Does Point-of-Care Ultrasonography Improve Clinical Outcomes in Emergency Department Patients With Undifferentiated Hypotension? An International Randomized Controlled Trial From the SHoC-ED Investigators.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Point-of-care ultrasonography protocols are commonly used in the initial management of patients with undifferentiated hypotension in the emergency department (ED). There is little published evidence for any mortality benefit. We compare the effect of a point-of-care ultrasonography protocol versus standard care without point-of-care ultrasonography for survival and clinical outcomes. METHODS: This international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial recruited from 6 centers in North America and South Africa and included selected hypotensive patients (systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg or shock index >1) randomized to early point-of-care ultrasonography plus standard care versus standard care without point-of-care ultrasonography. Diagnoses were recorded at 0 and 60 minutes. The primary outcome measure was survival to 30 days or hospital discharge. Secondary outcome measures included initial treatment and investigations, admissions, and length of stay. RESULTS: Follow-up was completed for 270 of 273 patients. The most common diagnosis in more than half the patients was occult sepsis. We found no important differences between groups for the primary outcome of survival (point-of-care ultrasonography group 104 of 136 patients versus standard care 102 of 134 patients; difference 0.35%; 95% binomial confidence interval [CI] -10.2% to 11.0%), survival in North America (point-of-care ultrasonography group 76 of 89 patients versus standard care 72 of 88 patients; difference 3.6%; CI -8.1% to 15.3%), and survival in South Africa (point-of-care ultrasonography group 28 of 47 patients versus standard care 30 of 46 patients; difference 5.6%; CI -15.2% to 26.0%). There were no important differences in rates of computed tomography (CT) scanning, inotrope or intravenous fluid use, and ICU or total length of stay. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial to compare point-of-care ultrasonography to standard care without point-of-care ultrasonography in undifferentiated hypotensive ED patients. We did not find any benefits for survival, length of stay, rates of CT scanning, inotrope use, or fluid administration. The addition of a point-of-care ultrasonography protocol to standard care may not translate into a survival benefit in this group.

Does Point of Care Ultrasound Improve Resuscitation Markers in Undifferentiated Hypotension? An International Randomized Controlled Trial From The Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHoC-ED) Series.

Introduction Point of Care Ultrasound (PoCUS) protocols are commonly used to guide resuscitation for patients with undifferentiated hypotension, yet there is a paucity of evidence for any outcome benefit. We undertook an international multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the impact of a PoCUS protocol on key clinical outcomes. Here we report on resuscitation markers.  Methods Adult patients presenting to six emergency departments (ED) in Canada and South Africa with undifferentiated hypotension (systolic blood pressure (SBP) <100mmHg or a Shock Index >1.0) were randomized to receive a PoCUS protocol or standard care (control). Reported physiological markers include shock index (SI), and modified early warning score (MEWS), with biochemical markers including venous bicarbonate and lactate, at baseline and four hours.  Results A total of 273 patients were enrolled, with data collected for 270. Baseline characteristics were similar for each group. Improvements in mean values for each marker during initial treatment were similar between groups: Shock Index; mean reduction in Control 0.39, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.44 vs. PoCUS 0.33, 0.29 to 0.38; MEWS, mean reduction in Control 2.56, 2.22 to 2.89 vs. PoCUS 2.91, 2.49 to 3.32; Bicarbonate, mean reduction in Control 2.71 mmol/L, 2.12 to 3.30 mmol/L vs. PoCUS 2.30 mmol/L, 1.75 to 2.84 mmol/L, and venous lactate, mean reduction in Control 1.39 mmol/L, 0.93 to 1.85 mmol/L vs. PoCUS 1.31 mmol/L, 0.88 to 1.74 mmol/L. Conclusion We found no meaningful difference in physiological and biochemical resuscitation markers with or without the use of a PoCUS protocol in the resuscitation of undifferentiated hypotensive ED patients. We are unable to exclude improvements in individual patients or in specific shock types.

Introduction of an Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Eligibility Protocol for Paramedics in Atlantic Canada: A Pilot Knowledge Translation Project.

Introduction There is currently no protocol for the initiation of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) for out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in Atlantic Canada. Advanced care paramedics (ACPs) perform advanced cardiac life support in the prehospital setting often completing the entire resuscitation on-scene. Implementation of ECPR will present a novel intervention that is only available at the receiving hospital. Our objective is to determine if an educational program can improve identification of ECPR candidates by paramedics. Establishing paramedic competence will ensure rapid transfer of eligible patients for a potentially life-saving intervention. Methods An educational program was delivered to paramedics including a short seminar and pocket card coupled with simulated OHCA cases. A before-and-after study design using a case-based survey was employed. Paramedics were scored on their ability to correctly identify patients suffering OHCA who met the inclusion criteria for our ECPR protocol. A Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test was employed to compare paramedics' scores before and after the education delivery. A six-month follow-up is planned to assess retention. Qualitative data was also collected from paramedics during simulation to help identify practical issues, potential barriers, and to refine inclusion and exclusion criteria prior to the implementation of our protocol in the prehospital setting. Results The median score pre-education was 10 (IQR: 9-10.5) compared to 14 (IQR: 13-15) after education delivery. The median difference between groups was 5. The Wilcoxon matched-pairs test demonstrated a significant improvement in the paramedics' ability to correctly identify ECPR candidates after completing our educational program z = -2.67, p = 0.0039. Conclusion Paramedic training through a didactic session coupled with a pocket card and simulation appeared to be a feasible method of knowledge translation. Six-month follow-up data will help ensure knowledge retention is achieved.

How Feasible is Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in a Medium Urban Population Centre?

Background Patients suffering from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) experience poor survival and neurological outcomes, with rates remaining relatively unchanged despite advancements. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), termed extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) in arrests, may offer improved outcomes. We developed local screening criteria for ECPR and then estimated the frequency of use by applying those criteria retrospectively to a cardiac arrest database. The purpose was to determine if an ECPR program is feasible in a medium urban population centre in Atlantic Canada. Methods A three-round modified Delphi survey, building upon data from a literature review, was conducted in collaboration with external experts. The resulting selection criteria for potential ECPR candidates were applied to a pre-existing local cardiac arrest database, supplemented by health records review, identifying potential candidates eligible for ECPR. Results Consensus inclusion criteria included witnessed cardiac arrest, age <70, refractory arrest, no-flow time <10min, total downtime <60min, and presumed cardiac or selected non-cardiac etiologies. Consensus exclusion criteria were an unwitnessed arrest, asystole, and select etiologies and comorbidities. Simplified criteria were developed to facilitate emergency medical services transport. Historically, 20.0% (95% CI 16.2-24.3%) of OHCA would be transported to the Emergency Department (ED), with 4.9% (95% CI 3.0% to 7.6%) qualifying for ECPR. Conclusion Despite conservative estimates based upon historically small numbers of select cardiac arrest patients meeting eligibility for transport and initiation of ECPR, a dedicated program may be feasible in our regional hospital setting. Patient care volumes suggest it would not be resource intensive yet would be sufficiently busy to maintain competency.

Does Point-of-care Ultrasonography Change Emergency Department Care Delivered to Hypotensive Patients When Categorized by Shock Type? A Post-Hoc Analysis of an International Randomized Controlled Trial from the SHoC-ED Investigators.

Introduction Our previously reported randomized-controlled-trial of point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) for patients with undifferentiated hypotension in the emergency department (ED) showed no survival benefit with PoCUS. Here, we examine the data to see if PoCUS led to changes in the care delivered to patients with cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic shock. Methods A post-hoc analysis was completed on a database of 273 hypotensive ED patients randomized to standard care or PoCUS in six centres in Canada and South Africa. Shock categories recorded one hour after the ED presentation were used to define subcategories of shock. We analyzed initial intravenous fluid volumes, as well as rates of inotrope use and procedures. Results  261 patients could be classified as cardiogenic or non-cardiogenic shock types. Although there were expected differences in the mean fluid volume administered between patients with non-cardiogenic and cardiogenic shock (p-value<0.001), there was no difference between the control and PoCUS groups (mean non-cardiogenic control 1881mL (95% CI 1567-2195mL) vs non-cardiogenic PoCUS 1763mL (1525-2001mL); and cardiogenic control 680mL (28.4-1332mL) vs. cardiogenic PoCUS 744mL (370-1117mL; p= 0.67). Likewise, there were no differences in rates of inotrope administration nor procedures for any of the subcategories of shock between the control group and PoCUS group patients. Conclusion Despite differences in care delivered by subcategory of shock, we did not find any difference in key elements of emergency department care delivered between patients receiving PoCUS and those who did not. This may help explain the previously reported lack of outcome differences between groups.

Comparison between the clinical and laboratory features of enterovirus and West Nile virus infections.

The seasonality and clinical features of enterovirus (EV) infections overlap with those of West Nile virus (WNV). The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency of EV detection in patients being tested for WNV and to look for features that could be used to distinguish between infections with these two viruses. Nucleic acid amplification testing (NAT) for EV was performed on all plasma samples submitted for WNV testing in 2003 and 2004. Demographics, clinical features, and laboratory results for patients with documented EV viremia were compared with those for patients with confirmed WNV infection (as diagnosed by NAT and/or serology). NAT for EV was positive on 50 of 1,784 serum or plasma samples submitted for WNV testing (2.8%). Clinical information was compared for 45 patients with EV viremia and 214 patients with WNV infection. Patients with EV viremia were younger and less likely to have heart disease or a travel history (P<0.05). The EV viremia cases were distributed throughout the whole province while the WNV cases were predominantly in the southern part of the province. Symptoms were remarkably similar, although patients with WNV infection were more likely to have anorexia, dizziness, rash, and cranial nerve palsy (P<0.05). There are no consistent differences in the features of WNV infection and enteroviral viremia so diagnostic tests for both viruses should be performed when WNV is present in local mosquitoes.