Contrast-enhanced point of care ultrasound for the evaluation of stable blunt abdominal trauma by the emergency physician: A prospective diagnostic study

Objectives

Clinical examination alone cannot reliably rule out significant traumatic abdominal injury. Computed tomography (CT) has become the primary method for evaluating blunt abdominal trauma and clinicians rely heavily on it to rule out abdominal injury. Ultrasound examination may miss significant abdominal injury particularly in stable patients. The use of a contrast agent improves ultrasound sensitivity to visceral abdominal injuries. The objective of this diagnostic study is to compare bedside contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) performed by emergency physicians to CT in hemodynamically stable adults for the assessment of blunt abdominal trauma and evaluate CEUS accuracy outcomes.

Methods

Hemodynamically stable patients with blunt trauma were prospectively enrolled in the trauma bay. After initial evaluation, we included patients at risk of abdominal injury and for whom an abdominal CT was planned by the trauma leader. Ultrasonography was performed prospectively and at the bedside by the emergency physician followed by abdominal CT used as a reference standard.

Results

Thirty-three patients were enrolled in the study; among them, 52% showed positive traumatic findings in abdominal CT scans, and 42% were diagnosed with solid organ lesions. Compared to CT, a focused abdominal sonography (FOCUS) examination, looking for free fluid or perirenal hematoma, showed limited performance for traumatic findings with a sensitivity of 65% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 38%-86%), a specificity of 75% (95% CI: 48%-93%), a negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of 0.47 (95% CI: 0.23-0.95), and a positive likelihood ratio (PLR) of 2.59 (95% CI: 1.03-6.48). When combining FOCUS with CEUS, the sensitivity of the sonography increased to 94% (95% CI: 71%-100%) with a specificity of 75% (95% CI: 48%-93%). The PLR was 3.76 (95% CI: 1.6-8.87) and the NLR was 0.08 (95% CI: 0.01-0.54). In our population, abdominal sonography with contrast failed to identify a single positive abdominal CT with a grade 1 kidney injury.

Conclusions

A FOCUS examination shows limited sensitivity and specificity to detect positive abdominal CT in stable adults with abdominal trauma. With the addition of contrast and careful inspection of solid organs, abdominal sonography with contrast performed by the emergency physician improves the ability to rule out traumatic findings on abdominal CT. CEUS performed by emergency physicians may miss injuries, especially in the absence of free fluid, in cases of low-grade injuries, simultaneous injuries, or poor-quality examinations.

A survivor with unexplained chest scars

This case illustrates chest scars after piston-based chest compression device resuscitation and raises the awareness of the potential benefits of following up survivors of critical illness.

Improved Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (ECPR) Outcomes Is Associated with a Restrictive Patient Selection Algorithm

INTRODUCTION

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a leading cause of mortality. Despite decades of intensive research and several technological advancements, survival rates remain low. The integration of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) has been recognized as a promising approach in refractory OHCA. However, evidence from recent randomized controlled trials yielded contradictory results, and the criteria for selecting eligible patients are still a subject of debate.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of refractory OHCA patients treated with ECPR. All adult patients who received ECPR, according to the hospital algorithm, from 2013 to 2021 were included. Two different algorithms were used during this period. A "permissive" algorithm was used from 2013 to mid-2016. Subsequently, a revised algorithm, more "restrictive", based on international guidelines, was implemented from mid-2016 to 2021. Key differences between the two algorithms included reducing the no-flow time from less than three minutes to zero minutes (implying that the cardiac arrests must occur in the presence of a witness with immediate CPR initiation), reducing low-flow duration from 100 to 60 min, and lowering the age limit from 65 to 55 years. The aim of this study is to compare these two algorithms (permissive (1) and restrictive (2)) to determine if the use of a restrictive algorithm was associated with higher survival rates.

RESULTS

A total of 48 patients were included in this study, with 23 treated under Algorithm 1 and 25 under Algorithm 2. A significant difference in survival rate was observed in favor of the restrictive algorithm (9% vs. 68%, p < 0.05). Moreover, significant differences emerged between algorithms regarding the no-flow time (0 (0-5) vs. 0 (0-0) minutes, p < 0.05). Survivors had a significantly shorter no-flow and low-flow time (0 (0-0) vs. 0 (0-3) minutes, p < 0.01 and 40 (31-53) vs. 60 (45-80) minutes, p < 0.05), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The present study emphasizes that a stricter selection of OHCA patients improves survival rates in ECPR.

A Dedicated Expert ECMO-Team and Strict Patient Selection Improve Survival of Patients with Severe SARS-CoV-2 ARDS Supported by VV-ECMO

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has overwhelmed health care systems worldwide since its first wave. Intensive care units have been under a significant amount of pressure as patients with the most severe form of the disease presented with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). A proportion of them experienced refractory acute respiratory failure and had to be supported with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). The present retrospective study reports the experiences of our ECMO center in the management of COVID-19 patients with refractory ARDS. Patient characteristics and outcomes are presented through the different waves of the pandemic. A cohort study was conducted on patients with refractory ARDS due to COVID-19 infection who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at the Geneva University Hospital and supported with VV-ECMO between 14 March 2020 and January 2022. The VV-ECMO implementation criteria were defined according to an institutional algorithm validated by the local crisis unit of the hospital and the Swiss Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Among the 500 ARDS patients admitted to our ICU, 41 patients with a median age of 57 (52−63) years, a body mass index (BMI) of 28 (26−32) kg/m2, and a SAPS II score of 57 (47−67), and 27 (66%) of whom were men required VV-ECMO. None of the patients were vaccinated. The time of ventilation, including noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and mechanical ventilation (MV), and the time of MV before ECMO were 7 (4−11) days and 4 (1−7) days, respectively. The time under ECMO was 20 (10−27) days. The ICU and hospital lengths of stay were 36 (21−45) days and 45 (33−69) days, respectively. The survival rate for patients on ECMO was 59%. Comparative analysis between survivors and non-survivors highlighted that survivors had a significantly shorter ventilation duration before ECMO (NIV + MV: 5.5 (1.3−9) vs. 9 (6.5−13.5) days, p = 0.0026 and MV alone: 1.6 (0.4−5.5) vs. 5.8 (5−8) days, p < 0.0001). The management of patients on ECMO by an experienced ECMO team dedicated to this activity was associated with improved survival (78% vs. 28%, p = 0.0012). Between the first wave and the following waves, patients presented with a higher incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (100% vs. 82%, p = 0.0325) but had better survival rates (74% vs. 35%, p = 0.024). The present study suggests that both the prompt insertion of VV-ECMO to control refractory hypoxemia and the involvement of an ECMO team improve the survival of COVID-19 patients.

[Invasive Campylobacter infections]

Campylobacter genus encompasses many species, among which C. jejuni, C. coli and C. fetus are the main human pathogens. C. jejuni/coli frequently cause self-limited enteritis in immunocompetent hosts and are seldomly associated with bacteriemia. C. fetus is less common as a human pathogen. It is rarely identified in fecal samples but can sometimes be isolated in blood samples from patients with comorbidities or immunosuppression. Campylobacter fetus bacteriemia is remarkable since it is associated with endovascular and deep-seated infections.

Venous thromboembolism in critically Ill patients with COVID-19: Results of a screening study for deep vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

The rapid spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has caused more than 3.9 million cases worldwide. Currently, there is great interest to assess venous thrombosis prevalence, diagnosis, prevention, and management in patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in critically ill patients with COVID-19, using lower limbs venous ultrasonography screening.

METHODS

Beginning March 8, we enrolled 25 patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections. The presence of lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) was systematically assessed by ultrasonography between day 5 and 10 after admission. The data reported here are those available up to May 9, 2020.

RESULTS

The mean (± standard deviation) age of the patients was 68 ± 11 years, and 64% were men. No patients had a history of VTE. During the ICU stay, 8 patients (32%) had a VTE; 6 (24%) a proximal DVT, and 5 (20%) a pulmonary embolism. The rate of symptomatic VTE was 24%, while 8% of patients had screen-detected DVT. Only those patients with a documented VTE received a therapeutic anticoagulant regimen. As of May 9, 2020, 5 patients had died (20%), 2 remained in the ICU (8%), and 18 were discharged (72%).

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections, DVT screening at days 5-10 of admission yielded a 32% prevalence of VTE. Seventy-five percent of events occurred before screening. Earlier screening might be effective in optimizing care in ICU patients with COVID-19.

Septic shock caused by Capnocytophaga canis after a cat scratch

Capnocytophaga canis is an uncommon cause of septic shock. Only three cases have been previously reported in the literature. In this article, we describe the case of a 70-year-old male admitted to the intensive care unit for septic shock of unknown origin. On day 2, one anaerobic bottle out of the two sets taken at admission turned positive with Gram-negative bacilli. The pathogen was identified by 16S rRNA gene as C. canis. The strain was characterized and compared with other clinical isolates of Capnocytophaga spp.