Diagnostic influence of routine point-of-care pocket-size ultrasound examinations performed by medical residents.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate the potential benefit of adding goal-directed ultrasound examinations performed by on-call medical residents using a pocket-size imaging device in patients admitted to a medical department. METHODS: A total of 992 emergency admissions to the medical department at a nonuniversity hospital in Norway were included. Patients admitted on dates with an on-call medical resident randomized to use a pocket-size imaging device were eligible for pocket-size cardiac and abdominal ultrasound examinations or standard care. The cardiac examination included estimation of right and left ventricular sizes and global systolic function and regional left ventricular systolic function, evaluation for pleural and pericardial effusion, and valvular disease. The abdominal examination looked for signs of gross abnormalities of the liver, gallbladder, abdominal aorta, inferior vena cava, and urinary system. Six of 12 medical residents with limited ultrasound experience were randomized to perform the examinations. Diagnostic corrections were made, and findings were confirmed by reference standard diagnostics. RESULTS: A total of 199 patients were examined. Median times used were 5.7 minutes for the cardiac examination and 4.7 minutes for the abdominal examination. In 13 patients (6.5%), the examination resulted in a major change in the primary diagnosis. In 21 patients (10.5%), the diagnosis was verified, and in 48 (24.0%), an additional important diagnosis was made. CONCLUSIONS: By implementing pocket-size ultrasound examinations that took less than 11 minutes to the usual care, we corrected, verified, or added important diagnoses in more than 1 of 3 emergency medical admissions. Point-of-care examinations with a pocket-size imaging device increased medical residents' diagnostic accuracy and capability.

Propofol and remifentanil versus midazolam and fentanyl for sedation during therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest: a randomised trial.

PURPOSE: To compare two protocols for sedation and analgesia during therapeutic hypothermia: midazolam and fentanyl versus propofol and remifentanil. The primary outcome was the time from discontinuation of infusions to extubation or decision not to extubate (offset time). Secondary outcomes were blood pressure, heart rate, use of vasopressors and inotropic drugs, pneumonia and neurological outcome. METHODS: This was an open, randomised, controlled trial on 59 patients treated with therapeutic hypothermia (33-34 °C for 24 h) after cardiac arrest in two Norwegian university hospitals between April 2008 and May 2009. The intervention was random allocation to sedation and analgesia with propofol/remifentanil or midazolam/fentanyl. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients received propofol and remifentanil, and 30 midazolam and fentanyl. Baseline characteristics were similar. Sedation and analgesia were stopped in 35 patients, and extubation was performed in 17 of these. Sedation had to be continued for 24 patients. Time to offset was significantly lower in patients given propofol and remifentanil [mean (95 % confidence intervals) 13.2 (2.3-24) vs. 36.8 (28.5-45.1) h, respectively, p < 0.001]. Patients given propofol and remifentanil needed norepinephrine infusions twice as often (23 vs. 12 patients, p = 0.003). Incidence of pneumonia and 3-month neurological outcome were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Time to offset was significantly shorter in patients treated with propofol and remifentanil. However, the clinical course in 40 % of patients prevented discontinuation of sedation and potential benefits from a faster recovery. The propofol and remifentanil group required norepinephrine twice as often, but both protocols were tolerated in most patients.