This was such a great talk. Having an algorithm on what exactly you're trying to rule out in a systematic fashion makes so much sense. Too many times i've just plopped the ultrasound down on the patient hoping to find SOMETHING but not really having those binary decisions in mind (i.e. B-lines yes/no, PTX yes/no move on).
Definitely a great talk! And a hot topic with more handheld US devices on the market. I don't know where to take this, given some evidence doesn't support the use of POCUS in undifferentiated hypotension....I am curious what others think. Certainly I've had anecdotal success once finding tamponade.
https://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(18)30325-1/pdf "this is the first randomized controlled trial to compare point-of-care ultrasonography to standard care without point-of-care ultrasonography in undifferentiated hypotensive ED patients. We did not find any benefits for survival, length of stay, rates of CT scanning, inotrope use, or fluid administration."
The 1st thing to keep in mind is that most of the time ultrasound confirms what we already thought as clinicians. It just helps to raise our diagnostic certainty thus helping us to avoid having too much gray hair. It definitely helps to decrease our cognitive load as we are more certain that we're doing "the right thing" and even though I will still get a CT in my massive PE patient, I might choose a better timing to send him there. These are all benefits that are hard to study !
Sporadically, like your tamponnade example, it will radically change the management in a given patient. The same thing holds when you uncover an unsuspected heart failure in a septic patient.
My clinical experience is that ultrasound is definitely helpful when we're faced with a single patient (n=1), but that might end up difficult to prove in populations of patients like those that studies require. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence !
To join the conversation, you need to subscribe.
Sign up today for full access to all episodes and to join the conversation.
EM:RAP 2019 JuneFull episode audio for MD edition227:40 min - 317 MB - M4AEMRAP 2019 June Canadian EditionCanadian17:11 min - 24 MB - MP3EMRAP 2019 June German EditionDeutsche92:42 min - 127 MB - MP3EM:RAP 2019 June Spanish EditionEspañol78:44 min - 108 MB - MP3EM:RAP 2019 June French EditionFrançais30:59 min - 43 MB - MP3EM:RAP 2019 June Farsi EditionFarsi132:49 min - 182 MB - MP3EM:RAP 2019 June Aussie EditionAustralian0:57 min - 1 MB - MP3EMRAP 2019 06 June Individual MP3s294 MB - ZIPEMRAP 2019 June Board Review Answers131 KB - PDFEMRAP 2019 June Board Review Questions177 KB - PDFEMRAP 2019 June Spanish Written (SPA)4 MB - PDFEMRAP 2019 June Written Summary367 KB - PDF
To earn CME for this chapter, you need to subscribe.
Sign up today for full access to all episodes and earn CME.
6 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™ certified by CEME (EM:RAP)
Daniel P. - June 6, 2019 4:55 PM
This was such a great talk. Having an algorithm on what exactly you're trying to rule out in a systematic fashion makes so much sense. Too many times i've just plopped the ultrasound down on the patient hoping to find SOMETHING but not really having those binary decisions in mind (i.e. B-lines yes/no, PTX yes/no move on).
gm - June 11, 2019 11:11 PM
Definitely a great talk! And a hot topic with more handheld US devices on the market. I don't know where to take this, given some evidence doesn't support the use of POCUS in undifferentiated hypotension....I am curious what others think. Certainly I've had anecdotal success once finding tamponade.
https://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(18)30325-1/pdf
"this is the first randomized controlled trial to compare point-of-care ultrasonography to standard care without point-of-care ultrasonography in undifferentiated hypotensive ED patients. We did not find any benefits for survival, length of stay, rates of CT scanning, inotrope use, or fluid administration."
Maxime V., M.D. - June 17, 2019 11:41 AM
The 1st thing to keep in mind is that most of the time ultrasound confirms what we already thought as clinicians. It just helps to raise our diagnostic certainty thus helping us to avoid having too much gray hair. It definitely helps to decrease our cognitive load as we are more certain that we're doing "the right thing" and even though I will still get a CT in my massive PE patient, I might choose a better timing to send him there. These are all benefits that are hard to study !
Sporadically, like your tamponnade example, it will radically change the management in a given patient. The same thing holds when you uncover an unsuspected heart failure in a septic patient.
My clinical experience is that ultrasound is definitely helpful when we're faced with a single patient (n=1), but that might end up difficult to prove in populations of patients like those that studies require. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence !