Comparison between standard and ultrasound-integrated approach for risk stratification of syncope in the emergency department.

This prospective cohort enrolled all patients above 16 years of age presenting to the in the emergency department (ED) for a reported syncope was designed to test the accuracy of a point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) integrated approach in risk stratification. The emergency physician responsible for the patient care was asked to classify the syncope risk after the initial clinical assessment and after performing POCUS evaluation. All risk group definitions were based on the 2018 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Thirty days after the index event, all participants were followed up to assess the frequency of short-term serious outcomes as defined in the San Francisco Syncope Rule (SFSR) cohorts. We estimated the accuracy of clinical and POCUS-integrated evaluation in predicting SFSR outcomes. Between February 2016 and January 2018, 196 patients were enrolled [109 women (55.6%)]. Median age was 64 years (interquartile range 31 years). After a follow-up of 30 days, 19 patients experienced 20 SFSR outcomes. Positive and negative likelihood ratios were 1.73 (95% CI 0.87-3.44) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.62-1.12) for the clinical evaluation, and 5.93 (95% CI 2.83-12.5) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.45-0.9) for the POCUS-integrated evaluation. The POCUS-integrated approach would reduce the diagnostic error of the clinical evaluation by 4.5 cases/100 patients. This cohort study suggested that the integration of the clinical assessment with POCUS results in patients presenting to the ED for non-high-risk syncope may increase the accuracy of predicting the risk of SFSR outcomes and the usefulness of the clinical assessment alone.

Lung ultrasound integrated with clinical assessment for the diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: Although acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is a common cause of dyspnoea, its diagnosis still represents a challenge. Lung ultrasound (LUS) is an emerging point-of-care diagnostic tool, but its diagnostic performance for ADHF has not been evaluated in randomized studies. We evaluated, in patients with acute dyspnoea, accuracy and clinical usefulness of combining LUS with clinical assessment compared to the use of chest radiography (CXR) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in conjunction with clinical evaluation. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a randomized trial conducted in two emergency departments. After initial clinical evaluation, patients with acute dyspnoea were classified by the treating physician according to presumptive aetiology (ADHF or non-ADHF). Patients were subsequently randomized to continue with either LUS or CXR/NT-proBNP. A new diagnosis, integrating the results of both initial assessment and the newly obtained findings, was then recorded. Diagnostic accuracy and clinical usefulness of LUS and CXR/NT-proBNP approaches were calculated. A total of 518 patients were randomized. Addition of LUS had higher accuracy [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.95] than clinical evaluation alone (AUC 0.88) in identifying ADHF (P < 0.01). In contrast, use of CXR/NT-proBNP did not significantly increase the accuracy of clinical evaluation alone (AUC 0.87 and 0.85, respectively; P > 0.05). The diagnostic accuracy of the LUS-integrated approach was higher then that of the CXR/Nt-proBNP-integrated approach (AUC 0.95 vs. 0.87, p < 0.01). Combining LUS with the clinical evaluation reduced diagnostic errors by 7.98 cases/100 patients, as compared to 2.42 cases/100 patients in the CXR/Nt-proBNP group. CONCLUSION: Integration of LUS with clinical assessment for the diagnosis of ADHF in the emergency department seems to be more accurate than the current diagnostic approach based on CXR and NT-proBNP.

Sources of Variability in the Detection of B-Lines, Using Lung Ultrasound.

Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a largely employed diagnostic tool but an operational protocol for implementation has never been proposed. The lack of standardization clearly introduces variability in LUS results. We enrolled adult patients presenting for acute dyspnea with a clinical suspect of etiology related to heart failure. We calculated agreement among four providers in assessing B-lines. We varied probes, depth, evaluation time and scanning areas and we estimated the importance of each factors on B-lines assessment. Overall agreement among raters varied from a kappa of 0.70 to 0.81. The mean number of B-lines was 5.44 (95% confidence interval, CI, 4.1-6.8). This estimate did not suffer variation by the depth used (0.03, 95% CI -0.2-0.2, more B-lines, using 19 cm versus 10 cm). The use of a convex probe and expertise in LUS reduced the number of artifacts by 1.7 (95% CI 1.5-1.9) and 1.1 in comparison with a phased array probe and naive operators. Evaluation time increased estimates by 1.2 (95% CI 1-1.5) and 2.9 (95% CI 2.7-3.9) B-lines for 4" and 7" clips (reference was 2" clips). This study suggests that the probe, the evaluation time and the level of expertise might affect the results of quantitative assessment of B-lines.