Use of standardized outcome measures for people with lower-limb amputation: A survey of prosthetic practitioners in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Outcome measures (OMs) are useful tools; however, clinicians may find implementing them into clinical practice challenging. OBJECTIVES: To characterize Canadian prosthetists' use of OMs for people with lower-limb amputation, including motivations for use, comfort selecting OMs, resources available for administration, and barriers to implementation. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted between March and July 2021. Orthotics Prosthetics Canada sent Canadian prosthetists an invitation to take the online survey. RESULTS: Forty-nine Certified Prosthetists completed the survey. Only 16% of participants reported that they were expected to use OMs. Participants reported being more comfortable administering performance-based OMs than self-report surveys. More than two-thirds of participants agreed that OMs "can be administered with knowledge they have" and are "within their scope of practice." However, less than 25% agreed that OMs are "administered in a standardized way in the profession," and less than 40% indicated they are "easy to make part of my routine." Participants reported they generally have time and space to do OMs, but there was no agreed-on reason to use them. CONCLUSIONS: Use of OMs among Canadian prosthetists seems to be low relative to prosthetists in the United States. Education, financial incentives, or changes to professional expectations are likely needed to increase routine OM use. Efforts to improve the standardization of OM administration and ease the incorporation of OMs into routine practice may also increase use. Canadian prosthetists may elevate their standards of clinical practice and better understand the impact of prosthetic treatments on their patients by more routinely using OMs.

Anticholinergic Toxidrome due to Thorn Apple Seed Ingestion in an Elderly Couple.

Introduction: Sudden onset of reduced consciousness, psychomotor agitation and mydriasis are all indicative of an anticholinergic toxidrome. It is important to note that numerous drugs, as well as certain herbs and plants, possess anticholinergic properties. Case description: An 84-year-old female patient had sudden nocturnal onset of uncoordinated hand movements and altered mental status. Shortly after, the patient's 83-year-old husband developed symptoms of dysarthria, gait ataxia, vertigo, and delirium. Conclusion: Anticholinergic syndrome consists of a combination of central and peripheral anticholinergic symptoms. Physostigmine given intravenously resulted in rapid reversal of symptoms. Thorn apple seeds had been accidentally ingested and were identified as the cause. LEARNING POINTS: The clinical presentation of an anticholinergic toxidrome includes both central and peripheral symptoms such as altered consciousness, mydriasis, dry mucous membranes and skin, and tachycardia.Prompt recognition of anticholinergic toxidrome and the administration of physostigmine can lead to rapid reversal of symptoms and improved patient outcomes.Treatment with physostigmine is indicated when a patient with an agitated delirium does not respond adequately to titrated benzodiazepines.

[The assessment of volume status]. / Het beoordelen van de vullingsstatus.

Accurately assessing volume status is crucial, as an incorrect evaluation can lead to inappropriate therapy. Evaluating volume status using medical history and physical examination can be challenging. Medical history and physical examination are readily available, cost-effective, and non-invasive, remaining the initial steps in assessing fluid status. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a valuable adjunct to physical examination. The collapse point of the internal jugular vein, the diameter of the inferior vena cava, and the presence of pulmonary B-lines can be easily and rapidly assessed using POCUS. Combining medical history, physical examination, and POCUS enhances diagnostic certainty in evaluating volume status.

POCUS in dyspnea, nontraumatic hypotension, and shock; a systematic review of existing evidence.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has been adopted as a powerful tool in acute medicine. This systematic review aims to critically appraise the existing literature on point-of-care ultrasound in respiratory or circulatory deterioration. METHODS: Original studies on POCUS and dyspnea, nontraumatic hypotension, and shock from March 2002 until March 2022 were assessed in the PubMed and Embase Databases. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies using an established checklist. RESULTS: We included 89 articles in this review. Point-of-care ultrasound in the initial workup increases the diagnostic accuracy in patients with dyspnea, nontraumatic hypotension and shock in the ED, ICU and medical ward setting. No improvement is found in patients with severe sepsis in the ICU setting. POCUS is capable of narrowing the differential diagnoses and is faster, and more feasible in the acute setting than other diagnostics available. Results on outcome measures are heterogenous. The quality of the included studies is considered low most of the times, mainly because of performance and selection bias and absence of a gold standard as the reference test. CONCLUSION: We conclude that POCUS contributes to a higher diagnostic accuracy in dyspnea, nontraumatic hypotension, and shock. It aides in narrowing the differential diagnoses and shortening the time to correct diagnosis and effective treatment. TRIAL REGISTRY: INPLASY; Registration number: INPLASY202220020; URL: https://inplasy.com/.

Comparing lung ultrasound: extensive versus short in COVID-19 (CLUES): a multicentre, observational study at the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Bedside lung ultrasound (LUS) is an affordable diagnostic tool that could contribute to identifying COVID-19 pneumonia. Different LUS protocols are currently used at the emergency department (ED) and there is a need to know their diagnostic accuracy. DESIGN: A multicentre, prospective, observational study, to compare the diagnostic accuracy of three commonly used LUS protocols in identifying COVID-19 pneumonia at the ED. SETTING/PATIENTS: Adult patients with suspected COVID-19 at the ED, in whom we prospectively performed 12-zone LUS and SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription PCR. MEASUREMENTS: We assessed diagnostic accuracy for three different ultrasound protocols using both PCR and final diagnosis as a reference standard. RESULTS: Between 19 March 2020 and 4 May 2020, 202 patients were included. Sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value compared with PCR for 12-zone LUS were 91.4% (95% CI 84.4 to 96.0), 83.5% (95% CI 74.6 to 90.3) and 90.0% (95% CI 82.7 to 94.4). For 8-zone and 6-zone protocols, these results were 79.7 (95% CI 69.9 to 87.6), 69.0% (95% CI 59.6 to 77.4) and 81.3% (95% CI 73.8 to 87.0) versus 89.9% (95% CI 81.7 to 95.3), 57.5% (95% CI 47.9 to 66.8) and 87.8% (95% CI 79.2 to 93.2). Negative likelihood ratios for 12, 8 and 6 zones were 0.1, 0.3 and 0.2, respectively. Compared with the final diagnosis specificity increased to 83.5% (95% CI 74.6 to 90.3), 78.4% (95% CI 68.8 to 86.1) and 65.0% (95% CI 54.6 to 74.4), respectively, while the negative likelihood ratios were 0.1, 0.2 and 0.16. CONCLUSION: Identifying COVID-19 pneumonia at the ED can be aided by bedside LUS. The more efficient 6-zone protocol is an excellent screening tool, while the 12-zone protocol is more specific and gives a general impression on lung involvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL8497.

[Lung ultrasound in patients with symptoms of covid-19]. / Longechografie bij patiënten met symptomen van covid-19.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic presents a challenge for healthcare worldwide. In this context, rapid, correct diagnosis and early isolation of infected persons is of great importance. Pneumonia as an expression of COVID-19 is responsible for the most part of morbidity and mortality. Lung ultrasound can provide valuable information about the diagnosis of a COVID-19 pneumonia in daily practice. A normal ultrasound excludes COVID-19 pneumonia. Conversely, finding abnormalities matching with a COVID-19 pneumonia can be useful for isolation policy. Follow up lung ultrasound visualizes the development of the pneumonia and a possible alternative diagnosis can thereby be determined in the event of a deviating clinical course.

Assessing COVID-19 pneumonia-Clinical extension and risk with point-of-care ultrasound: A multicenter, prospective, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Assessing the extent of lung involvement is important for the triage and care of COVID-19 pneumonia. We sought to determine the utility of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) for characterizing lung involvement and, thereby, clinical risk determination in COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, observational study included patients with COVID-19 who received 12-zone lung ultrasound and chest computed tomography (CT) scanning in the emergency department (ED). We defined lung disease severity using the lung ultrasound score (LUS) and chest CT severity score (CTSS). We assessed the association between the LUS and poor outcome (ICU admission or 30-day all-cause mortality). We also assessed the association between the LUS and hospital length of stay. We examined the ability of the LUS to differentiate between disease severity groups. Lastly, we estimated the correlation between the LUS and CTSS and the interrater agreement for the LUS. We handled missing data by multiple imputation with chained equations and predictive mean matching. RESULTS: We included 114 patients treated between March 19, 2020, and May 4, 2020. An LUS ≥12 was associated with a poor outcome within 30 days (hazard ratio [HR], 5.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-24.80; P = 0.02). Admission duration was shorter in patients with an LUS <12 (adjusted HR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.47-3.40; P < 0.001). Mean LUS differed between disease severity groups: no admission, 6.3 (standard deviation [SD], 4.4); hospital/ward, 13.1 (SD, 6.4); and ICU, 18.0 (SD, 5.0). The LUS was able to discriminate between ED discharge and hospital admission excellently, with an area under the curve of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.75-0.91). Interrater agreement for the LUS was strong: κ = 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77-0.95). Correlation between the LUS and CTSS was strong: κ = 0.60 (95% CI, 0.48-0.71). CONCLUSIONS: We showed that baseline lung ultrasound - is associated with poor outcomes, admission duration, and disease severity. The LUS also correlates well with CTSS. Point-of-care lung ultrasound may aid the risk stratification and triage of patients with COVID-19 at the ED.

Diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia in a pandemic setting: Lung Ultrasound versus CT (LUVCT) - a multicentre, prospective, observational study.

BACKGROUND: In this coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, fast and accurate testing is needed to profile patients at the emergency department (ED) and efficiently allocate resources. Chest imaging has been considered in COVID-19 workup, but evidence on lung ultrasound (LUS) is sparse. We therefore aimed to assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy of LUS and computed tomography (CT) in suspected COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This multicentre, prospective, observational study included adult patients with suspected COVID-19 referred to internal medicine at the ED. We calculated diagnostic accuracy measures for LUS and CT using both PCR and multidisciplinary team (MDT) diagnosis as reference. We also assessed agreement between LUS and CT, and between sonographers. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-seven patients were recruited between March 19 and May 4, 2020. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) was 0.81 (95% CI 0.75-0.88) for LUS and 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.94) for CT. Sensitivity and specificity for LUS were 91.9% (95% CI 84.0-96.7) and 71.0% (95% CI 61.1-79.6), respectively, versus 88.4% (95% CI 79.7-94.3) and 82.0% (95% CI 73.1-89.0) for CT. Negative likelihood ratio was 0.1 (95% CI 0.06-0.24) for LUS and 0.14 (95% CI 0.08-0.3) for CT. No patient with a false negative LUS required supplemental oxygen or admission. LUS specificity increased to 80% (95% CI 69.9-87.9) compared to MDT diagnosis, with an AUROC of 0.85 (95% CI 0.79-0.91). Agreement between LUS and CT was 0.65. Interobserver agreement for LUS was good: 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.93). CONCLUSION: LUS and CT have comparable diagnostic accuracy for COVID-19 pneumonia. LUS can safely exclude clinically relevant COVID-19 pneumonia and may aid COVID-19 diagnosis in high prevalence situations.

[A gynaecological cause of upper abdominal pain: Fitz-Hugh-Curtis syndrome]. / Een gynaecologische oorzaak van bovenbuikpijn: Het Fitz-Hugh-Curtis-syndroom.

A 19-year-old woman was admitted to our hospital because of unexplained pain in the right upper abdomen and fever. Her medical history noted a recent uncomplicated pregnancy and birth of a healthy child. Our differential diagnosis included pyelonephritis, pulmonary embolism, pneumonia causing pleural pain, a gastrointestinal cause, or a subphrenic abscess. A vaginal culture was taken as part of a second opinion by a gynaecologist. However, after a few days PCR on the vaginal sample was positive for Chlamydia trachomatis, indicating a case of Fitz-Hugh-Curtis syndrome. This syndrome is a complication of pelvic inflammatory disease caused by a bacterial infection, most frequently Gonococcal or Chlamydia species. The patient was treated with doxycycline and recovered quickly. As a result of ignoring a possible gynaecological cause in this patient, the time to diagnosis and treatment was delayed. Left untreated, this disease might result in infertility and in complications in the newborn. A broad differential diagnosis is therefore important.