13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prehospital Emergency Ultrasound: A Review of Current Clinical Applications, Challenges, and Future Implications

      review-article
      * ,
      Emergency Medicine International
      Hindawi Publishing Corporation

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Imaging modalities in the prehospital setting are helpful in the evaluation and management of time-sensitive emergency conditions. Ultrasound is the main modality that has been applied by emergency medical services (EMS) providers in the field. This paper examines the clinical applications of ultrasound in the prehospital setting. Specific focus is on applications that provide essential information to guide triage and management of critical patients. Challenges of this modality are also described in terms of cost impact on EMS agencies, provider training, and skill maintenance in addition to challenges related to the technical aspect of ultrasound.

          Related collections

          Most cited references47

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Focused echocardiographic evaluation in life support and peri-resuscitation of emergency patients: a prospective trial.

          Focused ultrasound is increasingly used in the emergency setting, with an ALS-compliant focused echocardiography algorithm proposed as an adjunct in peri-resuscitation care (FEEL). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of FEEL in pre-hospital resuscitation, the incidence of potentially treatable conditions detected, and the influence on patient management. A prospective observational study in a pre-hospital emergency setting in patients actively undergoing cardio-pulmonary resuscitation or in a shock state. The FEEL protocol was applied by trained emergency doctors, following which a standardised report sheet was completed, including echo findings and any echo-directed change in management. These reports were then analysed independently. A total of 230 patients were included, with 204 undergoing a FEEL examination during ongoing cardiac arrest (100) and in a shock state (104). Images of diagnostic quality were obtained in 96%. In 35% of those with an ECG diagnosis of asystole, and 58% of those with PEA, coordinated cardiac motion was detected, and associated with increased survival. Echocardiographic findings altered management in 78% of cases. Application of ALS-compliant echocardiography in pre-hospital care is feasible, and alters diagnosis and management in a significant number of patients. Further research into its effect on patient outcomes is warranted. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Guidelines for field triage of injured patients: recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage, 2011.

            In the United States, injury is the leading cause of death for persons aged 1-44 years. In 2008, approximately 30 million injuries were serious enough to require the injured person to visit a hospital emergency department (ED); 5.4 million (18%) of these injured patients were transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). On arrival at the scene of an injury, the EMS provider must determine the severity of injury, initiate management of the patient's injuries, and decide the most appropriate destination hospital for the individual patient. These destination decisions are made through a process known as "field triage," which involves an assessment not only of the physiology and anatomy of injury but also of the mechanism of the injury and special patient and system considerations. Since 1986, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) has provided guidance for the field triage process through its "Field Triage Decision Scheme." This guidance was updated with each version of the decision scheme (published in 1986, 1990, 1993, and 1999). In 2005, CDC, with financial support from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, collaborated with ACS-COT to convene the initial meetings of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage (the Panel) to revise the decision scheme; the revised version was published in 2006 by ACS-COT (American College of Surgeons. Resources for the optimal care of the injured patient: 2006. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2006). In 2009, CDC published a detailed description of the scientific rationale for revising the field triage criteria (CDC. Guidelines for field triage of injured patients: recommendations of the National Expert Panel on Field Triage. MMWR 2009;58[No. RR-1]). In 2011, CDC reconvened the Panel to review the 2006 Guidelines in the context of recently published literature, assess the experiences of states and local communities working to implement the Guidelines, and recommend any needed changes or modifications to the Guidelines. This report describes the dissemination and impact of the 2006 Guidelines; outlines the methodology used by the Panel for its 2011 review; explains the revisions and modifications to the physiologic, anatomic, mechanism-of-injury, and special considerations criteria; updates the schematic of the 2006 Guidelines; and provides the rationale used by the Panel for these changes. This report is intended to help prehospital-care providers in their daily duties recognize individual injured patients who are most likely to benefit from specialized trauma center resources and is not intended as a mass casualty or disaster triage tool. The Panel anticipates a review of these Guidelines approximately every 5 years.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Comparison of three different methods to confirm tracheal tube placement in emergency intubation.

              Verification of endotracheal tube placement is of vital importance, since unrecognized esophageal intubation can be rapidly fatal (death, brain damage). The aim of our study was to compare three different methods for immediate confirmation of tube placement: auscultation, capnometry and capnography in emergency conditions in the prehospital setting. Prospective study in the prehospital setting. All adult patients (>18 years) were intubated by an emergency physician in the field. Tube position was initially evaluated by auscultation. Then, capnometry was performed with infrared capnometry and capnography with infrared capnography. The examiners looked for the characteristic CO(2) waveform and value of end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO(2)) in millimeters of mercury. Determination of final tube placement was performed by a second direct visualization with laryngoscope. Data are mean +/- SD and percentages. Over a 4year period, 345 patients requiring emergency intubation were included. Indications for intubation included cardiac arrest ( n=246; 71%) and non-arrest conditions ( n=99; 29%). In nine (2.7%) patients, esophageal tube placement occurred. The esophageal intubations were followed by successful endotracheal intubations without complications. The capnometry (sensitivity and specificity 100%) and capnography (sensitivity and specificity 100%) were better than auscultation (sensitivity 94% and specificity 83%) in confirming endotracheal tube placement in non-arrest patients ( p<0.05). Capnometry was highly specific (100%) but not sensitive (88%) for correct endotracheal intubation in patients with cardiopulmonary arrest (capnometry versus auscultation and capnometry versus capnography, p<0.05). Capnography is the most reliable method to confirm endotracheal tube placement in emergency conditions in the prehospital setting.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Emerg Med Int
                Emerg Med Int
                EMI
                Emergency Medicine International
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                2090-2840
                2090-2859
                2013
                19 September 2013
                : 2013
                : 531674
                Affiliations
                Department of Emergency Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, P.O. Box 11-0236, Riad El Solh, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon
                Author notes
                *Mazen J. El Sayed: melsayed@ 123456aub.edu.lb

                Academic Editor: Raoul Breitkreutz

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5674-1025
                Article
                10.1155/2013/531674
                3792527
                24171113
                39c68af5-8a69-4f3f-bdab-8610ec05ed4c
                Copyright © 2013 M. J. El Sayed and E. Zaghrini.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 27 July 2013
                : 22 August 2013
                Categories
                Review Article

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                Emergency medicine & Trauma

                Comments

                Comment on this article