INTRODUCTION: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is the most rapidly growing imaging modality for acute care. Despite increased use, there is still wide variability and less evidence regarding its clinical utility for the perioperative setting compared to other acute care settings. This study sought to demonstrate the impact of POCUS examinations for acute hypoxia and hypotension occurring in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) versus traditional bedside examinations. METHODS: This study was designed as a multi-center prospective observational study. Adult patients who experienced a reduced mean arterial blood pressure (MAP < 60mmHG) and/or a reduced oxygen saturation (SpO2 < 88%) in the PACU from 7AM to 4PM were targeted. POCUS was available or not for patient assessment based on PACU team training. All providers who performed POCUS exams received standardized training on cardiac and pulmonary POCUS. All POCUS exam findings were recorded on a standardized form and the number of suspected mechanisms to trigger the acute event were captured before and after the POCUS exam. PACU length of stay (minutes) across groups was the primary outcome. Results: In total, 128 patients were included in the study, with 92 patients receiving a POCUS exam. Comparison of PACU time between the POCUS group (median = 96.5 min) and no-POCUS groups (median = 120.5 min) demonstrated a reduction for the POCUS group, p = 0.019. Hospital length of stay and 30-day hospital readmission did not show a significant difference between groups. Finally, there was a reduction in the number of suspected diagnoses from before to after the POCUS examination for both pulmonary and cardiac exams, p-values < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of POCUS for assessment of acute hypotension and hypoxia in the PACU setting is associated with a reduced PACU length of stay and a reduction in suspected number of diagnoses.
INTRODUCTION: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is the most rapidly growing imaging modality for acute care. Despite increased use, there is still wide variability and less evidence regarding its clinical utility for the perioperative setting compared to other acute care settings. This study sought to demonstrate the impact of POCUS examinations for acute hypoxia and hypotension occurring in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) versus traditional bedside examinations. METHODS: This study was designed as a multi-center prospective observational study. Adult patients who experienced a reduced mean arterial blood pressure (MAP < 60mmHG) and/or a reduced oxygen saturation (SpO2 < 88%) in the PACU from 7AM to 4PM were targeted. POCUS was available or not for patient assessment based on PACU team training. All providers who performed POCUS exams received standardized training on cardiac and pulmonary POCUS. All POCUS exam findings were recorded on a standardized form and the number of suspected mechanisms to trigger the acute event were captured before and after the POCUS exam. PACU length of stay (minutes) across groups was the primary outcome. Results: In total, 128 patients were included in the study, with 92 patients receiving a POCUS exam. Comparison of PACU time between the POCUS group (median = 96.5 min) and no-POCUS groups (median = 120.5 min) demonstrated a reduction for the POCUS group, p = 0.019. Hospital length of stay and 30-day hospital readmission did not show a significant difference between groups. Finally, there was a reduction in the number of suspected diagnoses from before to after the POCUS examination for both pulmonary and cardiac exams, p-values < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of POCUS for assessment of acute hypotension and hypoxia in the PACU setting is associated with a reduced PACU length of stay and a reduction in suspected number of diagnoses.
Entities:
Keywords:
anesthesia; hemodynamics; hypotension; hypoxia; point-of-care ultrasound; post-anesthesia care unit
Authors: Chiara Mozzini; Marco Di Dio Perna; Giancarlo Pesce; Ulisse Garbin; Anna Maria Fratta Pasini; Andrea Ticinesi; Antonio Nouvenne; Tiziana Meschi; Alder Casadei; Maurizio Soresi; Luciano Cominacini Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2017-08-12 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Lawrence A Melniker; Evan Leibner; Mark G McKenney; Peter Lopez; William M Briggs; Carol A Mancuso Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2006-03-24 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Brian B Morgan; Amanda Kao; Stacy A Trent; Nicole Hurst; Lauren Oliveira; Andrea L Austin; John L Kendall Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2018-03-25 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Davinder Ramsingh; Alec Runyon; Jason Gatling; Ihab Dorotta; Ryan Lauer; Dustin Wailes; Jaron Yang; Matt Alschuler; Briahnna Austin; Gary Stier; Robert Martin Journal: Reg Anesth Pain Med Date: 2019-11-02 Impact factor: 6.288