Sonographic Findings of Left Ventricular Dysfunction to Predict Shock Type in Undifferentiated Hypotensive Patients: An Analysis From the Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHoC-ED) Study.

Introduction Patients that present to the emergency department (ED) with undifferentiated hypotension have a high mortality rate. Hypotension can be divided into four categories: obstructive, hypovolemic, distributive, and cardiogenic. While it is possible to have overlapping or concomitant shock states, being able to differentiate between cardiogenic shock and the other categories is important as it entails a different treatment regime and extra cautions. In this secondary analysis, we investigate if using focused cardiac ultrasonography (FOCUS) to determine left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) can serve as a reliable test for cardiogenic shock. Methods We prospectively collected FOCUS findings performed in 135 ED patients with undifferentiated hypotension as part of an international study. Patients with clearly identified etiologies for hypotension were excluded, along with other specific presumptive diagnoses. LVD was defined as the identification of a generally hypodynamic left ventricle in the setting of shock. FOCUS findings were collected using a standardized protocol and data collection form. All scans were performed by emergency physicians trained in ultrasound. Final shock type was defined as cardiogenic or noncardiogenic by independent specialist blinded chart review. Results In our findings, 135 patients had complete records for assessment of left ventricular function and additional follow-up data and so were included in this secondary analysis. The median age was 56 years and 53% of patients were male. Disease prevalence for cardiogenic shock was 12% and the mortality rate was 24%. The presence of LVD on FOCUS had a sensitivity of 62.50% (95% confidence interval 35.43% to 84.80%), specificity of 94.12% (88.26% to 97.60%), positive likelihood ratio (LR) 10.62 (4.71 to 23.95), negative LR 0.40 (0.21 to 0.75) and accuracy of 90.37% (84.10% to 94.77%) for detecting cardiogenic shock. Conclusion Detecting left ventricular dysfunction on FOCUS may be useful in the early identification of cardiogenic shock in otherwise undifferentiated hypotensive adult patients in the emergency department.

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.

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.

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.

International Federation for Emergency Medicine Consensus Statement: Sonography in hypotension and cardiac arrest (SHoC): An international consensus on the use of point of care ultrasound for undifferentiated hypotension and during cardiac arrest.

Introduction The International Federation for Emergency Medicine (IFEM) Ultrasound Special Interest Group (USIG) was tasked with development of a hierarchical consensus approach to the use of point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) in patients with hypotension and cardiac arrest. METHODS: The IFEM USIG invited 24 recognized international leaders in PoCUS from emergency medicine and critical care to form an expert panel to develop the sonography in hypotension and cardiac arrest (SHoC) protocol. The panel was provided with reported disease incidence, along with a list of recommended PoCUS views from previously published protocols and guidelines. Using a modified Delphi methodology the panel was tasked with integrating the disease incidence, their clinical experience and their knowledge of the medical literature to evaluate what role each view should play in the proposed SHoC protocol. RESULTS: Consensus on the SHoC protocols for hypotension and cardiac arrest was reached after three rounds of the modified Delphi process. The final SHoC protocol and operator checklist received over 80% consensus approval. The IFEM-approved final protocol, recommend Core, Supplementary, and Additional PoCUS views. SHoC-hypotension core views consist of cardiac, lung, and inferior vena vaca (IVC) views, with supplementary cardiac views, and additional views when clinically indicated. Subxiphoid or parasternal cardiac views, minimizing pauses in chest compressions, are recommended as core views for SHoC-cardiac arrest; supplementary views are lung and IVC, with additional views when clinically indicated. Both protocols recommend use of the "4 F" approach: fluid, form, function, filling. CONCLUSION: An international consensus on sonography in hypotension and cardiac arrest is presented. Future prospective validation is required.

Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest (SHoC): Rates of Abnormal Findings in Undifferentiated Hypotension and During Cardiac Arrest as a Basis for Consensus on a Hierarchical Point of Care Ultrasound Protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) has become an established tool in the initial management of patients with undifferentiated hypotension. Current established protocols (RUSH and ACES) were developed by expert user opinion, rather than objective, prospective data. PoCUS also provides invaluable information during resuscitation efforts in cardiac arrest by determining presence/absence of cardiac activity and identifying reversible causes such as pericardial tamponade. There is no agreed guideline on how to safely and effectively incorporate PoCUS into the advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) algorithm. We wished to report disease incidence as a basis to develop a hierarchical approach to PoCUS in hypotension and during cardiac arrest. METHODS: We summarized the recorded incidence of PoCUS findings from the initial cohort during the interim analysis of two prospective studies. We propose that this will form the basis for developing a modified Delphi approach incorporating this data to obtain the input of a panel of international experts associated with five professional organizations led by the International Federation of Emergency Medicine (IFEM). The modified Delphi tool will be developed to reach an international consensus on how to integrate PoCUS for hypotensive emergency department patients as well as into cardiac arrest algorithms. RESULTS: Rates of abnormal PoCUS findings from 151 patients with undifferentiated hypotension included left ventricular dynamic changes (43%), IVC abnormalities (27%), pericardial effusion (16%), and pleural fluid (8%). Abdominal pathology was rare (fluid 5%, AAA 2%). During cardiac arrest there were no pericardial effusions, however abnormalities of ventricular contraction (45%) and valvular motion (39%) were common among the 43 patients included. CONCLUSIONS: A prospectively collected disease incidence-based hierarchy of scanning can be developed based on the reported findings. This will inform an international consensus process towards the development of proposed SHoC protocols for hypotension and cardiac arrest, comprised of the stepwise clinical-indication based approach of Core, Supplementary, and Additional PoCUS views. We hope that such a protocol would be structured in a way that enables the clinician to only perform views that are clinically indicated, which limits exposure to the frequent incidental positive findings that accompany the current "one size fits all" standard protocols.

The V-line: a sonographic aid for the confirmation of pleural fluid.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound is being used increasingly to diagnose pathological free fluid accumulation at the bedside. In addition to the detection of peritoneal and pericardial fluid, point-of-care ultrasound allows rapid bedside diagnosis of pleural fluid. FINDINGS: In this short report, we describe the sonographic observation of the vertebral or 'V-line' to help confirm the presence of pleural fluid in the supine patient. The V-line sign is a result of the fluid acting as an acoustic window to enable visualization of vertebral bodies and posterior thoracic wall, thus confirming the presence of pleural fluid. CONCLUSIONS: The V-line is a useful sonographic sign to aid the diagnosis of pleural free fluid.

Update on melanoma: the present position.

Cutaneous melanoma is becoming increasingly common among people with fair skins, and this has been blamed on exposure to ultraviolet radiation from sunbathing, the use of sun beds, and holidays abroad. The key to controlling the epidemic of melanoma is prevention, but also important are the organisation of the skin cancer service, surgical advances, and the development of neoadjuvant treatments. Because there are many of these tumours in the head and neck region, head and neck surgeons are increasingly involved in the management of such patients. We review the current philosophy in the management of melanoma.

Pattern of admissions to a tertiary dermatology unit in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: There is worldwide recognition of the need to control the rising costs of health-care. As a result there is a trend away from inpatient treatment of people with non-life-threatening skin disorders. In the developing world there is a conflict between the inadequacy of home and community facilities and the need to limit expenditure. AIM: The aims of this study were to assess the current indications for admission to a dermatology ward, the level of domestic and community facilities among those admitted, and the apparent benefits obtained from such admissions. METHODS: Over a 6-month period all patients admitted to the tertiary dermatology unit at Groote Schuur Hospital were recruited and a questionnaire was completed by the admitting doctor. On discharge, patients and doctors were asked to assess the level of improvement in the patient's skin disorder. RESULTS: There were 133 people admitted, with a mean age of 34.1 years (range 1-88). Diagnoses recorded most often were atopic dermatitis (44), other forms of dermatitis (18), psoriasis (21), severe drug reaction (10), leg ulcer (7), skin infection (7) and bullous disease (6). Overall, the extent and severity of the skin involvement was the major indication for admission, although psychosocial problems and a lack of home facilities were contributing factors. A group of 25 people had been admitted to the ward on 2 or more occasions over the preceding 2 years. This group did not differ from the rest of the patients in terms of diagnosis, home circumstances or level of employment. CONCLUSIONS: Most admissions to a tertiary dermatology unit in Cape Town are for extensive eczema or psoriasis. Most people experience great short-term benefit from inpatient care. The group of people who require repeated admissions do not appear to differ from the total group by diagnosis or available facilities, but may represent a psychosocially vulnerable subset.