Femoral Pulse Ultrasound Assessment Accuracy by Emergency Medicine Trainees on a Porcine Model.

of care ultrasound (POCUS) is increasingly used in emergency medicine (EM), including EM physician residents and EM physician assistant (EMPA) residents. Scant literature assesses accuracy and duration of POCUS pulse assessment by this group during cardiac resuscitation given recommendations for minimal pauses in chest compressions. Evaluation is needed for accuracy and duration of pulse interpretation in EM trainees utilizing POCUS. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind observational study of EM clinician trainee POCUS assessment of pulses using porcine models. Volunteers were blinded to the cardiac status of 5 porcine models randomized as deceased or living and performed femoral artery evaluation using color power Doppler POCUS. The primary outcome was accuracy of pulse assessment. Secondary outcomes included time to verbalization and differences based on reported duration of EM training, experience with ultrasound, and cardiac arrest resuscitation experience. RESULTS: 17 EM and EMPA trainees completed 85 total POCUS pulse assessments with 98.82% accuracy (n=84). Mean verbalization time was 6.95 seconds, and most verbalized interpretations were within 10-seconds (82.4%, n=70). This was grossly consistent between living and deceased models. Subgroup analysis found no significant differences of accuracy or verbalization time based on reported demographics. CONCLUSION: EM clinician trainees demonstrate a high degree of accuracy and low average time for verbalized interpretation of femoral artery pulse assessment, most within recommended time guidelines. Further study is needed to correlate these findings in human patients.

Combat lifesaver-trained, first-responder application of junctional tourniquets: a prospective, randomized, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Junctional hemorrhage surpassed extremity hemorrhage as the leading cause of preventable death after the resurgence of limb tourniquets during the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Junctional tourniquets (JTQs) were developed in response to this injury pattern. Published data for JTQ efficacy are limited and do not incorporate nonmedical, military first responders. We compared the time for effective placement and scores for device satisfaction between two different JTQs, stratified by combat lifesaver (CLS) and combat medics. METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized, crossover trial utilizing the SAM® Medical Junctional Tourniquet (SJT) and Junctional Emergency Treatment Tool (JETT™). Investigators simple randomized CLS and combat medics to SJT or JETT for their first JTQ application on mannequins with penetrating inguinal injuries. Then, participants immediately placed the other JTQ on another casualty with the same injury. The primary outcome measured was time of successful application. Success was defined as proper JTQ placement and a pressure reading of at least 180 mmHg. We compared outcomes between CLS and combat medics. Unsuccessful JTQ applications were excluded from the comparative analysis. RESULTS: From June 2015 to August 2015, a total of 227 personnel (133 CLS and 94 combat medics) at Fort Hood, Texas, USA volunteered to participate in the study. Twenty-eight percent (38 of 133) of CLS and 40% (38 of 94) of combat medics placed both JTQs successfully, for a total of 152 applications (76 SJTs and 76 JETTs). We found a significant difference between applications of the JETT between the CLS and combat medics (92.0 ± 37.7 s versus 70.5 ± 20.5 s, P = 0.004). No other subgroup analyses, whether by device or user, demonstrated a significant difference in application time. Both groups preferred the SJT over the JETT. CLS disagreed with combat medics that the JETT could be easily applied by one person (median 3.0 [2.0, 4.0] versus median 4.0 [3.0, 5.0]; P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Overall, success rates for both the SJT and JETT were low. Improved training is needed to increase successful application of junctional tourniquets before widespread implementation. Combat lifesavers and combat medics prefer the SJT over the JETT.

Heated Ultrasound Gel and Patient Satisfaction with Bedside Ultrasound Studies: The HUGS Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Our goal was to determine if heated gel for emergency department (ED) bedside ultrasonography improves patient satisfaction compared to room-temperature gel. METHODS: We randomized a convenience sample of ED patients determined by their treating physician to require a bedside ultrasound (US) study to either heated gel (102.0° F) or room-temperature gel (82.3° F). Investigators performed all US examinations. We informed all subjects that the study entailed investigation into various measures to improve patient satisfaction with ED US examinations but did not inform them of our specific focus on gel temperature. Investigators wore heat-resistant gloves while performing the examinations to blind themselves to the gel temperature. After completion of the US, subjects completed a survey including the primary outcome measure of patient satisfaction as measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). A secondary outcome was patient perceptions of sonographer professionalism measured by an ordinal scale (1-5). RESULTS: We enrolled 124 subjects; 120 completed all outcome measures. Of these, 59 underwent randomization to US studies with room-temperature gel and 61 underwent randomization to heated US gel. Patient 100-mm VAS satisfaction scores were 83.9 among patients undergoing studies with room-temperature gel versus 87.6 among subjects undergoing studies with heated gel (effect size 3.7, 95% confidence interval -1.3-8.6). There were similarly no differences between the two arms with regard to patient perceptions of sonographer professionalism. CONCLUSION: The use of heated ultrasound gel appears to have no material impact on the satisfaction of ED patients undergoing bedside ultrasound studies.