Structured Cardiac Assessment Outperforms Visual Estimation in Novice Ultrasound Users: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Two evidence-based techniques to determine left ventricular (LV) systolic function are taught in emergency medicine curricula. The first is a "structured approach," which qualitatively evaluates LV fractional shortening, E-point septal separation, and LV diameter. The other is the "eyeball method," which qualitatively estimates the LV ejection fraction (LVEF). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether the structured approach or the eyeball method was superior for teaching LVEF estimation to novices. METHODS: Medical students were recruited to participate in our randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized to the structured approach group or eyeball method group and completed one of two 15-min educational modules. Participants subsequently interpreted 12 echocardiogram clips to determine LV function. The primary outcome was the percentage of correct interpretations as determined by a cardiologist. RESULTS: Seventy-four participants were invited to participate and 32 completed the study (15 in the structured approach and 17 in the eyeball method groups). The majority (30 of 32 [93.75%]) were first- and second-year medical students with no prior ultrasound training. The mean time to complete the training was similar between groups (16.8 vs. 17.8 min; p = 0.66). The primary outcome of percent of correct interpretations was significantly higher in the structured approach group compared with the eyeball method group (88.9% vs. 73.0%; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Training novice ultrasound users in a structured qualitative LV assessment method was more effective than the eyeball method. Learners were able to achieve high accuracy after a brief training intervention. These results may help inform best practices for undergraduate ultrasound curriculum development.

A Tale of Two Cities: Applying the Boston Syncope Criteria to Jerusalem.

BACKGROUND: Syncope is a common reason for emergency department (ED) visits; however, the decision to admit or discharge patients after a syncopal episode remains challenging for emergency physicians. Decision rules such as the Boston Syncope Criteria have been developed in an attempt to aid clinicians in identifying high-risk patients as well as those who can be safely discharged, but applying these rules to different populations remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the Boston Syncope Criteria are valid for emergency department patients in Israel. METHODS: This retrospective cohort convenience sample included patients who visited a tertiary care hospital in Jerusalem from August 2018 to July 2019 with a primary diagnosis of syncope. Thirty-day follow-up was performed using a national health system database. The Boston Syncope Criteria were retrospectively applied to each patient to determine whether they were at high risk for an adverse outcome or critical intervention, versus low risk and could be discharged. RESULTS: A total of 198 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and completed follow-up. Of these, 21 patients had either an adverse outcome or critical intervention. The rule detected 20/21 with a sensitivity of 95%, a specificity of 66%, and a negative predictive value of 99. CONCLUSIONS: The Boston Syncope Criteria may be useful for physicians in other locations throughout the world to discharge low-risk syncope patients as well as identify those at risk of complications.