Ultrasound in pre-hospital care

Pre-hospital lung ultrasound for cardiac heart failure and COPD: is it worthwhile?

Background

Pre-hospital ultrasound is a new challenge and lung ultrasound could be an interesting opportunity in the pre-hospital medical service. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of lung ultrasound in out-of-hospital non-traumatic respiratory insufficiency.

Methods

We planned a case-controlled study in the ULSS 5 ovest vicentino area (Vicenza—Italy) enrolling subjects with severe dyspnea caused by cardiac heart failure or acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We compared drugs administration, oxygen delivery, and laboratory tests between those patients with ultrasound integrated management and those without ultrasound.

Results

Pre-hospital lung ultrasound had a high specificity (94.4%) and sensitivity (100%) for the correct identification of alveolar interstitial syndrome using B lines, whereas the percentages obtained with pleural effusion were lower (83.3, 53.3%, respectively). The patients with ultrasound integrated management received a more appropriate pharmacological therapy (p 0.01), as well as non-invasive ventilation (CPAP) was used more frequently in those with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (p 0.011). Laboratory tests and blood gases analysis were not significant different between the two study groups. In a sub-analysis of the patients with an A profile, we observed a significant lower concentration of PCO₂ in those with an ultrasound integrated management (PCO₂: 42.62 vs 52.23 p 0.049). According with physicians’ opinion, pre-hospital lung ultrasound gave important information or changed the therapy in the 42.3% of cases, whereas it just confirmed physical examination in the 67.7% of cases.

Conclusions

Pre-hospital lung ultrasound is easy and feasible, and learning curve is rapid. Our study suggests that cardiac heart failure and acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can be considered two indications for pre-hospital ultrasound, and can improve the management of patient with acute respiratory insufficiency.

Bedside Ultrasound vs X-Ray for the Diagnosis of Forearm Fractures in Children

BACKGROUND

Painful forearm injuries after a fall occur frequently in children. X-ray study is currently the gold standard investigation. Ultrasound (US) is a potential alternative that avoids exposure to ionizing radiation and may be less painful than x-ray study; and familiarity and skill with US is increasing among emergency physicians.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this study was to determine if a cohort of physicians with little or no previous experience with US could, after a short training program, safely exclude forearm fractures in children. Secondary aims were to compare any pain or discomfort associated with clinical examination, US, and x-ray study and to determine the acceptability of US as a diagnostic tool to parents and patients.

METHODS

A prospective, nonrandomized, interventional diagnostic study was performed on children between the ages of 0 and 16 years who had a suspected fracture of the forearm. US scanning was performed by a group of physicians, most with little or no previous US experience.

RESULTS

After the brief training program, a group of pediatric emergency physicians could diagnose forearm fractures in children with a sensitivity of 91.5% and a specificity of 87.6%. Pain associated with US was no better or worse than pain associated with x-ray study. Patients and parents preferred US over x-ray study as an investigation modality for suspected forearm fractures.

CONCLUSION

A group of pediatric emergency physicians with limited previous experience could, after a short training program, diagnose forearm fractures in children. Pain associated with US was no better or worse than pain associated with x-ray study.

Pre-hospital emergency medicine

Pre-hospital care is emergency medical care given to patients before arrival in hospital after activation of emergency medical services. It traditionally incorporated a breadth of care from bystander resuscitation to statutory emergency medical services treatment and transfer. New concepts of care including community paramedicine, novel roles such as emergency care practitioners, and physician delivered pre-hospital emergency medicine are re-defining the scope of pre-hospital care. For severely ill or injured patients, acting quickly in the pre-hospital period is crucial with decisions and interventions greatly affecting outcomes. The transfer of skills and procedures from hospital care to pre-hospital medicine enables early advanced care across a range of disciplines. The variety of possible pathologies, challenges of environmental factors, and hazardous situations requires management that is tailored to the patient's clinical need and setting. Pre-hospital clinicians should be generalists with a broad understanding of medical, surgical, and trauma pathologies, who will often work from locally developed standard operating procedures, but who are able to revert to core principles. Pre-hospital emergency medicine consists of not only clinical care, but also logistics, rescue competencies, and scene management skills (especially in major incidents, which have their own set of management principles). Traditionally, research into the hyper-acute phase (the first hour) of disease has been difficult, largely because physicians are rarely present and issues of consent, transport expediency, and resourcing of research. However, the pre-hospital phase is acknowledged as a crucial period, when irreversible pathology and secondary injury to neuronal and cardiac tissue can be prevented. The development of pre-hospital emergency medicine into a sub-specialty in its own right should bring focus to this period of care.

Systematic training in focused cardiopulmonary ultrasound affects decision-making in the prehospital setting - two case reports

We present two cases from the Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) in Denmark, in which prehospital physicians trained in cardiac ultrasound (FATE) disclosed significant pathology that induced a radical change for the critical patient's course.

Effect of prehospital ultrasound on clinical outcomes of non-trauma patients--a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Advances in technology have made prehospital ultrasound (US) examination available. Whether US in the prehospital setting can lead to improvement in clinical outcomes is yet unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to assess whether prehospital US improves clinical outcomes for non-trauma patients.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic review on non-trauma patients who had an US examination performed in the prehospital setting. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the ISI Web of Science and the references of the included studies for additional relevant studies. We then performed a risk of bias analysis and descriptive data analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 1707 unique citations and included ten studies with a total of 1068 patients undergoing prehospital US examination. Included publications ranged from case series to non-randomized, descriptive studies, and all showed a high risk of bias. The large heterogeneity between the different studies made further statistical analysis impossible.

CONCLUSION

There are currently no randomized, controlled studies on the use of US for non-trauma patients in the prehospital setting. The included studies were of large heterogeneity and all showed a high risk of bias. We were thus unable to assess the effect of prehospital US on clinical outcomes. However, consistent reports suggested that US may improve patient management with respect to diagnosis, treatment, and hospital referral.

The top five research priorities in physician-provided pre-hospital critical care: a consensus report from a European research collaboration

Background

Physician-manned emergency medical teams supplement other emergency medical services in some countries. These teams are often selectively deployed to patients who are considered likely to require critical care treatment in the pre-hospital phase. The evidence base for guidelines for pre-hospital triage and immediate medical care is often poor. We used a recognised consensus methodology to define key priority areas for research within the subfield of physician-provided pre-hospital critical care.

Methods

A European expert panel participated in a consensus process based upon a four-stage modified nominal group technique that included a consensus meeting.

Results

The expert panel concluded that the five most important areas for further research in the field of physician-based pre-hospital critical care were the following: Appropriate staffing and training in pre-hospital critical care and the effect on outcomes, advanced airway management in pre-hospital care, definition of time windows for key critical interventions which are indicated in the pre-hospital phase of care, the role of pre-hospital ultrasound and dispatch criteria for pre-hospital critical care services.

Conclusion

A modified nominal group technique was successfully used by a European expert group to reach consensus on the most important research priorities in physician-provided pre-hospital critical care.