BRIPPED scan for evaluation of ED patients with shortness of breath.

OBJECTIVE: The BRIPPED scan is an ultrasound evaluation of pulmonary B-lines, right ventricle size, inferior vena cava collapsibility, pleural and pericardial effusion, pneumothorax, left ventricle ejection fraction, and lower extremity deep venous thrombosis. The primary goal was to evaluate the effect of the BRIPPED scan on the physician's list of differential diagnoses for patients presenting with shortness of breath. METHODS: This prospective randomized control trial was performed on patients presenting to the emergency department with shortness of breath. Primary data analysis was performed using an ordinal quasi-symmetry model to compare the magnitude of change in the differential diagnoses between 2 groups. Secondary outcome measures included changes in physician orders or interventions, time to disposition, time to perform the BRIPPED scan, and the interrater reliability of the interpretation of the scan. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients and 24 physicians were enrolled in this study. Fifty-two patients were randomly assigned to each cohort. Among the BRIPPED cohort, there was significant movement of likelihood for several etiologies of shortness of breath on the physician differential. There was no significance in the change of differential diagnosis between the BRIPPED and control cohorts. The average (SD) time to perform the scan was 5.7 (1.3) minutes (95% confidence interval, 5.4-6 minutes). CONCLUSION: The BRIPPED scan is a rapid ultrasound evaluation of shortness of breath in the emergency department. BRIPPED influenced physician differential diagnoses to the same degree as laboratory and radiographic testing. BRIPPED did not alter the final diagnosis in this patient population.

Ultrasound-guided peripheral venous access: a systematic review of randomized-controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the current literature on the effect of using ultrasound (US) guidance for the placement of peripheral intravenous (PIV) catheters in patients with difficult access. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was performed for the keywords ultrasonography, catheterization, and peripheral vein. A systematic review was performed on randomized-controlled studies comparing the use of dynamic US guidance with the conventional landmark technique. The primary outcome was the success rate of PIV placement and the secondary outcomes included the number of attempts and time to successful PIV placement. RESULTS: A total of 1778 titles were identified from the search and the review identified 50 potentially relevant studies that were reviewed comprehensively; six articles were included in the final review. The six studies enrolled a total of 316 patients, 153 in the control group and 163 in the US group. Two of the studies reported a significantly higher success rate for US on the basis of initial success or the overall success rate. The two pediatric studies found that time to successful cannulation was shorter and fewer attempts were required to achieve success for patients randomized to US compared with the traditional method. The six studies included were found to vary significantly in the definition of difficult venous access, recording of procedure time, definition of success rate, and other important factors, making a meta-analysis inappropriate. CONCLUSION: On the basis of this review, routine use of US guidance for PIV placement is not strongly supported by the literature.

Improving diagnostic accuracy of anaphylaxis in the acute care setting.

The identification and appropriate management of those at highest risk for life-threatening anaphylaxis remains a clinical enigma. The most widely used criteria for such patients were developed in a symposium convened by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease/Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network. In this paper we review the current literature on the diagnosis of acute allergic reactions as well as atypical presentations that clinicians should recognize. Review of case series reveals significant variability in definition and approach to this common and potentially life-threatening condition. Series on fatal cases of anaphylaxis indicate that mucocutaneous signs and symptoms occur less frequently than in milder cases. Of biomarkers studied to aid in the work-up of possible anaphylaxis, drawing blood during the initial six hours of an acute reaction for analysis of serum tryptase has been recommended in atypical cases. This can provide valuable information when a definitive diagnosis cannot be made by history and physical exam.