Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Accuracy of Rapid Ultrasound in Shock (RUSH) Exam for Diagnosis of Shock in Critically Ill Patients.
Ghane, Mohammad Reza; Gharib, Mohammad Hadi; Ebrahimi, Ali; Samimi, Kaveh; Rezaee, Maryam; Rasouli, Hamid Reza; Kazemi, Hossein Mohammad.
Afiliación
  • Ghane MR; Trauma Research Center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Science, Tehran, IR Iran.
  • Gharib MH; Radiology Department, Iran University of Medical Science, IR Iran.
  • Ebrahimi A; Trauma Research Center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Science, Tehran, IR Iran.
  • Samimi K; Radiology Department, Iran University of Medical Science, IR Iran.
  • Rezaee M; Trauma Research Center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Science, Tehran, IR Iran.
  • Rasouli HR; Trauma Research Center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Science, Tehran, IR Iran.
  • Kazemi HM; Trauma Research Center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Science, Tehran, IR Iran.
Trauma Mon ; 20(1): e20095, 2015 Feb.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25825696
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Rapid ultrasound in shock (RUSH) is the most recent emergency ultrasound protocol, designed to help clinicians better recognize distinctive shock etiologies in a shorter time frame.

OBJECTIVES:

In this study, we evaluated the accuracy of the RUSH protocol, performed by an emergency physician or radiologist, in predicting the type of shock in critical patients. PATIENTS AND

METHODS:

An emergency physician or radiologist performed the RUSH protocol for all patients with shock status at the emergency department. All patients were closely followed to determine their final clinical diagnosis. The agreement between the initial impression provided by RUSH and the final diagnosis was investigated by calculating the Kappa index. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of RUSH for diagnosis of each case.

RESULTS:

We performed RUSH on 77 patients. Kappa index was 0.71 (P Value = 0.000), reflecting acceptable general agreement between initial impression and final diagnosis. For hypovolemic, cardiogenic and obstructive shock, the protocol had an NPV above 97% yet it had a lower PPV. For shock with distributive or mixed etiology, RUSH showed a PPV of 100% but it had low sensitivity. Subgroup analysis showed a similar Kappa index for the emergency physician and radiologist (0.70 and 0.73, respectively) in performing rush.

CONCLUSIONS:

This study highlights the role of the RUSH exam performed by an emergency physician, to make a rapid and reliable diagnosis of shock etiology, especially in order to rule out obstructive, cardiogenic and hypovolemic shock types in initial exam of shock patients.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Guideline Idioma: En Revista: Trauma Mon Año: 2015 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Guideline Idioma: En Revista: Trauma Mon Año: 2015 Tipo del documento: Article