Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Acute Neonatal Ascites

Non-radiologist-performed abdominal point-of-care ultrasonography in paediatrics - a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Historically, US in the paediatric setting has mostly been the domain of radiologists. However, in the last decade, there has been an uptake of non-radiologist point-of-care US.

OBJECTIVE

To gain an overview of abdominal non-radiologist point-of-care US in paediatrics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a scoping review regarding the uses of abdominal non-radiologist point-of-care US, quality of examinations and training, patient perspective, financial costs and legal consequences following the use of non-radiologist point-of-care US. We conducted an advanced search of the following databases: Medline, Embase and Web of Science Conference Proceedings. We included published original research studies describing abdominal non-radiologist point-of-care US in children. We limited studies to English-language articles from Western countries.

RESULTS

We found a total of 5,092 publications and selected 106 publications for inclusion: 39 studies and 51 case reports or case series on the state-of-art of abdominal non-radiologist point-of-care US, 14 on training of non-radiologists, and 1 each on possible harms following non-radiologist point-of-care US and patient satisfaction. According to included studies, non-radiologist point-of-care US is increasingly used, but no standardised training guidelines exist. We found no studies regarding the financial consequences of non-radiologist point-of-care US.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review supports the further development of non-radiologist point-of-care US and underlines the need for consensus on who can do which examination after which level of training among US performers. More research is needed on training non-radiologists and on the costs-to-benefits of non-radiologist point-of-care US.

Necrotizing pneumonia: an emerging problem in children?

BACKGROUND

In children, necrotizing pneumonia (NP) is an uncommon, severe complication of pneumonia. It is characterized by destruction of the underlying lung parenchyma resulting in multiple small, thin-walled cavities and is often accompanied by empyema and bronchopleural fistulae.

REVIEW

NP in children was first reported in children in 1994, and since then there has been a gradual increase in cases, which is partially explained by greater physician awareness and use of contrast computed tomography (CT) scans, and by temporal changes in circulating respiratory pathogens and antibiotic prescribing. The most common pathogens detected in children with NP are pneumococci and Staphylococcus aureus. The underlying disease mechanisms are poorly understood, but likely relate to multiple host susceptibility and bacterial virulence factors, with viral-bacterial interactions also possibly having a role. Most cases are in previously healthy young children who, despite adequate antibiotic therapy for bacterial pneumonia, remain febrile and unwell. Many also have evidence of pleural effusion, empyema, or pyopneumothorax, which has undergone drainage or surgical intervention without clinical improvement. The diagnosis is generally made by chest imaging, with CT scans being the most sensitive, showing loss of normal pulmonary architecture, decreased parenchymal enhancement and multiple thin-walled cavities. Blood culture and culture and molecular testing of pleural fluid provide a microbiologic diagnosis in as many as 50% of cases. Prolonged antibiotics, draining pleural fluid and gas that causes mass effects, and maintaining ventilation, circulation, nutrition, fluid, and electrolyte balance are critical components of therapy. Despite its serious nature, death is uncommon, with good clinical, radiographic and functional recovery achieved in the 5-6 months following diagnosis. Increased knowledge of NP's pathogenesis will assist more rapid diagnosis and improve treatment and, ultimately, prevention.

CONCLUSION

It is important to consider that our understanding of NP is limited to individual case reports or small case series, and treatment data from randomized-controlled trials are lacking. Furthermore, case series are retrospective and usually confined to single centers. Consequently, these studies may not be representative of patients in other locations, especially when allowing for temporal changes in pathogen behaviour and differences in immunization schedules and antibiotic prescribing practices.