Prehospital Echocardiography Research Articles

Prehospital Echocardiography During Resuscitation Impacts Treatment in a Physician-Staffed Helicopter Emergency Medical Service: an Observational Study

Background: Patients in cardiac arrest must receive algorithm-based management such as basic life support and advanced (cardiac) life support. International guidelines dictate diagnosing and treating any factor that may have caused the arrest or may be complicating the resuscitation. Ultrasound may be of potential value in this process and can be used in a prehospital setting. The objective is to evaluate the use of prehospital ultrasound during traumatic and non-traumatic CPR and determine its impact on prehospital treatment decisions in a Dutch helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS). Methods: We conducted an observational study in cardiac arrest patients, of any cause, in whom the Nijmegen HEMS performed CPR with concurrent echocardiography. The participating physicians had to adhere to Advanced Life Support protocols as per standard operating procedure. Simultaneous with the interruptions of chest compressions to allow for heart rhythm analysis, ultrasound-trained HEMS physicians performed echocardiography according to study protocol. The HEMS nurse and physician recorded patient data and data on impacted (supported or altered) patient treatment decisions. Results: From February 2014 through November 2016, we included 56 patients who underwent 102 ultrasound examinations. Sixty-two (61%) ultrasound examinations impacted 78 treatment decisions in 49 patients (88%). The impacted treatment was related to termination of CPR in 32 (57%), fluid management (14%), drugs selection and doses (14%), and choice of destination hospital (5%). Causes of cardiac arrest included trauma (48%), cardiac (21%), medical (14%), asphyxia (9%), and other (7%). Conclusion: Prehospital echocardiography has an impact on patient treatment and may be a useful tool to support decision-making during CPR in a Dutch HEMS.

Does physician experience influence the interpretability of focused echocardiography images performed by a pocket device?

IntroductionThe use of focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) in a prehospital setting is recommended. Pocket ultrasound devices (PUDs) appear to be well suited to prehospital FoCUS. The main aim of our study was to evaluate the interpretability of echocardiography performed in a prehospital setting using a PUD based on the experience of the emergency physician (EP).MethodsThis was a monocentric prospective observational study. We defined experienced emergency physicians (EEPs) and novice emergency physicians (NEPs) as echocardiographers if they had performed 50 echocardiographies since their initial university training (theoretical training and at least 25 echocardiographies performed with a mentor). Each patient undergoing prehospital echocardiography with a PUD was included. Four diagnostic items based on FoCUS were analyzed: pericardial effusions (PE), right ventricular dilation (RVD), qualitative left ventricular function assessment (LVEF), and inferior vena cava compliance (IVCC). Two independent experts blindly evaluated the interpretability of each item by examining recorded video loops. If their opinions were divided, then a third expert concluded.ResultsFourteen EPs participated: eight (57 %) EEPs and six (43 %) NEPs. Eighty-five patients were included: 34 (40 %) had an echocardiography by an NEP and 51 (60 %) by an EEP. The mean number of interpretable items by echocardiography was three [1; 4]; one [0; 2.25] in the NEP group, four [3; 4] in EEP (p < .01). The patient position was also associated with interpretable items: supine three [2; 4], “45°” three [1; 4], sitting two [1; 4] (p = .02). In multivariate analysis, only EP experience was associated with the number of interpretable items (p = .02). Interpretability by NEPs and EEPs was: 56 % vs. 96 % for LVF, 29 % vs. 98 % for PE, 26 % vs. 92 % for RVD, and 21 % vs. 67 % for IVCC (p < .01 for all).ConclusionFoCUS with PUD in prehospital conditions was possible for EEPs, It is difficult and the diagnostic yield is poor for NEPs.

The value of prehospital echocardiography in shock management

The value of prehospital echocardiography in shock management

Cardiac Movement Identified on Prehospital Echocardiography Predicts Outcome in Cardiac Arrest Patients

Introduction. The prognostic value of emergency echocardiography (EE) in the management of cardiac arrest patients has previously been studied in an in-hospital setting. These studies mainly included patients who underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by emergency medicine technicians at the scene and who arrived at the emergency department (ED) still in a state of cardiac arrest. In most European countries, cardiac arrest patients are normally treated by physician-staffed emergency medical services (EMS) teams on scene. Transportation to the ED while undergoing CPR is uncommon. Objective. To evaluate the ability of EE to predict outcome in cardiac arrest patients when it is performed by ultrasound-inexperienced emergency physicians on scene. Methods. We performed a prospective, observational study of nonconsecutive, nontrauma, adult cardiac arrest patients who were treated by physician-staffed urban EMS teams on scene. Participating emergency physicians (EPs) received a two-hour course in EE during CPR. After initial procedures were accomplished, EE was performed during a rhythm and pulse check. A single subxiphoid, four-chamber view was required for study enrollment. We defined sonographic evidence of cardiac kinetic activity as any detected motion of the myocardium, ranging from visible ventricular fibrillation to coordinated ventricular contractions. The CPR had to be continued for at least 15 minutes after the initial echocardiography. No clinical decisions were made based on the results of EE. Results. Forty-two patients were enrolled in the study. The heart could be visualized successfully in all patients. Five (11.9%) patients survived to hospital admission. Of the 32 patients who had cardiac standstill on initial EE, only one (3.1%) survived to hospital admission, whereas four out of 10 (40%) patients with cardiac movement on initial EE survived to hospital admission (p = 0.008). Neither asystole on initial electrocardiogram nor peak capnography value, age, bystander CPR, or downtime was a significant predictor of survival. Only cardiac movement was associated with survival, and cardiac standstill at any time during CPR resulted in a positive predictive value of 97.1% for death at the scene. Conclusion. Our results support the idea of focused echocardiography as an additional criterion in the evaluation of outcome in CPR patients and demonstrate its feasibility in the prehospital setting.

The Presence or Absence of Cardiac Movement Identified on PreHospital Echocardiography Predicts Outcome in Cardiac Arrest Patients

The Presence or Absence of Cardiac Movement Identified on PreHospital Echocardiography Predicts Outcome in Cardiac Arrest Patients

Prehospital echocardiography in pulseless electrical activity victims using portable, handheld ultrasound

Prehospital echocardiography in pulseless electrical activity victims using portable, handheld ultrasound

Prehospital Echocardiography May Differentiate Diagnosis in Shock of Unknown Origin

Prehospital Echocardiography May Differentiate Diagnosis in Shock of Unknown Origin

Prehospital Echocardiography — A New Diagnostic Tool for Pulselessness and Resuscitation Management

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.