Ultraschall Med 2023; 44(01): e1-e24
DOI: 10.1055/a-1882-5615
Guidelines & Recommendations

EFSUMB Clinical Practice Guidelines for Point-of-Care Ultrasound: Part One (Common Heart and Pulmonary Applications) LONG VERSION

EFSUMB-Leitlinien für die klinische Praxis des Point-of-Care-Ultraschalls: Teil 1 (Allgemeine Herz- und Lungenanwendungen) LANGFASSUNG

Authors

  • Robert David Jarman

    1   Emergency Department, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
    2   School of Health and Life Sciences, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Cian McDermott

    3   Emergency Medicine, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
  • Anna Colclough

    4   Emergency Medicine, University Hospital Lewisham, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Morten Bøtker

    5   Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
    6   Prehospital Emergency Medical Services, Central Denmark Region, Viborg, Denmark
  • Lars Knudsen

    7   Department of Anaesthesia, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
  • Tim Harris

    8   Emergency Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
    9   Emergency Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
  • Bilal Albaroudi

    9   Emergency Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
  • Omar Albaroudi

    9   Emergency Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
  • Mahmoud Haddad

    9   Emergency Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
  • Robert Darke

    10   Emergency Medicine and Intensive Care Medicine, Health Education England North East, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Edward Berry

    11   Emergency Medicine, Torbay Hospital, Torquay, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Tomas Breslin

    3   Emergency Medicine, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
    12   School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Ireland
  • Gareth Fitzpatrick

    13   Emergency Medicine, St Vincent’s University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
  • Leah Flanagan

    3   Emergency Medicine, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
  • Olusegun Olusanya

    14   Intensive Care Medicine, University College Hospital, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Dominic Craver

    15   Emergency Medicine, The Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Adhnan Omar

    16   Respiratory Medicine, University Hospital Lewisham, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Thomas Simpson

    17   Respiratory Medicine, Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Nishant Cherian

    18   Emergency Medicine, The Alfred Emergency & Trauma Centre, Melbourne, Australia
    2   School of Health and Life Sciences, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Martin Dore

    19   Emergency Medicine, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Gregor Prosen

    20   Center for Emergency Medicine, University Medical Centre Maribor, Slovenia
  • Sharon Kay

    21   Cardiac Physiology and Echocardiography, The University of Sydney, Australia
  • Tomás Villén-Villegas

    22   Department of Medicine, Francisco de Vitoria University, Pozuelo de Alarcon, Spain
  • Luna Gargani

    23   Cardiology, Institute of Clinical Physiology National Research Council, Pisa, Italy
  • Simon Carley

    24   Emergency Medicine, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
    25   Emergency Medicine, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Michael Woo

    26   Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Canada
    27   Emergency Medicine, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
  • Florence Dupriez

    28   Emergency Medicine, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Bruxelles, Belgium
  • Arif Hussain

    29   Cardiac Critical Care, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
  • Gabriele Via

    30   Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Istituto Cardiocentro Ticino Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland, Pavia, Italy
  • James Anthony Connolly

    31   Emergency Medicine, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Marcus Peck

    32   Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Frimley Park Hospital NHS Trust, Frimley, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Larry Melniker

    33   Emergency Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, Brooklyn, United States
  • Andrew Walden

    34   Acute and Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
    35   Acute Medicine and Intensive Care Medicine, University of Oxford, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Mark Anthony Attard Biancardi

    36   Emergency Medicine, Mater Dei Hospital, Msida, Malta
  • Olga Żmijewska-Kaczor

    37   Emergency Medicine, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Elizabeth Lalande

    38   Emergency Medicine, Centre Hospitalier de lʼUniversité Laval, Sainte-Foy, Canada
  • Paul Geukens

    39   Intensive Care Medicine, Hopital de Jolimont, Haine-Saint-Paul, Belgium
  • Russell McLaughlin

    40   Emergency Medicine, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
    41   Medical Director, Northern Ireland Ambulance Service, Belfast, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Paul Olszynski

    42   Emergency Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
  • Beatrice Hoffmann

    43   Emergency Department, Harvard Medical School Department of Emergency Medicine Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, United States
  • Eric Chin

    44   Emergency Medicine, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, United States
  • Christopher Muhr

    45   Emergency Medicine and Internal Medicine, Capio Sankt Gorans Sjukhus, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Daniel J. Kim

    46   Emergency Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
    47   Emergency Medicine, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, Canada
  • Andre Mercieca

    36   Emergency Medicine, Mater Dei Hospital, Msida, Malta
  • Dharmesh Shukla

    9   Emergency Medicine, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
  • Simon Hayward

    48   Physiotherapy, Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Blackpool, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Michael Smith

    49   School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Romolo Gaspari

    50   Emergency Medicine, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, United States
    51   Emergency Medicine, UMass Medical School, Worcester, United States
  • Nick Smallwood

    52   Acute Medicine, East Surrey Hospital, Redhill, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Philippe Pes

    53   Emergency Medicine, University Hospital Centre Nantes, France
  • Guido Tavazzi

    54   Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy
    55   Dipartimento di Scienze Clinico-Chirurgiche, Diagnostiche e Pediatriche, Università degli Studi di Pavia Facoltà di Medicina e Chirurgia, Pavia, Italy
  • Francesco Corradi

    56   Surgical, Medical and Molecular Pathology and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pisa, Italy
  • Michael Lambert

    57   Emergency Medicine, Advocate Christ Medical Center, Oak Lawn, United States
  • Craig Morris

    58   Intensive Care, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Michael Trauer

    59   Emergency Medicine, St Thomas’ Hospital, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Kylie Baker

    60   Emergency Medicine, Ipswich Hospital, Ipswich, Australia
    61   Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, Australia
  • Adam Bystrzycki

    18   Emergency Medicine, The Alfred Emergency & Trauma Centre, Melbourne, Australia
    62   Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
  • Adrian Goudie

    63   Emergency Medicine, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Australia
  • Rachel Liu

    64   Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
  • Lynne Rudd

    65   General Secretary, European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB), London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Christoph F. Dietrich

    66   Department Allgemeine Innere Medizin, Kliniken Hirslanden Beau Site, Salem und Permanence, Bern, Switzerland
  • Christian Jenssen

    67   Klinik für Innere Medizin, Krankenhaus Märkisch Oderland Strausberg/ Wriezen, Germany
  • Paul S. Sidhu

    68   Radiology, King’s College London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Preview

Abstract

Aims To evaluate the evidence and produce a summary and recommendations for the most common heart and lung applications of point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS).

Methods We reviewed 10 clinical domains/questions related to common heart and lung applications of PoCUS. Following review of the evidence, a summary and recommendation were produced, including assignment of levels of evidence (LoE) and grading of the recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE). 38 international experts, the expert review group (ERG), were invited to review the evidence presented for each question. A level of agreement of over 75 % was required to progress to the next section. The ERG then reviewed and indicated their level of agreement regarding the summary and recommendation for each question (using a 5-point Likert scale), which was approved if a level of agreement of greater than 75 % was reached. A level of agreement was defined as a summary of “strongly agree” and “agree” on the Likert scale responses.

Findings and Recommendations One question achieved a strong consensus for an assigned LoE of 3 and a weak GRADE recommendation (question 1). The remaining 9 questions achieved broad agreement with one assigned an LoE of 4 and weak GRADE recommendation (question 2), three achieving an LoE of 3 with a weak GRADE recommendation (questions 3–5), three achieved an LoE of 3 with a strong GRADE recommendation (questions 6–8), and the remaining two were assigned an LoE of 2 with a strong GRADE recommendation (questions 9 and 10).

Conclusion These consensus-derived recommendations should aid clinical practice and highlight areas of further research for PoCUS in acute settings.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel Bewertung der Evidenz und Erstellung einer Zusammenfassung sowie von Empfehlungen für die häufigsten Herz- und Lungenanwendungen des Point-of-Care-Ultraschalls (PoCUS).

Methoden Wir überprüften 10 klinische Bereiche bzw. Fragen im Zusammenhang mit den häufigsten Herz- und Lungenanwendungen des PoCUS. Nach der Überprüfung der Evidenz wurden eine Zusammenfassung und eine Empfehlung erstellt, einschließlich der Zuordnung von Evidenzgraden („Level of Evidence“ LoE) und der Einstufung der Empfehlung, Bewertung, Entwicklung und Evaluierung (GRADE). Die Expert Review Group (ERG), bestehend aus 38 internationalen Experten, wurde aufgefordert, die für jede Fragestellung vorgelegte Evidenz zu überprüfen. Eine Zustimmung von über 75 % war erforderlich, um zum nächsten Teilbereich überzugehen. Anschließend überprüfte die ERG die Ergebnisse und gab den Grad der Zustimmung (mittels 5-stufiger Likert-Skala) bezüglich der Zusammenfassung und Empfehlung für jede Fragestellung an. Diese wurde anerkannt, wenn der Grad der Zustimmung – definiert als Summe der Antworten „stimme voll zu“ und „stimme zu“ auf der Likert-Skala – mehr als 75 % betrug.

Ergebnisse und Empfehlungen Bei einer Frage wurde ein starker Konsens bei einem zugeordneten LoE von 3 und einer schwachen GRADE-Empfehlung erzielt (Frage 1). Die übrigen 9 Fragen erzielten eine breite Zustimmung, wobei eine Frage einen LoE von 4 und eine schwache GRADE-Empfehlung erhielt (Frage 2), 3 Fragen erreichten einen LoE von 3 mit schwacher GRADE-Empfehlung (Fragen 3–5), 3 Fragen erreichten einen LoE von 3 mit starker GRADE-Empfehlung (Fragen 6–8) und die verbleibenden 2 Fragen erhielten einen LoE von 2 mit einer starken GRADE-Empfehlung (Fragen 9 und 10).

Schlussfolgerung Diese konsensbasierten Empfehlungen sollen die klinische Praxis unterstützen und Bereiche für weitere Forschung im Bereich des PoCUS in der Akutversorgung aufzeigen.



Publication History

Received: 23 December 2021

Accepted: 07 June 2022

Article published online:
13 October 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany