Aortic dissection: How to identify it during an abdominal ultrasound examination and achieve a potentially lifesaving diagnosis.

Aortic dissection (AD) is a rare and potentially fatal condition that may be diagnosed late. During an emergency or elective abdominal ultrasound (US) examination, when going to evaluate the abdominal aorta for other reasons, it may happen that we find ourselves suspecting an AD. It is therefore important to know the US characteristics of this pathology to avoid wrong or missed diagnoses. Here, we present our practical experience regarding the application of US in the study of the abdominal aorta, which allowed us on several occasions to find an unexpected dissection in patients brought to our attention for other reasons.

Utility of Point-of-Care Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Emergency physicians are frequently required to identify and triage patients with increased intracranial pressure (ICP). Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) is a possible cause that must be considered. Its prognosis depends on prompt recognition and treatment, and progression of the disease can lead to permanent vision loss and considerable morbidity. Point-of-care ultrasound can rapidly identify elevated ICP. Measurements of the optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) and optic disc elevation (ODE) can act as surrogates for ICP. CASE SERIES: We describe five cases in which ultrasound was used to identify increased ICP and aid clinical decision-making. In several of the cases, ultrasound was used to confirm a suspicion for IIH and initiate therapy while awaiting the results of a more time-consuming and technically challenging test, such as lumbar puncture or optical coherence tomography. One of the patients was pregnant, and sonographic evidence of elevated ICP helped avoid exposing the patient to unnecessary radiation. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Ultrasound is a quick and versatile tool for screening patients with neurologic symptoms, and when integrated into the proper clinical context, can reduce the use of more invasive tests. It can be particularly useful in patients with pathology that may not show abnormalities on computed tomography scan or in whom lumbar puncture is technically difficult, making patients at risk for IIH well-suited to examination by ultrasound. We use a cutoff of 5 mm for ONSD and 0.6 mm for ODE, though there are no universally agreed on cutoff values.

Point-of-Care Ultrasound Diagnosis of Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy: A Case Series.

BACKGROUND: A cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is a clinically important form of ectopic pregnancy that carries a high risk of maternal morbidity and mortality. As the rate of cesarean sections has risen, this diagnosis is becoming an increasingly important consideration for providers caring for patients in early pregnancy. CASE REPORT: We present three cases of CSPs in which point-of-care ultrasound expedited the diagnosis and treatment in the emergency department. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Given the risks of an undiagnosed CSP, the increasing incidence of CSP, and the number of effective treatment options available in early gestation, the prompt and accurate diagnosis of CSP remains crucial to its successful management. As such, it is an important diagnosis for the emergency physician to consider when evaluating a patient in early pregnancy.

Lung Ultrasound vs. Chest X-Ray Study for the Radiographic Diagnosis of COVID-19 Pneumonia in a High-Prevalence Population.

BACKGROUND: The viral illness severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), more commonly known as Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), has become a global pandemic, infecting over 100 million individuals worldwide. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the test characteristics of point-of-care lung ultrasound (LUS) with chest x-ray study (CXR) at radiographically detecting COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This was a single-center, prospective, observational study at an urban university hospital with > 105,000 patient visits annually. Patients ≥ 18 years old, who presented to the Emergency Department with predefined signs and symptoms of COVID-19, were eligible for enrollment. Each patient received an LUS using a portable, handheld ultrasound followed by a single-view, portable anteroposterior CXR. Patients with an abnormal LUS or CXR underwent a non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography scan (NCCT). The primary outcome was the radiographic diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia on NCCT. RESULTS: One hundred ten patients underwent LUS, CXR, and NCCT; 99 LUS and 73 CXRs were interpreted as positive; 81 NCCTs were interpreted as positive, providing a prevalence of COVID-19 pneumonia of 75% (95% confidence interval [CI] 66-83.2) in our study population. LUS sensitivity was 97.6% (95% CI 91.6-99.7) vs. 69.9% (95% CI 58.8-79.5) for CXR. LUS specificity was 33.3% (95% CI 16.5-54) vs. 44.4% (95% CI 25.5-64.7) for CXR. LUS positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 81.8% (95% CI 72.8-88.9) and 81.8% (95% CI 48.2-97.7), respectively, vs. 79.5% (95% CI 68.4-88), and 32.4% (95% CI 18-49.8), respectively, for CXR. CONCLUSION: LUS was more sensitive than CXR at radiographically identifying COVID-19 pneumonia.

Point-of-care ultrasound diagnosis of pediatric intussusception: a case series.

Intussusception is an intestinal emergency caused by the telescoping of proximal bowel into an adjacent distal bowel segment. Nearly 50% of cases are missed on initial presentation leading to an increased risk of intestinal obstruction, ischemia, and perforation. The authors present two cases of pediatric intussusception whereby point-of-care ultrasound expedited the diagnosis and treatment in a non-pediatric dedicated emergency department. Given the risks of an undiagnosed intussusception and its nonspecific presentations, a prompt and precise diagnosis remains crucial to its successful management. The ubiquity and accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound make it an ideal adjunct for the diagnosis of intussusception.

Evidence-Based Medicine Improves the Emergent Management of Peritonsillar Abscesses Using Point-of-Care Ultrasound.

BACKGROUND: Physical examination for peritonsillar abscess (PTA) has limited sensitivity. Traditional management involves blind needle aspiration, which has a false negative rate of 10-24%. A randomized controlled trial by Costantino et al. demonstrated that point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) improves PTA management. OBJECTIVES: Compare the use and impact of POCUS between patient cohorts prior to and after the trial by Costantino et al. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of adult patients diagnosed with PTA. Cohort 1 presented to the emergency department (ED) January 2007-December 2008. Cohort 2 presented between January 2013 and December 2014. Data were separated into those with POCUS vs. without ultrasound (NUS). Primary endpoint was POCUS utilization. Secondary endpoints were successful aspiration, otolaryngology (ear, nose, and throat [ENT]) consultation, computed tomography (CT) imaging, unscheduled return visits, and length of stay (LOS). The Fisher's exact and t-tests analyzed data. RESULTS: Cohort 1 enrolled 48 patients, vs. 114 patients for cohort 2. Twelve patients in cohort 1 had a POCUS (25%) vs 89 in cohort 2 (78%) (p < 0.0001; odds ratio [OR] 0.09 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04-0.20). Emergency physician (EP) successful aspiration: 89.1% POCUS vs. 24.5% NUS (p < 0.0001; OR 25 [95% CI 10-59]). Combined EP/ENT successful aspiration: 99.0% POCUS vs. 80.3% NUS (p < 0.0001; OR 24 [95% CI 3-193]). ENT consultation:12.9% POCUS vs. 65.6% NUS (p < 0.0001; OR 0.07 [95% CI 0.03-0.17]). CT usage: 23.8% POCUS vs. 37.7% NUS (p = 0.07; OR 0.51 [95% CI 0.25-1.02]). Return visits: 3.96% POCUS vs. 18.0% NUS (p = 0.004; OR 0.18 [95% CI 0.05-0.61]). CONCLUSION: POCUS use has increased for PTA treatment, improves aspiration, and decreases consultations, CTs, return visits, and LOS.

Ultrasound Guidance Versus Landmark-Guided Palpation for Radial Arterial Line Placement by Novice Emergency Medicine Interns: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: More than 10 million arterial lines are placed annually worldwide, many of which happen in the emergency department. Before the introduction of point-of-care ultrasound, landmark-guided palpation (LMGP) was considered standard of care. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare ultrasound-guided (USG) and LMGP of radial arterial line cannulation by novice emergency medicine interns. METHODS: This was a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial (NCT03326739) of a convenience sample of adult patients who presented to an urban, university hospital with 100,000 visits annually. There was no funding for this study. Patients who required an arterial line were blindly randomized into LMGP or USG groups. Only novice emergency medicine interns, defined as interns with <15 previous placements, who were not blinded, performed the cannulation. Statistical analyses included t and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled with 20 patients randomized to each group. USG had a first-pass success of 75% vs. 0% for LMGP (p < 0.00001) and an overall success of 100% vs. 15% for LMGP (p < 0.00001), a mean of 1.30 attempts vs. 2.95 attempts for LMGP (a difference of 1.65; p < 0.0001), and a mean time for placement of 264 s vs. 524 s for LMGP (a difference of 260; p = 0.0025). Of the failed LMGP, USG crossover was 100% successful with a mean of 1.37 attempts (95% confidence interval 0.58-2.16) and 180 s for placement (95% confidence interval 97.92-262.08). Five percent of LMGP had a complication vs. 0% for USG (p = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: USG improved first-pass and overall success of radial arterial line cannulation while reducing time to access and attempts when used by novice emergency medicine interns.

Effort Thrombosis Provoked by Saxophone Performance.

BACKGROUND: Internal jugular venous thrombosis (IJVT) is an uncommon condition rarely diagnosed in the outpatient setting. IJVT carries significant morbidity and mortality and must be considered in the differential diagnosis for new-onset neck pain and swelling, especially in the emergency setting. Paget-Schroetter syndrome (PSS), or primary thrombosis secondary to effort, is an uncommon, likely under-recognized etiology of thrombosis. We report a case of PSS extending from the right subclavian vein into the right internal jugular vein, suspected based upon patient history and physical examination and confirmed by point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). We then review the presentation, causes, and diagnostic standards for PSS. CASE REPORT: We present a case of a 79-year-old man who presented to the Emergency Department with acute right-sided neck pain 1 day after playing the saxophone for 4 h the prior evening. POCUS confirmed Paget-Schroetter syndrome, or primary effort thrombosis of the internal jugular vein. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: To our knowledge, this is the first documented case of PSS resulting from venous stasis with prolonged Valsalva maneuver and vascular trauma with activity of playing the saxophone. The significance of this case is the unusual etiology of a rare presentation and the ability to diagnose this condition quickly and accurately with POCUS.

The sonographic protocol for the emergent evaluation of aortic dissections (SPEED protocol): A multicenter, prospective, observational study.

OBJECTIVES: An aortic dissection (AoD) is a potentially life-threatening emergency with mortality rates exceeding 50%. While computed tomography angiography remains the diagnostic standard, patients may be too unstable to leave the emergency department. Investigators developed a point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) protocol combining transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and the abdominal aorta. The study objective was to determine the test characteristics of this protocol. METHODS: This was an institutional review board-approved, multicenter, prospective, observational, cohort study of a convenience sample of adult patients. Patients suspected of having an AoD received a TTE and abdominal aorta POCUS. Three sonographic signs suggested AoD: a pericardial effusion, an intimal flap, or an aortic outflow track diameter measuring more than 35 mm. Investigators present continuous and categorical data as medians with interquartile ranges or proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and utilized standard 2 × 2 tables on MedCalc (Version 19.1.6) to calculate test characteristics with 95% CI. RESULTS: Investigators performed 1314 POCUS examinations, diagnosing 21 Stanford type A and 23 Stanford type B AoD. Forty-one of the 44 cases had at least one of the aforementioned sonographic findings. The protocol has a sensitivity of 93.2% (95% CI 81.3-98.6), specificity of 90.9 (95% CI 89.2-92.5), positive and negative predictive values of 26.3% (95% CI 19.6-33.9) and 99.7% (95% CI 99.2-100), respectively, and an accuracy of 91% (95% CI 89.3-92.5). CONCLUSIONS: The SPEED protocol has an overall sensitivity of 93.2% for AoD.

Diagnostic Accuracy of a Handheld Ultrasound vs a Cart-based Model: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Introduction: Numerous studies have demonstrated the accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). Portable, handheld devices have expanded the clinical scope of POCUS at a fraction of the cost of traditional, cart-based models. There is a paucity of data assessing the diagnostic accuracy of portable devices. Our objective in this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of a portable device with a cart-based model. Methods: This was an institutional review board-approved, observational, prospective, randomized clinical trial (NCT05196776) of a convenience sample of adult patients who presented to a university-based health system. Patients who required a cardiac, lung, renal, aorta, or biliary POCUS were randomized to a portable device or to a cart-based model. We hypothesized that the cart-based model would have a 90% diagnostic accuracy vs 70% for the handheld device. To detect a 20% difference, the sample size was calculated to be 98, with 49 patients randomized to each arm. We used standard 2x2 tables to calculate test characteristics with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: A total of 110 patients were enrolled, with 56 patients randomized to the cart-based model and 54 to the handheld device. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of the cart-based vs handheld were 77.8% (40-97.2) vs 92.9% (66.1-99.8), 91.5% (79.6-97.6) vs 92.3% (79.1-98.4%), and 89.3% (78.1-96) vs 92.5% (81.8-97.9), respectively. Conclusion: The diagnostic accuracy of a portable, handheld device is similar to that of a cart-based model.

Ultrasound-versus landmark-guided medium-sized joint arthrocentesis: A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: Arthrocentesis is commonly performed in the emergency department, but success rates vary based on location. Presently, there is a paucity of data assessing the utility of ultrasound-guided (USG) medium-sized joint arthrocentesis. The objective of this study was to compare the success of USG and landmark-guided (LMG) medium-sized joint arthrocentesis. METHODS: This was a single-center, prospective, randomized clinical trial (NCT03327584) of a convenience sample of adult patients who presented to an urban, university hospital with > 105,000 visits annually. Patients with a suspected medium-sized joint effusion (defined as elbow, wrist, or ankle) undergoing arthrocentesis were randomized into LMG or USG using the GE Logiq e linear transducer (4-10 MHz). The following patients were excluded: on anticoagulation, with soft tissue infection overlying the joint, or involving an artificial joint. Statistical analysis included the Fisher exact, Mann-Whitney U-test, and t-test. RESULTS: Overall, 44 patients were enrolled with 23 patients randomized into the LMG group and 21 patients into the USG arm. USG was significantly better than LMG with an overall success of 94.1% versus 60% for LMG (difference = 34.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.90 to 58.83). USG first-pass success was 82.4% versus 46.7% for LMG (difference = 35.7%, 95% CI = 2.76 to 60.37) and a mean of 1.35 attempts versus 2.00 for LMG (difference = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.005 to 1.296). Of the 14 LMG failures, eight had no effusion present on USG crossover. Four patients in the USG group had no effusion present. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound guidance improved first-pass and overall successful arthrocentesis of medium-sized joint effusions.

Ultrasound-guided peripheral venous access vs. the external jugular vein as the initial approach to the patient with difficult vascular access.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, Emergency Physicians (EPs) have used the external jugular (EJ) vein to gain vascular access in patients who have failed nursing attempts at peripheral access. Recently, some EPs have used ultrasound (USIV) to gain peripheral access. STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to determine which initial approach by EPs would lead to greater success. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized study of all adult patients who presented to the Emergency Department (ED) between June and December 2007. Inclusion criteria were failed nursing attempts at peripheral access (at least three). EPs were 2(nd)- or 3(rd)-year residents who had previously performed more than five each of EJs and USIVs. Patients were randomized into either an initial EJ or USIV approach. RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled, 32 in the ultrasound group, 28 in the EJ group. Fifteen different EPs performed access. Initial Success: USIV 84% (95% confidence interval [CI] 68-93%) vs. EJ 50% (95% CI 33-67%), p = 0.006. Success if EJ visible: USIV 84% vs. EJ 66% (p = 0.18). Overall success, including data from the crossover pathway: a total of 41 lines were successfully placed by ultrasound out of 46 attempts (89%) vs. 18 out of 33 for EJ (55%), p = 0.001. In total, 59/60 patients (98%) had a peripheral i.v. successfully placed. The percentage of functioning lines when the patient left the ED was: USIV 89% (95% CI 72-96%) vs. EJ 93% (95% CI 68-98%), p = 0.88. CONCLUSION: As an initial approach to all patients with difficult venous access, ultrasound-guided peripheral lines are superior to the EJ approach. However if the EJ was visible, there was no difference in success among the initial approaches. Both techniques, when used together, could achieve peripheral vascular access in 98% of difficult access patients.

Comparison of ultrasound-guided and standard landmark techniques for knee arthrocentesis.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound is a useful adjunct to many Emergency Department (ED) procedures. Arthrocentesis is typically performed using a landmark technique but ultrasound may provide an opportunity to improve arthrocentesis performance. OBJECTIVE: To assess the success of emergency physicians performing landmark (LM) vs. ultrasound (US)-guided knee arthrocentesis techniques. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, controlled study of patients requiring knee arthrocentesis who presented to one urban university ED and two community EDs between June 2005 and February 2007. RESULTS: There were 66 patients enrolled (39 US-guided, 27 LM). Among all users, there was no difference in arthrocentesis success (US 37/39 vs. LM 25/27); p = 1.0. SECONDARY ENDPOINTS: 1) Patients reported less pain with ultrasound; US-guided 3.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.61-4.80) cm vs. LM 5.19 (95% CI 3.94-6.45) cm; p = 0.02. 2) Providers felt the US-guided technique was easier to perform than LM; 1.67 units on 5-point scale (95% CI 1.37-1.97) vs. 2.11 (95% CI 1.79-2.42) units; p = 0.02. 3) The total procedure time was shorter with the US-guided technique; 10.58 (95% CI 7.36-13.80) min vs. LM 13.37 (95% CI 9.83-16.92) min; p = 0.05. 4) There was no difference in the amount of fluid obtained between techniques; US-guided 45.33 (95% CI 35.45-55.21) mL vs. LM 34.7 (95% CI 26.09-43.32) mL; p = 0.17. CONCLUSION: US-guided knee arthrocentesis technique does not improve overall success of obtaining joint fluid aspirate vs. the standard LM and palpation technique. An US-guided approach does not result in more pain for the patient, takes no additional time to perform and, at least for novice physicians, leads to more fluid aspiration and greater novice provider confidence with the procedure. Further studies with more participants and standardization of anesthetic quantity are required to validate these findings.

Point-of-care Ultrasound Diagnosis of Acute Abdominal Aortic Occlusion.

Acute aortic occlusion is an emergent vascular condition not encountered routinely. Given its varied presentations, including neurovascular deficits and mimicking an acute abdomen, the diagnosis is often delayed causing increased morbidity and mortality. We present a case of acute abdominal aortic occlusion masquerading as sudden onset lower extremity pain and weakness in an 86-year-old female requiring emergent thrombectomy. This is only the second case report to discuss the use of point-of-care ultrasound to expedite diagnosis and management.1.

The diagnosis of aortic dissection by emergency medicine ultrasound.

A series of five cases of aortic dissection are presented that were diagnosed by emergency physicians using ultrasound to search the abdominal and thoracic aorta for pathology. Aortic dissection is a vascular emergency with a high morbidity and mortality, yet its presentation can be varied and subtle. This article reports the use of Emergency ultrasound in a series of five aortic dissections discovered with a limited, yet timely viewing of the aorta and heart by emergency physicians.

Septic arthritis and bursitis: emergency ultrasound can facilitate diagnosis.

This article reports the case of a 52-year-old woman with septic arthritis and bursitis of her shoulder. Due to a minor musculoskeletal injury and lack of fever, the diagnosis was missed on her first Emergency Department visit. Sonographic guidance of the shoulder arthrocentesis led to successful aspiration of the larger fluid collection in the subacromial bursa and allowed the diagnosis and treatment to proceed more rapidly. Septic arthritis is a challenging clinical diagnosis, and when it occurs in more difficult to aspirate joints, the diagnosis can become more challenging still. Ultrasound provides a means for the emergency physician to establish the diagnosis more readily.

Ultrasonography-guided peripheral intravenous access versus traditional approaches in patients with difficult intravenous access.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We assess the success rate of emergency physicians in placing peripheral intravenous catheters in difficult-access patients who were unsuccessfully cannulated by emergency nurses. A technique using real-time ultrasonographic guidance by 2 physicians was compared with traditional approaches using palpation and landmark guidance. METHODS: This was a prospective, systematically allocated study of all patients requiring intravenous access who presented to 2 university hospitals between October 2003 and March 2004. Inclusion criterion was the inability of any available nurse to obtain intravenous access after at least 3 attempts on a subgroup of patients who had a history of difficult intravenous access because of obesity, history of intravenous drug abuse, or chronic medical problems. Exclusion criterion was the need for central venous access. Patients presenting on odd days were allocated to the ultrasonographic-guided group, and those presenting on even days were allocated to the traditional-approach group. Endpoints were successful cannulation, number of sticks, time, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled, 39 on odd days and 21 on even days. Success rate was greater for the ultrasonographic group (97%) versus control (33%), difference in proportions of 64% (95% confidence interval [CI] 39% to 71%). The ultrasonographic group required less overall time (13 minutes versus 30 minutes, for a difference of 17 [95% CI 0.8 to 25.6]), less time to successful cannulation from first percutaneous puncture (4 minutes versus 15 minutes, for a difference of 11 [95% CI 8.2 to 19.4]), and fewer percutaneous punctures (1.7 versus 3.7, for a difference of 2.0 [95% CI 1.27 to 2.82]) and had greater patient satisfaction (8.7 versus 5.7, for a difference of 3.0 [95% CI 1.82 to 4.29]) than the traditional landmark approach. CONCLUSION: Ultrasonographic-guided peripheral intravenous access is more successful than traditional "blind" techniques, requires less time, decreases the number of percutaneous punctures, and improves patient satisfaction in the subgroup of patients who have difficult intravenous access.