RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Ultrasonographic B-lines have recently emerged as a bedside imaging tool for the differential diagnosis of acute dyspnea in the Emergency Department (ED). However, despite its simplicity, LUS has not fully penetrated emergency department. This study aimed to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of ultrasonographic B-lines performed by emergency medicine (EM) residents for the diagnosis of congestive heart failure (CHF) in patients admitted to ED for acute dyspnea. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional prospective study conducted between January 2016 and October 2017 including patients aged over 18 years admitted to ED for acute dyspnea. At admission, two consecutive bedside LUS study were performed by a pair of EM residents who received a 2-h course for recognition of sonographic B-lines to determine independently B-lines score and B-profile pattern. All participating sonographers were blinded to patients' clinical data. B-lines score ≥ 15 or a B-profile pattern was considered as suggestive of CHF. The final leading diagnosis was assessed by two expert sonographers, who were blinded to the residents' interpretations, based on clinical findings, chest X-ray, brain natriuretic peptide, cardiac and lung ultrasound testing. Accuracy and agreement of B-lines score and B-profile pattern were calculated. RESULTS: We included 700 patients with a mean age of 68 ± 12.6 years and a sex ratio (M/F) of 1.43. The diagnosis of CHF was recorded in 371 patients (53%). The diagnostic performance of B-lines score at a cut-off 15 and B-profile pattern was, respectively, 88% and 82.5% for sensitivity, 75% and 84% for specificity, 80% and 85% for positive predictive value, 84% and 81% for negative predictive value. The area under receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.86 [0.83-0.89] and 0.83 [0.80-0.86], respectively, for B-lines score and B-profile pattern. There was an excellent agreement between residents for the diagnosis of CHF using both scores (kappa = 0.81 and 0.85, respectively, for ordinal scale B-lines score and B-profile pattern). CONCLUSION: Lung ultrasound B-lines assessment has a good accuracy and an excellent reproducibility in the diagnosis of CHF in the hand of EM residents following a short training program. Trial registration Name of the registry: clinicaltrials.gov; Trial registration number: NCT03717779; Date of registration: October 24, 2018 'Retrospectively registered'; URL of trial registry record: clinicaltrials.gov.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Short-acting ß2 -agonists are the mainstay of treatment of patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) in the emergency department (ED). It is still unclear whether the addition of short-acting anticholinergics is clinically more effective care compared to treatment with ß2 -agonists alone in patients with hypercapnic AECOPD. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate whether combining ipratropium bromide (IB) to terbutaline reduces hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates compared to terbutaline alone in AECOPD hypercapnic patients. METHODS: In this double-blind controlled trial, patients who were admitted to the ED for AECOPD requiring noninvasive ventilation (NIV) were randomized to receive either 5 mg of nebulized terbutaline combined to 0.5 mg of IB (terbutaline/IB group, n = 115) or 5 mg of terbutaline sulfate (terbutaline group, n = 117). Nebulization was repeated every 20 minutes for the first hour and every 4 hours within the first day. Primary outcomes were the rate of hospital admission and need for endotracheal intubation within the first 24 hours of the start of the experimental treatment. Secondary outcomes included changes from baseline of dyspnea, physiologic variables, length of hospital stay, ICU admission rate, and 7-day mortality. RESULTS: The two groups were similar regarding baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Hospital admission was observed in 70 patients (59.8%) in the terbutaline/IB group and in 75 patients (65.2%) in the terbutaline group (respiratory rate [RR] = 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.93 to 1.27, p = 0.39). ICU admission was required in 37 (32.2%) patients in the terbutaline/IB group and 30 patients (25.6%) in terbutaline group (RR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.54, p = 0.27). There were no significant differences in dyspnea score, blood gas parameters changes, vital signs improvement, and 7-day death rate between both groups. CONCLUSION: In patients admitted to the ED for AECOPD requiring NIV, combination of nebulized IB and terbutaline did not reduce hospital admission and need to ICU care.
