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.

Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care lung ultrasound for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care (POC) lung ultrasound (LUS) is widely used in the emergency setting and there is an established evidence base across a range of respiratory diseases, including previous viral epidemics. The necessity for rapid testing combined with the limitations of other diagnostic tests has led to the proposal of various potential roles for LUS during the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review and meta-analysis focused specifically on the diagnostic accuracy of LUS in adult patients presenting with suspected COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Traditional and grey-literature searches were performed on 1 June 2021. Two authors independently carried out the searches, selected studies and completed the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). Meta-analysis was carried out using established open-source packages in R. We report overall sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve for LUS. Heterogeneity was determined using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included, published between October 2020 and April 2021, providing data from a total of 4314 patients. The prevalence and admission rates were generally high across all studies. Overall, LUS was found to be 87.2% sensitive (95% CI 83.6 to 90.2) and 69.5% specific (95% CI 62.2 to 72.5) and demonstrated overall positive and negative likelihood ratios of 3.0 (95% CI 2.3 to 4.1) and 0.16 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.22), respectively. Separate analyses for each reference standard revealed similar sensitivities and specificities for LUS. Heterogeneity was found to be high across the studies. Overall, the quality of studies was low with a high risk of selection bias due to convenience sampling. There were also applicability concerns because all studies were undertaken during a period of high prevalence. CONCLUSION: During a period of high prevalence, LUS had a sensitivity of 87% for the diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. However, more research is required to confirm these results in more generalisable populations, including those less likely to be admitted to hospital. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021250464.

Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) for shoulder dislocations and reductions in the emergency department: a diagnostic randomised control trial (RCT).

BACKGROUND: Following blunt trauma, diagnosis of shoulder dislocation based on physical examination alone is difficult due to possible concurrent proximal humeral fractures. X-rays are therefore used to confirm diagnosis. Results from recent observational studies comparing diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) with X-rays for shoulder dislocation have been encouraging. The aim of this study was to determine whether PoCUS improves diagnostic accuracy when used with physical examination for the diagnosis of shoulder dislocation, proximal humeral fracture and ascertaining successful reduction in the ED. METHODS: A prospective, single-centre, open, parallel randomised control study over a 6-month period was used to answer the research question and test the null hypothesis. Consecutive eligible adult patients attending the ED of Mater Dei Hospital in Malta were randomised to either the control (C) (physical examination only) or experimental group (E) (physical examination and a two-point PoCUS scan). The study objectives were to measure diagnostic accuracy for both examinations for detecting shoulder dislocation, any associated proximal humeral fractures and confirming reduction. X-rays were used as reference standard for both groups. RESULTS: 1206 patients were enrolled in this study (C n=600, E n=606). 290 dislocations (C n=132 and E n=158), 332 proximal humeral fractures (C n=154 and E n=178) and 278 reductions (C n=130 and E n=148) were analysed. A statistically significant difference (p<0.001) was found between the two groups for diagnostic accuracy in shoulder dislocation (C=65%, likelihood ratio (LR)+=2.03 and LR-=0.35 and E=100%, LR+=∞ and LR-=0), proximal humeral fractures (C=45.7%, LR+=1.23 and LR-=0.52 and E=98.3%, LR+=103.9 and LR-=0.03) and reduction (C=68.7%, E=100%). The null hypothesis for this study was thus rejected. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of PoCUS to a physical examination significantly improves diagnostic accuracy for dislocations, proximal humeral fractures and reduction confirmation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number Registry (ISRCTN17048126).

Normology: Is it Time to Rethink Point-of-Care Ultrasound Training?

Point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) is increasingly being adopted by clinicians to augment their clinical examination and aid procedures. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines now support many aspects of PoCUS practice. As a result, more and more medical schools are integrating PoCUS into their curricula, creating a significant demand for training resources. All training must ensure that trainees have the appropriate knowledge, skills and behaviour to enable the clinical integration of PoCUS. The transition from supervised to unsupervised practice is an important step in PoCUS, but should not be confused with expertise. At the start of clinical practice, confirming that something is not normal is probably enough, and trainees can subsequently improve their PoCUS diagnostic accuracy at the bedside during clinical rotations. Our hypothesis is that competency can be achieved without the need to scan patients suspected or suffering from the target pathology. This would enable most of the training to be carried out outside the clinical environment, using volunteers in planned sessions. These planned sessions will be able to accommodate a larger number of trainees and may facilitate collaboration between specialties. When patients are scanned in the clinical environment, trainees should have acquired a good level of competence beforehand. In summary, normology principles could help PoCUS trainees, at the start of their training, to acquire the knowledge, skills and behaviour necessary to achieve a level of competency allowing them to proceed to unsupervised practice. Initially confirming whether something is normal or not is enough. Nevertheless, further research should be conducted to support this concept, and its impact on PoCUS teaching in clinical practice.

Bedside-focused transthoracic echocardiography in acute atraumatic thoracic aortic syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.

The objective of this review is to assess the diagnostic accuracy of bedside-focused transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in acute atraumatic thoracic aortic syndrome in adults. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of publications that described the use of bedside-focused TTE on adults presenting to the emergency care setting with suspected atraumatic thoracic aortic syndrome. Studies were identified using keyword and Medical Subject Heading searches on databases and grey literature, followed by abstract screening and study selection by two independent reviewers. Sixteen studies over six decades were included in the meta-analysis (n = 4569 patients). The prevalence of Type A thoracic aortic dissection was 11% (range 1.4-45.7%) and Type B dissection was 7% (range 1.8-30.55%). Type A dissection through direct visualisation of an intimal flap on TTE (i.e. direct sign) pooled sensitivity and specificity were 89% [95% confidence interval (CI), 82-94%] and 92% (95% CI, 88-95%) respectively. For Type B dissection, the pooled sensitivity was 65% (95% CI, 45-80%) and specificity was 100% (95% CI, 0.69-100%). TTE indirect signs for dissection showed a pooled sensitivity of 64% (95% CI, 5.2-98.2%) and specificity of 94% (95% CI, 92-96.1%) for aortic valve regurgitation, a pooled sensitivity of 92% (95% CI 54-99.2%) and specificity of 87% (95% CI, 62-97%) for thoracic aortic aneurysm and a pooled sensitivity of 39% (95% CI 33.8-45%) and a specificity of 94% (95% CI, 92-95%) for pericardial effusion. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, bedside-focused TTE has a good specificity for Type A and B dissection, but poor sensitivity for Type B, and unclear for intramural haematoma and penetrating aortic ulcer.

Can absence of cardiac activity on point-of-care echocardiography predict death in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the accuracy of the absence of cardiac motion on point-of-care echocardiography (PCE) in predicting termination of resuscitation (TOR), short-term death (STD), and long-term death (LTD), in adult patients with cardiac arrest of all etiologies in out-of-hospital and emergency department setting. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted based on PRISMA guidelines. A literature search in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, WHO registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed from inspection to August 2022. Risk of bias was evaluated using QUADAS-2 tool. Meta-analysis was divided into medical cardiac arrest (MCA) and traumatic cardiac arrest (TCA). Sensitivity and specificity were calculated using bivariate random-effects, and heterogeneity was analyzed using I2 statistic. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies (3657 patients) were included in systematic review. There was a substantial variation in methodologies across the studies, with notable difference in inclusion criteria, PCE timing, and cardiac activity definition. In MCA (15 studies, 2239 patients), the absence of cardiac activity on PCE had a sensitivity of 72% [95% CI 62-80%] and specificity of 80% [95% CI 58-92%] to predict LTD. Although the low numbers of studies in TCA preluded meta-analysis, all patients who lacked cardiac activity on PCE eventually died. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of cardiac motion on PCE for MCA predicts higher likelihood of death but does not have sufficient accuracy to be used as a stand-alone tool to terminate resuscitation. In TCA, the absence of cardiac activity is associated with 100% mortality rate, but low number of patients requires further studies to validate this finding. Future work would benefit from a standardized protocol for PCE timing and agreement on cardiac activity definition.