Impact of Emergency Medicine Point-of-Care Ultrasound on Radiology Ultrasound Volumes in a Single Pediatric Emergency Department

Need of Point of Care Ultrasound Training in Pediatric Emergency Medicine Practice: A Wake-Up Call for the Low-Income Countries

POCUS is the acquisition, interpretation, and rapid clinical integration of ultrasonographic imaging performed by the treating physician at the patient's bedside. It is used in the field Emergency Medicine to assist in diagnosing and managing various clinical conditions ranging from undifferentiated shock, respiratory failure, and cardiac arrest, which have shown a positive impact on clinical decision-making, resulting in a decreased emergency department and hospital length of stay. POCUS is also a valuable diagnostic tool in managing pediatric patients for whom radiation exposure is a significant concern. It is used to aid in diagnosing and managing various pediatric medical and surgical emergencies. Despite the evident literature regarding the utility of POCUS in Pediatric Emergency Medicine (PEM) practice, there is a lack of specialized training for pediatric emergency physicians, especially in low-income countries. Therefore, this comment emphasizes the need for POCUS training in PEM.

Point-of-care ultrasonography: Downstream utilization of and diagnostic (dis)agreements with additional cross-sectional imaging

OBJECTIVES

Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS), defined as ultrasonography (US) performed and interpreted by the clinician, is increasingly performed. This study aimed to determine the frequency of and reasons why clinicians of the emergency department request cross-sectional imaging after POCUS and how often radiologists experience diagnostic (dis)agreements.

METHODS

This retrospective study included a consecutive series of 503 patients who underwent POCUS at the emergency department of a tertiary care center.

RESULTS

Downstream cross-sectional imaging was performed in 77 (15.3%) of 503 POCUS examinations. Reasons for additional cross-sectional imaging were, in order of decreasing frequency: suspicion of pathology that was not assessed with POCUS in 46 cases (59.7%), confirmation of conclusive POCUS findings in 21 cases (27.3%), inconclusive POCUS (i.e. insufficient visualization of the structure of interest to make a diagnosis, despite an attempt of the POCUS operator) in 7 cases (9.6%), a combination of inconclusive POCUS and suspicion of pathology that was not assessed with POCUS in 2 cases (2.6%), and clarification of incidental findings on POCUS in 1 case (1.3%). In the 21 cases that underwent additional cross-sectional imaging to confirm POCUS findings, POCUS agreed with additional cross-sectional imaging in 19 (90.5%) and disagreed in 2 (9.5%) cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of POCUS appears to not cause any considerable downstream overutilization of cross-sectional imaging. In addition, radiologists experience few diagnostic disagreements when asked to perform second opinion cross-sectional imaging. Future studies with more homogeneous datasets in terms of POCUS operators are required to confirm our results.