study.

PURPOSE: Early diagnosis of COVID-19 has a crucial role in confining the spread among the population. Lung ultrasound (LUS) was included in the diagnostic pathway for its high sensitivity, low costs, non-invasiveness and safety. We aimed to test the sensitivity of LUS to rule out COVID-19 pneumonia (COVIDp) in a population of patients with suggestive symptoms. METHODS: Multicentre prospective observational study in three EDs in Northeastern Italy during the first COVID-19 outbreak. A convenience sample of 235 patients admitted to the ED for symptoms suggestive COVIDp (fever, cough or shortness of breath) from 17 March 2020 to 26 April 2020 was enrolled. All patients underwent a sequential assessment involving: clinical examination, LUS, CXR and arterial blood gas. The index test under investigation was a standardised protocol of LUS compared with a pragmatic composite reference standard constituted by: clinical gestalt, real-time PCR test, radiological and blood gas results. Of the 235 enrolled patients, 90 were diagnosed with COVIDp according to the reference standard. RESULTS: Among the patients with suspected COVIDp, the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was 38.3%. The sensitivity of LUS for diagnosing COVIDp was 85.6% (95% CI 76.6% to 92.1%); the specificity was 91.7% (95% CI 86.0% to 95.7%). The positive predictive value and the negative predictive value were 86.5% (95%CI 78.8% to 91.7%) and 91.1% (95% CI 86.1% to 94.4%) respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of LUS for COVIDp was 89.4% (95% CI 84.7% to 93.0%). The positive likelihood ratio was 10.3 (95% CI 6.0 to 17.9), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.16 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.3). CONCLUSION: In a population with high SARS-CoV-2 prevalence, LUS has a high sensitivity (and negative predictive value) enough to rule out COVIDp in patients with suggestive symptoms. The role of LUS in diagnosing patients with COVIDp is perhaps even more promising. Nevertheless, further research with adequately powered studies is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04370275.

First comes the A, then the B: what we learned from the COVID-19 outbreak.

The SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, which has spread to many countries around the world, has hit Europe particularly hard. From our point of view, in a rural emergency department (with an annual patient census of around 25,000) in northeastern Italy, it is necessary to preserve the hospital and prevent it from becoming an outbreak of infection. In our experience, we reevaluated the negative predictive value of lung ultrasound to rule out lung involvement. Since severe acute respiratory failure appears to be the leading cause of death for COVID-19 patients, it is essential to focus on this clinical feature. We currently believe that a patient suspected of COVID-19, if he has a normal ultrasound examination (a so-called "A-profile"), can be discharged home to continue isolation and be treated without being hospitalized.

Case factors affecting hearing aid recommendations by hearing care professionals.

BACKGROUND: Professional recommendations to patients concerning hearing instrument (HI) technology levels are not currently evidence-based. Pre-fitting parameters have not been proven to be the primary indicators for optimal patient outcome with different HI technology levels. This results in subjective decision-making as regards the technology level recommendation made by professionals. PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to gain insight into the decision-making criteria utilized by professionals when recommending HI technology levels to hearing-impaired patients. RESEARCH DESIGN: A set of patient variables (and their respective levels) was identified by professionals as determinant for their recommendation of HIs. An experimental design was developed and 21 representative patient cases were generated. The design was based on a contrastive vignette technique according to which different types of vignettes (patient cases) were randomly presented to respondents in an online survey. Based on these patient cases, professionals were asked in the survey to make a treatment recommendation. STUDY SAMPLE: The online survey was sent to approximately 3,500 professionals from the US, Germany, France, and Italy. The professionals were randomly selected from the databases of Oticon sales companies. The manufacturer sponsoring the survey remained anonymous and was only revealed after completing the survey, if requested by the respondent. The response rate was 20.5%. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data comprised of respondent descriptions and patient case recommendations that were collected from the online survey. A binary logit modeling approach was used to identify the variables that discriminate between the respondents' recommendations of HI technology levels. RESULTS: The results show that HI technology levels are recommended by professionals based on their perception of the patient's activity level in life, the level of HI usage for experienced users, their age, and their speech discrimination score. Surprisingly, the patient's lifestyle as perceived by the hearing care professional, followed by speech discrimination, were the strongest factors in explaining treatment recommendation. An active patient with poor speech discrimination had a 17% chance of being recommended the highest technology level HI. For a very active patient with good speech discrimination, the probability increases to 68%. CONCLUSIONS: The discrepancies in HI technology level recommendations are not justified by academic research or evidence of optimal patient outcome with a different HI technology level. The paradigm of lifestyle as the significant variable identified in this study is apparently deeply anchored in the mindset of the professional despite the lack of supporting evidence. These results call for a shift in the professional's technology level recommendation practice, from nonevidence-based to a proven practice that can maximize patient outcome.

Periprosthetic bone density as outcome of therapeutic response.

The bone surrounding a prosthetic implant normally experiences a progressive quantitative reduction as a result of stress shielding and wear debris production, that can lead to the aseptic loosening of the implant. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), using software algorithms, can ensure a surrogate measure of load redistribution after the implant of the prosthetic components and can be a valid tool to evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological therapy to reduce the periprosthetic bone loss. In several animal and human studies DXA has been able to quantify antiresorptive action of bisphosphonates in the periprosthetic area.