Inferior vena cava diameter change after intravenous furosemide in patients diagnosed with acute decompensated heart failure.

PURPOSE: Measurement of the inferior vena cava (IVC) diameters may improve decision-making for patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure. Nevertheless, little is known about how the IVC is affected by loop diuretics. We sought to determine if bolus infusions of intravenous furosemide affect IVC diameters measured by hand-carried ultrasonography. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study at a public teaching hospital from September 2009 through June 2010. Physician investigators performed IVC ultrasonography on a convenience sample of 70 hospitalized adults who were prescribed intravenous furosemide for the diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure. RESULTS: Participants' median baseline IVC diameter was 2.38 cm (interquartile range, 1.91-2.55 cm). At 1-2 hours after furosemide, IVC diameters decreased an average of 0.21 cm (95% CI, 0.13-0.29 cm) and remained significantly below baseline at 2-3 hours after furosemide by an average of 0.15 cm (95% CI, 0.07-0.22 cm). CONCLUSIONS: IVC diameters of adults diagnosed with acute decompensated heart failure become measurably smaller after single doses of intravenous furosemide. Whether this represents a true change in volume status has not been studied.

Is exercise used as medicine? Association of meeting strength training guidelines and functional limitations among older US adults.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between meeting strength training guidelines (≥2 times per week) and the presence of functional limitations among older adults. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used data from older adult participants (N=6763) of the National Health Interview Survey conducted in 2011 in the United States. RESULTS: Overall, 16.1% of older adults reported meeting strength training guidelines. For each of nine functional limitations, those with the limitation were less likely to meet strength training recommendations than those without the limitation. For example, 20.0% of those who reported no difficulty walking one-quarter mile met strength training guidelines, versus only 10.1% of those who reported difficulty (p<.001). In sum, 21.7% of those with no limitations (33.7% of sample) met strength training guidelines, versus only 15.9% of those reporting 1-4 limitations (38.5% of sample) and 9.8% of those reporting 5-9 limitations (27.8% of sample) (p<.001). CONCLUSION: Strength training is uncommon among older adults and even less common among those who need it the most. The potential for strength training to improve the public's health is therefore substantial, as those who have the most to gain from strength training participate the least.

Comparison of 6 handheld ultrasound devices by point-of-care ultrasound experts: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has emerged as an essential bedside tool for clinicians, but lack of access to ultrasound equipment has been a top barrier to POCUS use. Recently, several handheld ultrasound devices ("handhelds") have become available, and clinicians are seeking data to guide purchasing decisions. Few comparative studies of different handhelds have been done. We conducted a cross-sectional study comparing 6 handhelds readily available in the United States (Butterfly iQ + ™ by Butterfly Network Inc.; Clarius™ by Clarius Mobile Health; Kosmos™ by EchoNous; TE Air™ by Mindray; Vscan Air™ SL and CL by General Electric; and Lumify™ by Philips Healthcare). A multi-specialty group of physician POCUS experts (n = 35) acquired three standard ultrasound views (abdominal right upper quadrant, cardiac apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung views) in random order on the same standardized patients and rated the image quality. Afterward, a final survey of the overall ease of use, image quality, and satisfaction of each handheld was completed. RESULTS: Thirty-five POCUS experts specializing in internal medicine/hospital medicine, critical care, emergency medicine, and nephrology acquired and rated right upper quadrant, apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung views with 6 different handhelds. For image quality, the highest-rated handhelds were Vscan Air™ for the right upper quadrant view, Mindray TE Air™ for the cardiac apical 4-chamber view, and Lumify™ for superficial views of the neck and lung. Overall satisfaction with image quality was highest with Vscan Air™, Lumify™, and Mindray, while overall satisfaction with ease of use was highest with Vscan Air™. The 5 most desirable characteristics of handhelds were image quality, ease of use, portability, probe size, and battery life. Ultimately, all 6 handhelds had notable advantages and disadvantages, with no single device having all desired qualities or features. CONCLUSIONS: The overall satisfaction with image quality was rated highest with Vscan Air™, Lumify™, and Mindray TE Air™when acquiring right upper quadrant, apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung views. No single handheld was perceived to be superior in image quality for all views. Vscan Air™ was rated highest for overall ease of use and was the most preferred handheld for purchase by POCUS experts.

Comparison of four handheld point-of-care ultrasound devices by expert users.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is rapidly becoming ubiquitous across healthcare specialties. This is due to several factors including its portability, immediacy of results to guide clinical decision-making, and lack of radiation exposure to patients. The recent growth of handheld ultrasound devices has improved access to ultrasound for many clinicians. Few studies have directly compared different handheld ultrasound devices among themselves or to cart-based ultrasound machines. We conducted a prospective observational study comparing four common handheld ultrasound devices for ease of use, image quality, and overall satisfaction. Twenty-four POCUS experts utilized four handheld devices (Butterfly iQ+™ by Butterfly Network Inc., Kosmos™ by EchoNous, Vscan Air™ by General Electric, and Lumify™ by Philips Healthcare) to obtain three ultrasound views on the same standardized patients using high- and low-frequency probes. RESULTS: Data were collected from 24 POCUS experts using all 4 handheld devices. No single ultrasound device was superior in all categories. For overall ease of use, the Vscan Air™ was rated highest, followed by the Lumify™. For overall image quality, Lumify™ was rated highest, followed by Kosmos™. The Lumify™ device was rated highest for overall satisfaction, while the Vscan Air™ was rated as the most likely to be purchased personally and carried in one's coat pocket. The top 5 characteristics of handheld ultrasound devices rated as being "very important" were image quality, ease of use, portability, total costs, and availability of different probes. CONCLUSIONS: In a comparison of four common handheld ultrasound devices in the United States, no single handheld ultrasound device was perceived to have all desired characteristics. POCUS experts rated the Lumify™ highest for image quality and Vscan Air™ highest for ease of use. Overall satisfaction was highest with the Lumify™ device, while the most likely to be purchased as a pocket device was the Vscan Air™. Image quality was felt to be the most important characteristic in evaluating handheld ultrasound devices.

Recommendations on the Use of Ultrasound Guidance for Central and Peripheral Vascular Access in Adults: A Position Statement of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

PREPROCEDURE: 1)We recommend that providers should be familiar with the operation of their specific ultrasound machine prior to initiation of a vascular access procedure. 2)We recommend that providers should use a high-frequency linear transducer with a sterile sheath and sterile gel to perform vascular access procedures. 3)We recommend that providers should use two-dimensional ultrasound to evaluate for anatomical variations and absence of vascular thrombosis during preprocedural site selection. 4)We recommend that providers should evaluate the target blood vessel size and depth during preprocedural ultrasound evaluation. TECHNIQUES: General Techniques 5) We recommend that providers should avoid using static ultrasound alone to mark the needle insertion site for vascular access procedures. 6)We recommend that providers should use real-time (dynamic), two-dimensional ultrasound guidance with a high-frequency linear transducer for central venous catheter (CVC) insertion, regardless of the provider's level of experience. 7)We suggest using either a transverse (short-axis) or longitudinal (long-axis) approach when performing real-time ultrasound-guided vascular access procedures. 8)We recommend that providers should visualize the needle tip and guidewire in the target vein prior to vessel dilatation. 9)To increase the success rate of ultrasound-guided vascular access procedures, we recommend that providers should utilize echogenic needles, plastic needle guides, and/or ultrasound beam steering when available. Central Venous Access Techniques 10) We recommend that providers should use a standardized procedure checklist that includes the use of real-time ultrasound guidance to reduce the risk of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) from CVC insertion. 11)We recommend that providers should use real-time ultrasound guidance, combined with aseptic technique and maximal sterile barrier precautions, to reduce the incidence of infectious complications from CVC insertion. 12)We recommend that providers should use real-time ultrasound guidance for internal jugular vein catheterization, which reduces the risk of mechanical and infectious complications, the number of needle passes, and time to cannulation and increases overall procedure success rates. 13)We recommend that providers who routinely insert subclavian vein CVCs should use real-time ultrasound guidance, which has been shown to reduce the risk of mechanical complications and number of needle passes and increase overall procedure success rates compared with landmark-based techniques. 14)We recommend that providers should use real-time ultrasound guidance for femoral venous access, which has been shown to reduce the risk of arterial punctures and total procedure time and increase overall procedure success rates. Peripheral Venous Access Techniques 15) We recommend that providers should use real-time ultrasound guidance for the insertion of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), which is associated with higher procedure success rates and may be more cost effective compared with landmark-based techniques. 16)We recommend that providers should use real-time ultrasound guidance for the placement of peripheral intravenous lines (PIV) in patients with difficult peripheral venous access to reduce the total procedure time, needle insertion attempts, and needle redirections. Ultrasound-guided PIV insertion is also an effective alternative to CVC insertion in patients with difficult venous access. 17)We suggest using real-time ultrasound guidance to reduce the risk of vascular, infectious, and neurological complications during PIV insertion, particularly in patients with difficult venous access. Arterial Access Techniques 18)We recommend that providers should use real-time ultrasound guidance for arterial access, which has been shown to increase first-pass success rates, reduce the time to cannulation, and reduce the risk of hematoma development compared with landmark-based techniques. 19)We recommend that providers should use real-time ultrasound guidance for femoral arterial access, which has been shown to increase first-pass success rates and reduce the risk of vascular complications. 20)We recommend that providers should use real-time ultrasound guidance for radial arterial access, which has been shown to increase first-pass success rates, reduce the time to successful cannulation, and reduce the risk of complications compared with landmark-based techniques. POSTPROCEDURE: 21) We recommend that post-procedure pneumothorax should be ruled out by the detection of bilateral lung sliding using a high-frequency linear transducer before and after insertion of internal jugular and subclavian vein CVCs. 22)We recommend that providers should use ultrasound with rapid infusion of agitated saline to visualize a right atrial swirl sign (RASS) for detecting catheter tip misplacement during CVC insertion. The use of RASS to detect the catheter tip may be considered an advanced skill that requires specific training and expertise. TRAINING: 23) To reduce the risk of mechanical and infectious complications, we recommend that novice providers should complete a systematic training program that includes a combination of simulation-based practice, supervised insertion on patients, and evaluation by an expert operator before attempting ultrasound-guided CVC insertion independently on patients. 24)We recommend that cognitive training in ultrasound-guided CVC insertion should include basic anatomy, ultrasound physics, ultrasound machine knobology, fundamentals of image acquisition and interpretation, detection and management of procedural complications, infection prevention strategies, and pathways to attain competency. 25)We recommend that trainees should demonstrate minimal competence before placing ultrasound-guided CVCs independently. A minimum number of CVC insertions may inform this determination, but a proctored assessment of competence is most important. 26)We recommend that didactic and hands-on training for trainees should coincide with anticipated times of increased performance of vascular access procedures. Refresher training sessions should be offered periodically. 27)We recommend that competency assessments should include formal evaluation of knowledge and technical skills using standardized assessment tools. 28)We recommend that competency assessments should evaluate for proficiency in the following knowledge and skills of CVC insertion: (a) Knowledge of the target vein anatomy, proper vessel identification, and recognition of anatomical variants; (b) Demonstration of CVC insertion with no technical errors based on a procedural checklist; (c) Recognition and management of acute complications, including emergency management of life-threatening complications; (d) Real-time needle tip tracking with ultrasound and cannulation on the first attempt in at least five consecutive simulation. 29)We recommend a periodic proficiency assessment of all operators should be conducted to ensure maintenance of competency.

Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Hospitalists: A Position Statement of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Many hospitalists incorporate point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) into their daily practice to answer specific diagnostic questions or to guide performance of invasive bedside procedures. However, standards for hospitalists in POCUS training and assessment are not yet established. Most internal medicine residency training programs, the major pipeline for incoming hospitalists, have only recently begun to incorporate POCUS in their curricula. The purpose of this document is to inform a broad audience on what POCUS is and how hospitalists are using it. This document is intended to provide guidance for the hospitalists who use POCUS and administrators who oversee its use. We discuss POCUS 1) applications, 2) training, 3) assessments, and 4) program management. Practicing hospitalists must continue to collaborate with their local credentialing bodies to outline requirements for POCUS use. Hospitalists should be integrally involved in decision-making processes surrounding POCUS program management.

Hand-carried echocardiography by hospitalists: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalists can use hand-carried echocardiography for accurate point-of-care information, but patient outcome data for its application are sparse. METHODS: We performed an unblinded, parallel-group randomized trial between July 2008 and March 2009 at one teaching hospital in Chicago, Illinois. We randomly assigned adult general medicine inpatients referred for standard echocardiography with indications investigatable by hand-carried echocardiography to care guided by hand-carried echocardiography or usual care. The main outcome measure was length of stay on the referring hospitalist's service. Secondary outcomes included a before-after analysis of reported changes in management due to hand-carried echocardiography and the diagnostic accuracy of hand-carried echocardiography. RESULTS: The difference in length of stay between 226 participants randomized to care guided by hand-carried echocardiography (geometric mean 46.1 hours, interquartile range 29.0-70.9 hours) and 227 participants randomized to usual care (46.9 hours, interquartile range 34.1-68.3 hours) corresponded to a 1.7% reduction in length of stay that was not statistically significant (95% confidence interval, -12.1 to 9.8%). In post hoc subgroup analyses, care guided by hand-carried echocardiography reduced length of stay in participants who were referred for heart failure (P=.0008). Among participants who underwent both hand-carried and standard echocardiography, hospitalists changed management due to hand-carried echocardiography in 37%. Despite the favorable diagnostic accuracy of hand-carried echocardiography, most changes to the timing of hospital discharge occurred after standard echocardiography. CONCLUSION: Hospitalist care guided by hand-carried echocardiography for unselected general medicine patients does not meaningfully affect length of stay. Whether or not it affects care quality remains unstudied.

Diagnostic accuracy of hospitalist-performed hand-carried ultrasound echocardiography after a brief training program.

BACKGROUND: The duration of training needed for hospitalists to accurately perform hand-carried ultrasound echocardiography (HCUE) is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of HCUE performed by hospitalists after a 27-hour training program. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Large public teaching hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 322 inpatients referred for standard echocardiography (SE) between March and May 2007. INTERVENTION: Blinded to SE results, attending hospitalist physicians performed HCUE within hours of SE. MEASUREMENTS: Diagnostic characteristics of HCUE as a test for 6 cardiac abnormalities assessed by SE: left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction; severe mitral regurgitation (MR); moderate or severe left atrium (LA) enlargement; moderate or severe LV hypertrophy; medium or large pericardial effusion; and dilatation of the inferior vena cava (IVC). RESULTS: A total of 314 patients underwent both SE and HCUE within a median time of 2.8 hours (25th to 75th percentiles, 1.4 to 5.1 hours). Positive and negative likelihood ratios for HCUE increased and decreased, respectively, the prior odds by 5-fold or more for LV systolic dysfunction, severe MR regurgitation, and moderate or large pericardial effusion. Likelihood ratios changed the prior odds by 2-fold or more for moderate or severe LA enlargement, moderate or severe LV hypertrophy, and IVC dilatation. Indeterminate HCUE results occurred in 2% to 6% of assessments. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of HCUE performed by hospitalists after a brief training program was moderate to excellent for 6 important cardiac abnormalities.