Objectives
The goal of this study was to determine the diagnostic yield of focused cardiac ultrasound (FOCUS) in hemodynamically stable patients in the emergency department and secondarily to confirm the accuracy of these studies when compared to formal echocardiography.
Methods
All hemodynamically stable adult patients who had an emergency physician–performed FOCUS examination completed over a 1‐year period were identified using our electronic ultrasound database. Hemodynamic stability was defined as presenting systolic blood pressure higher than 90 mm Hg and not requiring any form of positive pressure ventilation.
Results
There were 1198 FOCUS examinations performed: 976 in hemodynamically stable patients who were included in our analysis. Twenty‐seven percent of patients had new findings, including 154 (16%) new diagnoses of reduced left ventricular function, 105 (11%) new pericardial effusions, and 44 (5%) new diagnoses of RV dilatation. Dyspnea as an indication for the FOCUS examination was the strongest predictor of a positive study. Of patients included, 28% underwent formal echocardiography within 2 days and were analyzed for concordance with regard to left ventricular function and the presence of pericardial effusion. Of 270 studies, 208 were accurate, and 62 were inaccurate, for raw agreement of 77% (κ = 0.53). When stratified by sonographer experience, there was no impact on accuracy.
Conclusions
Focused cardiac ultrasound in the emergency department for hemodynamically stable patients revealed new findings in 27% of studies, with a modest correlation with formal echocardiography. In stable patients, FOCUS has the potential for rapid diagnosis of cardiac disease, particularly in patients with dyspnea.
There is a high incidence of CAA in patients with aortic aneurysms. In patients with ascending aortic aneurysms there is likely a mechanism distinct from CAD that causes CAAs.
Background: Imaging cardiac stress test use has risen significantly, leading to the development of appropriate use criteria. Prior studies have suggested the rate of inappropriate testing is 13% to 14%, but inappropriate testing in hospitalized patients has not been well studied. Hypothesis: Appropriate use of stress testing in hospitalized patients is not comparable to the ambulatory setting. Methods: We studied 459 consecutive patients referred for imaging stress tests (nuclear imaging or stress echocardiography) at a single institution over a 6-month period. Appropriate use was determined by research cardiologists blinded to patient outcomes. Results: Most tests (68%) were in patients with chest pain or possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Another 20% were for preoperative evaluation. The rate of inappropriate testing was 13%. Imaging modality did not correlate with appropriate use. Only 2% of the chest pain or possible ACS were inappropriate, compared to 49% of the preoperative exams (P < 0.001). The most common reason a test was considered inappropriate was for a low-risk patient for preoperative exam (77% of inappropriate tests). Using Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction score 0 to define inappropriate testing in the possible ACS cohort might make an additional 27% inappropriate.
Conclusions:The rate of inappropriate use of cardiac stress testing with imaging in the inpatient setting is similar to that in the ambulatory setting. However, there is wide variation in inappropriate testing based on the indication for the test. Taking risk into consideration in possible ACS patients could result in a larger number of tests being considered inappropriate.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.