BackgroundAn improved prehospital diagnostic accuracy of cardiogenic pulmonary oedema could potentially improve initial treatment, triage, and outcome. A pilot study was conducted to assess the feasibility, time-use, and diagnostic accuracy of prehospital lung ultrasound (PLUS) for the diagnosis of cardiogenic pulmonary oedema.MethodsA prospective observational study was conducted in a prehospital setting. Patients were included if the physician based prehospital mobile emergency care unit was activated and one or more of the following two were present: respiratory rate >30/min., oxygen saturation <90 %. Exclusion criteria were: age <18 years, permanent mental disability or PLUS causing a delay in life-saving treatment or transportation. Following clinical assessment PLUS was performed and presence or absence of interstitial syndrome was registered. Audit by three physicians using predefined diagnostic criteria for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema was used as gold standard.ResultsA total of 40 patients were included in the study. Feasibility of PLUS was 100 % and median time used was 3 min. The gold standard diagnosed 18 (45.0 %) patients with cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. The diagnostic accuracy of PLUS for the diagnosis of cardiogenic pulmonary oedema was: sensitivity 94.4 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) 72.7–99.9 %), specificity 77.3 % (95 % CI 54.6–92.2 %), positive predictive value 77.3 % (95 % CI 54.6–92.2 %), negative predictive value 94.4 % (95 % CI 72.7–99.9 %).DiscussionThe sensitivity of PLUS is high, making it a potential tool for ruling-out cardiogenic pulmonary. The observed specificity was lower than what has been described in previous studies.ConclusionsPerformed, as part of a physician based prehospital emergency service, PLUS seems fast and highly feasible in patients with respiratory failure. Due to its diagnostic accuracy, PLUS may have potential as a prehospital tool, especially to rule out cardiogenic pulmonary oedema.

ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound in suspected pulmonary embolism.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane library were searched on 2 July 2020 with no restrictions on the date of publication. Subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of pulmonary embolism, ultrasound and diagnosis were used.Eligibility criteria and data analysisEligible studies reported sensitivity and specificity of deep venous, lung, cardiac or multiorgan ultrasound in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism, using an adequate reference-test. Prospective, cross-sectional and retrospective studies were considered for eligibility. No restrictions were made on language. Studies were excluded if a control group consisted of healthy volunteers or if transesophageal or endobronchial ultrasound was used. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2. Meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity was performed by construction of hierarchical summary receiver operator curves. I2 was used to assess the study heterogeneity.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity of reported ultrasound signs, stratified by organ approach (deep venous, lung, cardiac and multiorgan). Secondary outcomes were stratum-specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by pretest probability of pulmonary embolism.Results6378 references were identified, and 70 studies included. The study population comprised 9664 patients with a prevalence of pulmonary embolism of 39.9% (3852/9664). Risk of bias in at least one domain was found in 98.6% (69/70) of included studies. Most frequently, 72.8% (51/70) of studies reported >24 hours between ultrasound examination and reference test or did not disclose time interval at all. Level of heterogeneity ranged from 0% to 100%. Most notable ultrasound signs were bilateral compression of femoral and popliteal veins (22 studies; 4708 patients; sensitivity 43.7% (36.3% to 51.4%); specificity 96.7% (95.4% to 97.6%)), presence of at least one hypoechoic pleural-based lesion (19 studies; 2134 patients; sensitivity 81.4% (73.2% to 87.5%); specificity 87.4% (80.9% to 91.9%)), D-sign (13 studies; 1579 patients; sensitivity 29.7% (24.6% to 35.4%); specificity 96.2% (93.1% to 98.0%)), visible right ventricular thrombus (5 studies; 995 patients; sensitivity 4.7% (2.7% to 8.1%); specificity 100% (99.0% to 100%)) and McConnell’s sign (11 studies; 1480 patients; sensitivity 29.1% (20.0% to 40.1%); specificity 98.6% (96.7% to 99.4%)).ConclusionSeveral ultrasound signs exhibit a high specificity for pulmonary embolism, suggesting that implementation of ultrasound in the initial assessment of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism may improve the selection of patients for radiation imaging.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020184313.

Introduction: Immersive virtual reality (IVR)-based training is gaining ground as an educational tool in healthcare. When combined with well-established educational methods, IVR can potentially increase competency and autonomy in ultrasound (US)-guided peripheral venous cannulation. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of adding IVR training to a course in US-guided peripheral venous cannulation. Methods: Medical students (n = 19) from the University of Southern Denmark with no former standardized US education were recruited to voluntarily participate in a pilot study, designed as a randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome was the proportion of successful peripheral venous cannulations on a phantom. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of surface punctures on the phantom and procedure time. Participants received e-learning on the basic US before randomization to either IVR (n = 10) or no further training (n = 9). The additional IVR training comprised 10 virtual scenarios for US-guided peripheral venous catheter (PVC) placement. Students were subsequently evaluated in peripheral venous cannulation by a blinded assessor. Results: The proportion of successful peripheral venous cannulations was significantly higher in the IVR group ( P ≤ .001). The proportions of successful cannulations were significantly higher in the IVR group compared to the control group for the 1st and 2nd PVC ( P = .011, P = .023), but not for the 3rd PVC ( P = .087). Similar results were found for the proportion of surface punctures (1st: P ≤ .001, 2nd: P = .001, and 3rd: P = .114). No significant differences in procedure times were found between the groups. Conclusion: This pilot study showed that adding an IVR-based training simulation to an existing e-learning curriculum significantly increased the learning efficacy of US-guided PVC placement for medical students.

The first Danish Society for Emergency Medicine (DASEM) recommendations for the use of clinical ultrasound in emergency departments has been made. The recommendations describes what DASEM believes as being current best practice for training, certification, maintenance of acquired competencies, quality assurance, collaboration and research in the field of clinical US used in an ED.

No abstract

Background This study examined whether ultra-low-dose chest computed tomography (ULD-CT) could improve detection of acute chest conditions. Purpose To determine (i) whether diagnostic accuracy of ULD-CT is superior to supine chest X-ray (sCXR) for acute chest conditions and (ii) the feasibility of ULD-CT in an emergency department. Material and Methods From 1 February to 31 July 2019, 91 non-traumatic patients from the Emergency Department were prospectively enrolled in the study if they received an sCXR. An ULD-CT and a non-contrast chest CT (NCCT) scan were then performed. Three radiologists assessed the sCXR and ULD-CT examinations for cardiogenic pulmonary edema, pneumonia, pneumothorax, and pleural effusion. Resources and effort were compared for sCXR and ULD-CT to evaluate feasibility. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated for sCXR and ULD-CT using NCCT as the reference standard. Results The mean effective dose of ULD-CT was 0.05±0.01 mSv. For pleural effusion and cardiogenic pulmonary edema, no difference in diagnostic accuracy between ULD-CT and sCXR was observed. For pneumonia and pneumothorax, sensitivities were 100% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69–100) and 50% (95% CI 7–93) for ULD-CT and 60% (95% CI 26–88) and 0% (95% CI 0–0) for sCXR, respectively. Median examination time was 10 min for ULD-CT vs. 5 min for sCXR ( P<0.001). For ULD-CT 1–2 more staff members were needed compared to sCXR ( P<0.001). ULD-CT was rated more challenging to perform than sCXR ( P<0.001). Conclusion ULD-CT seems equal or better in detecting acute chest conditions compared to sCXR. However, ULD-CT examinations demand more effort and resources.

BackgroundThe major obstacle in prescribing an appropriate and targeted antibiotic treatment is insufficient knowledge concerning whether the patient has a bacterial infection, where the focus of infection is and which bacteria are the agents of the infection. A prerequisite for the appropriate use of antibiotics is timely access to accurate diagnostics such as point-of-care (POC) testing.The study aims to evaluate diagnostic tools and working methods that support a prompt and accurate diagnosis of hospitalised patients suspected of an acute infection. We will focus on the most common acute infections: community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and acute pyelonephritis (APN). The objectives are to investigate (1) patient characteristics and treatment trajectory of the different acute infections, (2) diagnostic and prognostic accuracy of infection markers, (3) diagnostic accuracy of POC urine flow cytometry on diagnosing and excluding bacteriuria, (4) how effective the addition of POC analysis of sputum to the diagnostic set-up for CAP is on antibiotic prescriptions, (5) diagnostic accuracy of POC ultrasound and ultralow dose (ULD) computerized tomography (CT) on diagnosing CAP, (6) diagnostic accuracy of specialist ultrasound on diagnosing APN, (7) diagnostic accuracy of POC ultrasound in diagnosing hydronephrosis in patients suspected of APN.Methods and analysisIt is a multifaceted multicentre diagnostic study, including 1000 adults admitted with suspicion of an acute infection. Participants will, within the first 24 hours of admission, undergo additional diagnostic tests including infection markers, POC urine flow cytometry, POC analysis of sputum, POC and specialist ultrasound, and ULDCT. The primary reference standard is an assigned diagnosis determined by a panel of experts.Ethics, dissemination and registrationApproved by Regional Committees on Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark, Danish Data Protection Agency and clinicaltrials.gov. Results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals, and positive, negative and inconclusive results will be published.Trial registration numbersNCT04661085, NCT04681963, NCT04667195, NCT04652167, NCT04686318, NCT04686292, NCT04651712, NCT04645030, NCT04651244.

ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound in suspected pulmonary embolism. DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane library was searched on the 2 nd of July, 2020 with no restrictions on date of publication. Subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of pulmonary embolism, ultrasound, and diagnosis were used. Eligibility criteria and data analysisEligible studies reported sensitivity and specificity of deep venous, lung, cardiac, or multiorgan ultrasound in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism, using an adequate reference-test. Prospective, crosssectional and retrospective studies were considered for eligibility. No restrictions were made on language. Studies were excluded if a control group consisted of healthy volunteers or if transesophageal or endobronchial ultrasound was utilized. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity was performed by construction of hierarchical summary receiver operator curves. I 2 was used to assess study heterogeneity. Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity of reported ultrasound signs, stratified by organ approach (deep venous, lung, cardiac, and multiorgan). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by pretest probability of pulmonary embolism. Results6378 references were identified, and 70 studies included. The study population comprised 9664 patients with a prevalence of pulmonary embolism of 39.9% (3852/9664). Risk of bias in at least one domain was found in 98.6% (69/70) of included studies. Most frequently, 72.8% (51/70) of studies reported more than 24 hours between ultrasound examination and reference test or did not disclose time interval at all. Level of heterogeneity ranged from 0% to 100%. Most notable ultrasound signs were bilateral compression of femoral and popliteal veins (22 studies; 4708 patients; sensitivity 43.7% (36.3% to 51.4%); specificity 96.7% (95.4% to 97.6%), presence of at least one hypoechoic pleural based lesion (19 studies; 2,134 patients; sensitivity 81.4% (73.2% to 87.5%); specificity 87.4% (80.9% to 91.9%)), D-sign (13 studies; 1,579 patients; sensitivity 29.7% (24.6% to 35.4%); specificity 96.2% (93.1% to 98.0%)), visible right ventricular thrombus (5 studies; 995 patients; sensitivity 4.7% (2.7% to 8.1%); specificity 100% (99.0% to 100%)), and McConnell's sign (11 studies; 1,480 patients; sensitivity 29.1% (20.0% to 40.1%); specificity 98.6% (96.7% to 99.4%)). ConclusionSeveral ultrasound signs exhibit a high specificity for pulmonary embolism, suggesting that implementation of ultrasound in the initial assessment of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism may improve the selection of patients for radiation imaging. Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42020184313. Data extraction and quality assessmentTwo reviewers (CF and NJ) used a predes...