Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Perioperative Point-of-Care Ultrasound Use by Anesthesiologists

      review-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

          Point-of-Care ultrasound (POCUS) is the bedside utilization of ultrasound, in real-time, to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of patients. Image acquisition from POCUS utilization by anesthesiologists involves the assessment of multiple organs in different perioperative situations. POCUS can be utilized to enhance clinical decision-making in a variety of perioperative situations due to its ability to assess endotracheal tube placement, cardiac function, pulmonary function, aspiration risk, hemodynamics, vascular access, and nerve visualization for regional procedures. The mounting clinical evidence for the value of POCUS in perioperative settings, its growing affordability, and its low associated risks are responsible for the nationwide movement across many anesthesiology residency programs to increase the focus on perioperative ultrasound training. The purpose of this review is to present to current anesthesiologists and anesthesiology trainees, a broad discussion regarding the diverse utility and importance of POCUS in perioperative settings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

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

          Practice Guidelines for Preoperative Fasting and the Use of Pharmacologic Agents to Reduce the Risk of Pulmonary Aspiration: Application to Healthy Patients Undergoing Elective Procedures: An Updated Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Preoperative Fasting and the Use of Pharmacologic Agents to Reduce the Risk of Pulmonary Aspiration.

          (2017)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Lung ultrasound in critically ill patients: comparison with bedside chest radiography.

            To compare the diagnostic performance of lung ultrasound and bedside chest radiography (CXR) for the detection of various pathologic abnormalities in unselected critically ill patients, using thoracic computed tomography (CT) as a gold standard. Forty-two mechanically ventilated patients scheduled for CT were prospectively studied with a modified lung ultrasound protocol. Four pathologic entities were evaluated: consolidation, interstitial syndrome, pneumothorax, and pleural effusion. Each hemithorax was evaluated for the presence or absence of each abnormality. Eighty-four hemithoraces were evaluated by the three imaging techniques. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of CXR were 38, 89, and 49% for consolidation, 46, 80, and 58% for interstitial syndrome, 0, 99, and 89% for pneumothorax, and 65, 81, and 69% for pleural effusion, respectively. The corresponding values for lung ultrasound were 100, 78, and 95% for consolidation, 94, 93, and 94% for interstitial syndrome, 75, 93, and 92% for pneumothorax, and 100, 100, and 100% for pleural effusion, respectively. The relatively low sensitivity of lung ultrasound for pneumothorax could be due to small number of cases (n = 8) and/or suboptimal methodology. In our unselected general ICU population lung ultrasound has a considerably better diagnostic performance than CXR for the diagnosis of common pathologic conditions and may be used as an alternative to thoracic CT.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Comparison of effectiveness of hand-carried ultrasound to bedside cardiovascular physical examination.

              This study compared the accuracy of cardiovascular diagnoses by medical students operating a small hand-carried ultrasound (HCU) device with that of board-certified cardiologists using standard physical examinations. Sixty-one patients (38% women; mean age 70 +/- 19 years) with clinically significant cardiac disease had HCU studies performed by 1 of 2 medical students with 18 hours of training in cardiac ultrasound and physical examinations by 1 of 5 cardiologists. Diagnostic accuracy was determined by standard echocardiography. Two-hundred thirty-nine abnormal findings were detected by standard echocardiography. The students correctly identified 75% (180 of 239) of the pathologies, whereas cardiologists found 49% (116 of 239) (p <0.001). The students' diagnostic specificity of 87% was also greater than cardiologists' specificity of 76% (p <0.001). For nonvalvular pathologies (115 findings), students' sensitivity was 61%, compared with 47% for cardiologists (p = 0.040). There were 124 clinically significant valvular lesions (111 regurgitations, 13 stenoses). Students' and cardiologists' sensitivities for recognizing lesions that cause a systolic murmur were 93% and 62% (p <0.001), respectively. Students' sensitivity for diagnosing lesions that produce a diastolic murmur was 75%; cardiologists recognized 16% of these lesions (p <0.001). The diagnostic accuracy of medical students using an HCU device after brief echocardiographic training to detect valvular disease, left ventricular dysfunction, enlargement, and hypertrophy was superior to that of experienced cardiologists performing cardiac physical examinations.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cureus
                Cureus
                2168-8184
                Cureus
                Cureus (Palo Alto (CA) )
                2168-8184
                24 May 2021
                May 2021
                : 13
                : 5
                : e15217
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Oregon Health Science University Hospital, Portland, USA
                [2 ] Anesthesiology, College of Osteopathic Medicine of the Pacific, Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, USA
                [3 ] Internal Medicine, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, USA
                [4 ] Anesthesiology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, USA
                Author notes
                Article
                10.7759/cureus.15217
                8221658
                6d6b2dee-f352-47b4-8bca-0910c537e008
                Copyright © 2021, Naji et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 24 May 2021
                Categories
                Anesthesiology
                Medical Education

                ultrasound in anesthesiology,point-of-care-ultrasound,ultrasound (u/s),anesthesia,anesthesiologists,echocardiography,bedside ultrasound,perioperative

                Comments

                Comment on this article