2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Impact of Point-of-Care Ultrasound in the Emergency Department on Care Processes and Outcomes in Critically Ill Nontraumatic Patients

      research-article

      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

          Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

          Objectives:

          Outcomes data on point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in critically ill patients are lacking. This study examines the association between POCUS in the emergency department and outcomes in critically ill patients.

          Design:

          Retrospective cohort study of critically ill emergency department patients in two academic emergency departments. All emergency department patients admitted to the intensive care unit or that die in the emergency department were entered prospectively into a registry.

          Setting:

          Two academic emergency departments.

          Patients:

          All adult (> 18 years old) non-trauma patients with hemodynamic instability [shock index (heart rate/systolic blood pressure) > 0.6] between November 1, 2013-October 31, 2016, were included.

          Interventions:

          Cohorts were assigned as follows: no POCUS (cohort 1), POCUS prior to a key intervention (cohort 2), and POCUS after a key intervention (cohort 3). A key intervention was either a fluid bolus or vasoactive drug initiation.

          Measurements and Main Results:

          Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between POCUS use and the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality. We conducted several sensitivity analyses including propensity score matching and inverse-probability-weighted regression-adjustment along with multiple imputation to account for non-random assignment of POCUS as well as bias due to missing data. Of the 7,734 eligible patients, 2,293 patients were excluded. The remaining 5,441 patients were included in the analysis: 4165 in Cohort 1, 614 in Cohort 2, and 662 in Cohort 3. Mortality was 22%, 29%, and 26%, respectively ( p < 0.001). POCUS prior to an intervention was associated with an adjusted odds ratio for death of 1.41 (95% CI, 1.12-1.76) compared to no POCUS. The sensitivity analyses showed an absolute increased mortality of +0.05 (95% CI, 0.02-0.09) for cohort 2 compared to 1.

          Conclusions:

          POCUS use prior to interventions appears to be associated with care delays and increased in-hospital mortality compared to critically ill patients with no POCUS. Further explorations of the impact of POCUS in the emergency department appear warranted.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

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

          Time to Treatment and Mortality during Mandated Emergency Care for Sepsis.

          Background In 2013, New York began requiring hospitals to follow protocols for the early identification and treatment of sepsis. However, there is controversy about whether more rapid treatment of sepsis improves outcomes in patients. Methods We studied data from patients with sepsis and septic shock that were reported to the New York State Department of Health from April 1, 2014, to June 30, 2016. Patients had a sepsis protocol initiated within 6 hours after arrival in the emergency department and had all items in a 3-hour bundle of care for patients with sepsis (i.e., blood cultures, broad-spectrum antibiotic agents, and lactate measurement) completed within 12 hours. Multilevel models were used to assess the associations between the time until completion of the 3-hour bundle and risk-adjusted mortality. We also examined the times to the administration of antibiotics and to the completion of an initial bolus of intravenous fluid. Results Among 49,331 patients at 149 hospitals, 40,696 (82.5%) had the 3-hour bundle completed within 3 hours. The median time to completion of the 3-hour bundle was 1.30 hours (interquartile range, 0.65 to 2.35), the median time to the administration of antibiotics was 0.95 hours (interquartile range, 0.35 to 1.95), and the median time to completion of the fluid bolus was 2.56 hours (interquartile range, 1.33 to 4.20). Among patients who had the 3-hour bundle completed within 12 hours, a longer time to the completion of the bundle was associated with higher risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.04 per hour; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.05; P<0.001), as was a longer time to the administration of antibiotics (odds ratio, 1.04 per hour; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.06; P<0.001) but not a longer time to the completion of a bolus of intravenous fluids (odds ratio, 1.01 per hour; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.02; P=0.21). Conclusions More rapid completion of a 3-hour bundle of sepsis care and rapid administration of antibiotics, but not rapid completion of an initial bolus of intravenous fluids, were associated with lower risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others.).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Association between a chloride-liberal vs chloride-restrictive intravenous fluid administration strategy and kidney injury in critically ill adults.

            Administration of traditional chloride-liberal intravenous fluids may precipitate acute kidney injury (AKI). To assess the association of a chloride-restrictive (vs chloride-liberal) intravenous fluid strategy with AKI in critically ill patients. Prospective, open-label, sequential period pilot study of 760 patients admitted consecutively to the intensive care unit (ICU) during the control period (February 18 to August 17, 2008) compared with 773 patients admitted consecutively during the intervention period (February 18 to August 17, 2009) at a university-affiliated hospital in Melbourne, Australia. During the control period, patients received standard intravenous fluids. After a 6-month phase-out period (August 18, 2008, to February 17, 2009), any use of chloride-rich intravenous fluids (0.9% saline, 4% succinylated gelatin solution, or 4% albumin solution) was restricted to attending specialist approval only during the intervention period; patients instead received a lactated solution (Hartmann solution), a balanced solution (Plasma-Lyte 148), and chloride-poor 20% albumin. The primary outcomes included increase from baseline to peak creatinine level in the ICU and incidence of AKI according to the risk, injury, failure, loss, end-stage (RIFLE) classification. Secondary post hoc analysis outcomes included the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT), length of stay in ICU and hospital, and survival. RESULTS Chloride administration decreased by 144 504 mmol (from 694 to 496 mmol/patient) from the control period to the intervention period. Comparing the control period with the intervention period, the mean serum creatinine level increase while in the ICU was 22.6 μmol/L (95% CI, 17.5-27.7 μmol/L) vs 14.8 μmol/L (95% CI, 9.8-19.9 μmol/L) (P = .03), the incidence of injury and failure class of RIFLE-defined AKI was 14% (95% CI, 11%-16%; n = 105) vs 8.4% (95% CI, 6.4%-10%; n = 65) (P <.001), and the use of RRT was 10% (95% CI, 8.1%-12%; n = 78) vs 6.3% (95% CI, 4.6%-8.1%; n = 49) (P = .005). After adjustment for covariates, this association remained for incidence of injury and failure class of RIFLE-defined AKI (odds ratio, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.37-0.75]; P <.001) and use of RRT (odds ratio, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.33-0.81]; P = .004). There were no differences in hospital mortality, hospital or ICU length of stay, or need for RRT after hospital discharge. CONCLUSION The implementation of a chloride-restrictive strategy in a tertiary ICU was associated with a significant decrease in the incidence of AKI and use of RRT. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00885404.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Focused cardiac ultrasound in the emergent setting: a consensus statement of the American Society of Echocardiography and American College of Emergency Physicians.

              The use of ultrasound has developed over the last 50 years into an indispensable first-line test for the cardiac evaluation of symptomatic patients. The technologic miniaturization and improvement in transducer technology, as well as the implementation of educational curriculum changes in residency training programs and specialty practice, have facilitated the integration of focused cardiac ultrasound into practice by specialties such as emergency medicine. In the emergency department, focused cardiac ultrasound has become a fundamental tool to expedite the diagnostic evaluation of the patient at the bedside and to initiate emergent treatment and triage decisions by the emergency physician. Copyright © 2010. Published by Mosby, Inc.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Crit Care Explor
                Crit Care Explor
                CC9
                Critical Care Explorations
                Wolters Kluwer Health
                2639-8028
                June 2019
                26 June 2019
                : 1
                : 6
                : e0019
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
                [2 ]Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
                [3 ]University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ.
                [4 ]Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
                [5 ]University of Arizona Center for Biomedical Informatics & Biostatistics, Mel & Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, Tucson, AZ.
                Author notes
                For information regarding this article, E-mail: jmosier@ 123456aemrc.arizona.edu
                Article
                00001
                10.1097/CCE.0000000000000019
                7063915
                32166263
                579cb6ad-4ff4-493b-b9bb-5761042b9e82
                Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

                History
                Categories
                Observational/Cohort Study
                Custom metadata
                TRUE
                T

                critical care,emergency department,point-of-care ultrasound,shock,ultrasound

                Comments

                Comment on this article