BACKGROUND: Acute dyspnea is a common symptom in the ED. The standard approach to dyspnea often relies on radiologic and laboratory results, causing excessive delay before adequate therapy is started. Use of an integrated point-of-care ultrasonography (PoCUS) approach can shorten the time needed to formulate a diagnosis, while maintaining an acceptable safety profile. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients presenting with dyspnea and admitted after ED evaluation were prospectively enrolled. The gold standard was the final diagnosis assessed by two expert reviewers. Two physicians independently evaluated the patient; a sonographer performed an ultrasound evaluation of the lung, heart, and inferior vena cava, while the treating physician requested traditional tests as needed. Time needed to formulate the ultrasound and the ED diagnoses was recorded and compared. Accuracy and concordance of the ultrasound and the ED diagnoses were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 2,683 patients were enrolled. The average time needed to formulate the ultrasound diagnosis was significantly lower than that required for ED diagnosis (24 ± 10 min vs 186 ± 72 min; P = .025). The ultrasound and the ED diagnoses showed good overall concordance (κ = 0.71). There were no statistically significant differences in the accuracy of PoCUS and the standard ED evaluation for the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome, pneumonia, pleural effusion, pericardial effusion, pneumothorax, and dyspnea from other causes. PoCUS was significantly more sensitive for the diagnosis of heart failure, whereas a standard ED evaluation performed better in the diagnosis of COPD/asthma and pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSIONS: PoCUS represents a feasible and reliable diagnostic approach to the patient with dyspnea, allowing a reduction in time to diagnosis. This protocol could help to stratify patients who should undergo a more detailed evaluation.
BACKGROUND: Acute dyspnea is a common symptom in the ED. The standard approach to dyspnea often relies on radiologic and laboratory results, causing excessive delay before adequate therapy is started. Use of an integrated point-of-care ultrasonography (PoCUS) approach can shorten the time needed to formulate a diagnosis, while maintaining an acceptable safety profile. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients presenting with dyspnea and admitted after ED evaluation were prospectively enrolled. The gold standard was the final diagnosis assessed by two expert reviewers. Two physicians independently evaluated the patient; a sonographer performed an ultrasound evaluation of the lung, heart, and inferior vena cava, while the treating physician requested traditional tests as needed. Time needed to formulate the ultrasound and the ED diagnoses was recorded and compared. Accuracy and concordance of the ultrasound and the ED diagnoses were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 2,683 patients were enrolled. The average time needed to formulate the ultrasound diagnosis was significantly lower than that required for ED diagnosis (24 ± 10 min vs 186 ± 72 min; P = .025). The ultrasound and the ED diagnoses showed good overall concordance (κ = 0.71). There were no statistically significant differences in the accuracy of PoCUS and the standard ED evaluation for the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome, pneumonia, pleural effusion, pericardial effusion, pneumothorax, and dyspnea from other causes. PoCUS was significantly more sensitive for the diagnosis of heart failure, whereas a standard ED evaluation performed better in the diagnosis of COPD/asthma and pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSIONS: PoCUS represents a feasible and reliable diagnostic approach to the patient with dyspnea, allowing a reduction in time to diagnosis. This protocol could help to stratify patients who should undergo a more detailed evaluation.
Authors: Surekha Mullangi; Stephen M Sozio; Paul Segal; Steven Menez; Carol Martire; Tariq Shafi Journal: Semin Dial Date: 2018-01-03 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: P H Mayo; R Copetti; D Feller-Kopman; G Mathis; E Maury; S Mongodi; F Mojoli; G Volpicelli; M Zanobetti Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Jaydev K Dave; Maureen E Mc Donald; Praveen Mehrotra; Andrew R Kohut; John R Eisenbrey; Flemming Forsberg Journal: Ultrasonics Date: 2017-11-23 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Jose Curbelo; Maria Aguilera; Pablo Rodriguez-Cortes; Paloma Gil-Martinez; Carmen Suarez Fernandez Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Juliana Rodrigues Vieira; Marcela Rangel de Castro; Thaís de Paula Guimarães; Aldo José Tavarez Pinheiro; Ana Clara Tiso Costa Figueiredo; Bruna Jacomini Martins; Daniel Reis do Carmo; Wesley Academes Oliveira Journal: Rev Bras Ter Intensiva Date: 2019-10-14
Authors: Zachary Risler; Arthur Au; Irina Sanjeevan; Anna Marie Chang; Elizabeth Davis; Jennifer Nauheim; Lauren Sibeck; Nicholas Rankin; Jason M Fields Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2021-04-01