EFSUMB Clinical Practice Guidelines for Point-of-Care Ultrasound: Part One (Common Heart and Pulmonary Applications) SHORT VERSION.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence and produce a summary and recommendations for the most common heart and lung point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS). METHODS: We reviewed 10 clinical domains/questions related to common heart and lung applications of PoCUS. Following review of the evidence, a summary and recommendations were produced, including assigning levels of evidence (LoE) and grading of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE). 38 international experts, the expert review group (ERG), were invited to review the evidence presented for each question. A level of agreement of over 75 % was required to progress to the next section. The ERG then reviewed and indicated their level of agreement of the summary and recommendation for each question (using a 5-point Likert scale), which was approved in the case of a level of agreement of greater than 75 %. A level of agreement was defined as a summary of "strongly agree" and "agree" on the Likert scale responses. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: One question achieved a strong consensus for an assigned LoE of 3 and a weak GRADE recommendation (question 1), the remaining 9 questions achieved broad agreement with an assigned LoE of 4 and a weak GRADE recommendation (question 2), three achieved an LoE of 3 with a weak GRADE recommendation (questions 3-5), three achieved an LoE of 3 with a strong GRADE recommendation (questions 6-8) and the remaining two were assigned an LoE of 2 with a strong GRADE recommendation (questions 9 and 10). CONCLUSION: These consensus-derived recommendations should aid clinical practice and highlight areas of further research for PoCUS in acute settings.

EFSUMB Clinical Practice Guidelines for Point-of-Care Ultrasound: Part One (Common Heart and Pulmonary Applications) LONG VERSION.

AIMS: To evaluate the evidence and produce a summary and recommendations for the most common heart and lung applications of point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS). METHODS: We reviewed 10 clinical domains/questions related to common heart and lung applications of PoCUS. Following review of the evidence, a summary and recommendation were produced, including assignment of levels of evidence (LoE) and grading of the recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE). 38 international experts, the expert review group (ERG), were invited to review the evidence presented for each question. A level of agreement of over 75 % was required to progress to the next section. The ERG then reviewed and indicated their level of agreement regarding the summary and recommendation for each question (using a 5-point Likert scale), which was approved if a level of agreement of greater than 75 % was reached. A level of agreement was defined as a summary of "strongly agree" and "agree" on the Likert scale responses. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: One question achieved a strong consensus for an assigned LoE of 3 and a weak GRADE recommendation (question 1). The remaining 9 questions achieved broad agreement with one assigned an LoE of 4 and weak GRADE recommendation (question 2), three achieving an LoE of 3 with a weak GRADE recommendation (questions 3-5), three achieved an LoE of 3 with a strong GRADE recommendation (questions 6-8), and the remaining two were assigned an LoE of 2 with a strong GRADE recommendation (questions 9 and 10). CONCLUSION: These consensus-derived recommendations should aid clinical practice and highlight areas of further research for PoCUS in acute settings.

Double Bolus Thrombolysis for Suspected Massive Pulmonary Embolism during Cardiac Arrest.

More than 70% of cardiac arrest cases are caused by acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or pulmonary embolism (PE). Although thrombolytic therapy is a recognised therapy for both AMI and PE, its indiscriminate use is not routinely recommended during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). We present a case describing the successful use of double dose thrombolysis during cardiac arrest caused by pulmonary embolism. Notwithstanding the relative lack of high-level evidence, this case suggests a scenario in which recombinant tissue Plasminogen Activator (rtPA) may be beneficial in cardiac arrest. In addition to the strong clinical suspicion of pulmonary embolism as the causative agent of the patient's cardiac arrest, the extremely low end-tidal CO2 suggested a massive PE. The absence of dilatation of the right heart on subxiphoid ultrasound argued against the diagnosis of PE, but not conclusively so. In the context of the circulatory collapse induced by cardiac arrest, this aspect was relegated in terms of importance. The second dose of rtPA utilised in this case resulted in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and did not result in haemorrhage or an adverse effect.

Vitamin E: patterns of understanding, use, and prescription by health professionals and students at a university teaching hospital.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin E is a generic term used to describe the many derivatives of tocol and tocotrienol. It is the major lipid-soluble antioxidant in the skin and has been used as treatment for many skin conditions, including scarring. Studies have shown that vitamin E provides no benefit to the cosmetic outcome of scars. METHODS: The authors constructed and distributed a questionnaire among staff and students at their institution. Their aim was to determine patterns of use and prescription of vitamin E among staff and students and to determine the understanding of the properties and biological functions of vitamin E. RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by 208 staff and students, including 110 nonconsultant hospital doctors (52.89 percent), 61 nurses (29.33 percent), and 27 medical students (12.98 percent). Nearly 68 percent thought that vitamin E could be of use in improving the cosmetic appearance of scars, while 25 percent actually recommended vitamin E to patients to improve the cosmetic outcome of scars. Just under 40 percent were aware of the biological function of vitamin E, while 16.35 percent thought vitamin E had absolutely no effect on scarring. Of respondents, 21.64 percent had used vitamin E for their own scars; 31.11 percent of these said it was suggested by a doctor, while 6.67 percent said a pharmacist suggested it. CONCLUSIONS: Without scientific basis, health professionals continue to recommend vitamin E for use on scars. Such recommendations should not be made in the absence of evidence-based medicine.