Sonographic Findings of Left Ventricular Dysfunction to Predict Shock Type in Undifferentiated Hypotensive Patients: An Analysis From the Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHoC-ED) Study.

Introduction Patients that present to the emergency department (ED) with undifferentiated hypotension have a high mortality rate. Hypotension can be divided into four categories: obstructive, hypovolemic, distributive, and cardiogenic. While it is possible to have overlapping or concomitant shock states, being able to differentiate between cardiogenic shock and the other categories is important as it entails a different treatment regime and extra cautions. In this secondary analysis, we investigate if using focused cardiac ultrasonography (FOCUS) to determine left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) can serve as a reliable test for cardiogenic shock. Methods We prospectively collected FOCUS findings performed in 135 ED patients with undifferentiated hypotension as part of an international study. Patients with clearly identified etiologies for hypotension were excluded, along with other specific presumptive diagnoses. LVD was defined as the identification of a generally hypodynamic left ventricle in the setting of shock. FOCUS findings were collected using a standardized protocol and data collection form. All scans were performed by emergency physicians trained in ultrasound. Final shock type was defined as cardiogenic or noncardiogenic by independent specialist blinded chart review. Results In our findings, 135 patients had complete records for assessment of left ventricular function and additional follow-up data and so were included in this secondary analysis. The median age was 56 years and 53% of patients were male. Disease prevalence for cardiogenic shock was 12% and the mortality rate was 24%. The presence of LVD on FOCUS had a sensitivity of 62.50% (95% confidence interval 35.43% to 84.80%), specificity of 94.12% (88.26% to 97.60%), positive likelihood ratio (LR) 10.62 (4.71 to 23.95), negative LR 0.40 (0.21 to 0.75) and accuracy of 90.37% (84.10% to 94.77%) for detecting cardiogenic shock. Conclusion Detecting left ventricular dysfunction on FOCUS may be useful in the early identification of cardiogenic shock in otherwise undifferentiated hypotensive adult patients in the emergency department.

Pneumothorax Following Acupuncture.

Pneumothorax, the accumulation of air between the visceral and parietal pleurae, represents a potentially serious cause of chest pain in patients presenting to the emergency department. While there are known risk factors for spontaneous pneumothorax, in rare cases dry needling and acupuncture, forms of complementary and alternative medicine, have been known to result in pneumothorax. We present a case of a 38-year-old healthy female who presented with acute onset of pleuritic chest pain to the Emergency Department. On further history, it was discovered that she had received dry needling acupuncture for unrelated back pain the day prior to presentation. She was initially investigated with an electrocardiogram (ECG), which was unremarkable, and point of care ultrasound (POCUS), which showed absent lung sliding and the presence of a lung point on the right side, indicative of pneumothorax. This case describes the key features of pneumothorax on POCUS and how POCUS can be a valuable tool in the diagnosis of lung pathologies and highlights the importance of considering the rare but potentially serious complications of complementary and alternative medicine practices which are typically regarded as safe.

Does Point of Care Ultrasound Improve Resuscitation Markers in Undifferentiated Hypotension? An International Randomized Controlled Trial From The Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHoC-ED) Series.

Introduction Point of Care Ultrasound (PoCUS) protocols are commonly used to guide resuscitation for patients with undifferentiated hypotension, yet there is a paucity of evidence for any outcome benefit. We undertook an international multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the impact of a PoCUS protocol on key clinical outcomes. Here we report on resuscitation markers.  Methods Adult patients presenting to six emergency departments (ED) in Canada and South Africa with undifferentiated hypotension (systolic blood pressure (SBP) <100mmHg or a Shock Index >1.0) were randomized to receive a PoCUS protocol or standard care (control). Reported physiological markers include shock index (SI), and modified early warning score (MEWS), with biochemical markers including venous bicarbonate and lactate, at baseline and four hours.  Results A total of 273 patients were enrolled, with data collected for 270. Baseline characteristics were similar for each group. Improvements in mean values for each marker during initial treatment were similar between groups: Shock Index; mean reduction in Control 0.39, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.44 vs. PoCUS 0.33, 0.29 to 0.38; MEWS, mean reduction in Control 2.56, 2.22 to 2.89 vs. PoCUS 2.91, 2.49 to 3.32; Bicarbonate, mean reduction in Control 2.71 mmol/L, 2.12 to 3.30 mmol/L vs. PoCUS 2.30 mmol/L, 1.75 to 2.84 mmol/L, and venous lactate, mean reduction in Control 1.39 mmol/L, 0.93 to 1.85 mmol/L vs. PoCUS 1.31 mmol/L, 0.88 to 1.74 mmol/L. Conclusion We found no meaningful difference in physiological and biochemical resuscitation markers with or without the use of a PoCUS protocol in the resuscitation of undifferentiated hypotensive ED patients. We are unable to exclude improvements in individual patients or in specific shock types.

Thrombolytics for cardiac arrest: case report and systematic review of controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a successful case involving the use of tenecteplase during cardiac arrest for presumed pulmonary embolism (PE) and to systematically review the evidence from controlled trials supporting the efficacy and safety of thrombolysis during cardiac arrest. CASE SUMMARY: A 48-year-old male presented to the emergency department with an acute onset of shortness of breath that began approximately 2 hours prior to presentation. Prior to undergoing a computed tomography (CT) scan to rule out PE, the patient went into cardiac arrest, with an initial rhythm of pulseless electrical activity at a rate of 140 beats/min. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was initiated and, due to suspected PE, a bolus dose of tenecteplase 50 mg was administered immediately following a single 1-mg dose of epinephrine. CPR was continued and 4 additional 1-mg doses of epinephrine and three 1-mg doses of atropine were given. After 13 minutes of CPR, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was achieved, with a blood pressure of 144/50 mm Hg. After the patient was stabilized, a CT scan demonstrated extensive bilateral pulmonary emboli in most segmental arteries. He was admitted to the intensive care unit where he was sedated, paralyzed, and treated with induced hypothermia for 24 hours. He was discharged from the hospital 2 weeks later on warfarin, with no noted neurologic deficits. DISCUSSION: A systematic search of MEDLINE (1950-August 2010), Embase (1980-August 2010), and Google Scholar (to August 2010) was conducted to identify prospective controlled trials that investigated the use of thrombolytic medications to treat cardiac arrest. Five trials involving 1544 undifferentiated cases of cardiac arrest were found. Overall, some trials reported an improved rate of ROSC following administration of thrombolytics, but there was no overall mortality reduction in any trial. There was, however, an increased risk of bleeding events following administration of a thrombolytic drug. CONCLUSIONS: Controlled trials demonstrate that there is a lack of benefit and potential harm in administering thrombolysis in an undifferentiated patient with cardiac arrest. However, the case we present provides evidence that fibrinolysis may benefit selected patients with cardiac arrest in whom PE is confirmed or in whom there is high index of suspicion of PE.

CAEP position statement on cellphone use while driving.

Distracted driving caused by cellphone use is a significant source of needless injuries. These injuries place unnecessary financial burden, emotional stress and health care resource misuse on society. This paper states the Canadian Association of Emergency Physician's (CAEP's) position on cellphone use while driving. In recent years, numerous studies were conducted on the danger of cellphone use while driving. Research has shown that cellphone use while driving negatively impacts cognitive functions, visual fields, reaction time and overall driving performances. Some studies found that cellphone use is as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol. Moreover, vehicle crash rates were shown to be significantly higher when drivers used cellphones. Countermeasures have been implemented in recent years. Over 50 countries worldwide have laws limiting the use of cellphones while driving. Six Canadian provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, currently have legislation prohibiting cellphone use. Other provinces are considering implementing similar bans. As emergency physicians, we must advocate for injury prevention. Cell phone related road traumas are avoidable. CAEP supports all measures to ban cellphone use while driving.