The effect of point-of-care ultrasound on length of stay and mortality in patients with chest pain/dyspnea

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to investigate the effects of point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) on length of stay (LOS) and mortality in hemodynamically stable patients with chest pain/dyspnea.

Materials and Methods The prospective study was conducted from June 2020 to May 2021. A convenience sample of adult non-traumatic patients with chest pain/dyspnea was included and evaluated by PoCUS. The primary outcome was the relationship between the door-to-PoCUS time and LOS/mortality categorized by the ST-segment elevation (STE) and non-STE on the initial electrocardiogram. The diagnostic accuracy of PoCUS was computed, compared to the final diagnosis.

Results A total of 465 patients were included. 3 of 18 patients with STE had unexpected cardiac tamponade and 1 had myocarditis with pulmonary edema. PoCUS had a minimal effect on LOS and mortality in patients with STE. In the non-STE group, the shorter door-to-PoCUS time was associated with a shorter LOS (coefficient, 1.26±0.47, p=0.008). After categorizing the timing of PoCUS as 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes, PoCUS had a positive effect, especially when performed within 90 minutes of arrival, on LOS of less than 360 minutes (OR, 2.42, 95% CI, 1.61–3.64) and patient survival (OR, 3.32, 95% CI, 1.14–9.71). The overall diagnostic performance of PoCUS was 96.6% (95% CI, 94.9–98.2%), but lower efficacy occurred in pulmonary embolism and myocardial infarction.

Conclusion The use of PoCUS was associated with a shorter LOS and less mortality in patients with non-STE, especially when performed within 90 minutes of arrival. Although the effect on patients with STE was minimal, PoCUS played a role in discovering unexpected diagnoses.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel Diese Studie zielt darauf ab, die Auswirkungen des Point-of-Care-Ultraschalls (PoCUS) auf die Verweildauer und die Mortalität bei hämodynamisch stabilen Patienten mit Brustschmerz/Dyspnoe zu untersuchen.

Material und Methoden Diese prospektive Studie wurde von Juni 2020 bis Mai 2021 durchgeführt. Es wurde eine Zufallsstichprobe erwachsener, nicht traumatischer Patienten mit Brustschmerz/Dyspnoe einbezogen und mittels PoCUS untersucht. Das primäre Outcome war die Beziehung zwischen der „Door-to-PoCUS“-Zeit und der Verweildauer/Mortalität, kategorisiert nach ST-Strecken-Hebung (STE) und Nicht-STE im initialen Elektrokardiogramm. Die diagnostische Genauigkeit des PoCUS wurde berechnet und mit der End-Diagnose verglichen.

Ergebnisse Insgesamt wurden 465 Patienten eingeschlossen. Drei von 18 Patienten mit STE hatten eine unerwartete Herztamponade und 1 Patient hatte eine Myokarditis mit Lungenödem. PoCUS hatte bei Patienten mit STE einen minimalen Einfluss auf die Verweildauer und die Mortalität. In der Gruppe der Nicht-STE-Patienten war die kürzere „Door-to-PoCUS“-Zeit mit einer kürzeren Verweildauer verbunden (Koeffizient: 1,26 ±0,47; p=0,008). Bei einer Kategorisierung der Terminierung der PoCUS-Untersuchung innerhalb von 30, 60, 90 und 120 Minuten hatte PoCUS einen positiven Effekt auf die Verweildauer von weniger als 360 Minuten (OR: 2,42; 95% CI: 1,61–3,64) und das Überleben der Patienten (OR: 3,32; 95% CI: 1,14–9,71), insbesondere, wenn er innerhalb von 90 Minuten nach Ankunft durchgeführt wurde. Die diagnostische Gesamtleistung von PoCUS betrug 96,6% (95% CI: 94,9–98,2%), wobei die Wirksamkeit bei Lungenembolie und Myokardinfarkt geringer war.

Schlussfolgerung Der Einsatz von PoCUS war mit einer kürzeren Verweildauer und einer geringeren Mortalität bei Patienten mit Nicht-STE verbunden, insbesondere, wenn er innerhalb von 90 Minuten nach Ankunft durchgeführt wurde. Obwohl die Auswirkungen auf Patienten mit STE minimal waren, spielte PoCUS eine Rolle bei der Entdeckung unerwarteter Diagnosen.

Keywords

Point of care - Echocardiography - Chest

Publication History

Received: 27 June 2022

Accepted after revision: 20 February 2023

Article published online:
18 April 2023

• References

• 1 Amsterdam EA, Kirk JD, Bluemke DA. et al. Testing of low-risk patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2010; 122: 1756-1776 DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181ec61df.
• 2 Bekgoz B, Kilicaslan I, Bildik F. et al. BLUE protocol ultrasonography in Emergency Department patients presenting with acute dyspnea. Am J Emerg Med 2019; 37: 2020-2027 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2019.02.028.
• 3 Nikolaou NI, Arntz HR, Bellou A. et al. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015 Section 8. Initial management of acute coronary syndromes. Resuscitation 2015; 95: 264-277 DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.030. (PMID: 26477416)
• 4 O’Connor RE, Ali ASA, Brady WJ. et al. Part 9: Acute Coronary Syndromes: 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation 2015; 132: S483-500 DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000263. (PMID: 26472997)
• 5 Ahn JH, Jeon J, Toh HC. et al. SEARCH 8Es: A novel point of care ultrasound protocol for patients with chest pain, dyspnea or symptomatic hypotension in the emergency department. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0174581 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174581. (PMID: 28355246)
• 6 Baker K, Brierley S, Kinnear F. et al. Implementation study reporting diagnostic accuracy, outcomes and costs in a multicentre randomised controlled trial of non-expert lung ultrasound to detect pulmonary oedema. Emerg Med Australas 2020; 32: 45-53 DOI: 10.1111/1742-6723.13333. (PMID: 31207146)
• 7 Buhumaid RE, Bourque JS, Shokoohi H. et al. Integrating point-of-care ultrasound in the ED evaluation of patients presenting with chest pain and shortness of breath. Am J Emerg Med 2019; 37: 298-303 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2018.10.059.
• 8 Pivetta E, Goffi A, Lupia E. et al. Lung Ultrasound-Implemented Diagnosis of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure in the ED: A SIMEU Multicenter Study. Chest 2015; 148: 202-210 DOI: 10.1378/chest.14-2608. (PMID: 25654562)
• 9 Russell FM, Ehrman RR, Cosby K. et al. Diagnosing acute heart failure in patients with undifferentiated dyspnea: a lung and cardiac ultrasound (LuCUS) protocol. Acad Emerg Med 2015; 22: 182-191 DOI: 10.1111/acem.12570.
• 10 Laursen CB, Sloth E, Lassen AT. et al. Point-of-care ultrasonography in patients admitted with respiratory symptoms: a single-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med 2014; 2: 638-646 DOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70135-3.
• 11 Pirozzi C, Numis FG, Pagano A. et al. Immediate versus delayed integrated point-of-care-ultrasonography to manage acute dyspnea in the emergency department. Crit Ultrasound J 2014; 6: 5 DOI: 10.1186/2036-7902-6-5. (PMID: 24940478)
• 12 Goldsmith AJ, Shokoohi H, Loesche M. et al. Point-of-care Ultrasound in Morbidity and Mortality Cases in Emergency Medicine: Who Benefits the Most. West J Emerg Med 2020; 21: 172-178 DOI: 10.5811/westjem.2020.7.47486.
• 13 Chang HC, Lien WC, Chang WT. et al. Advanced life support 2.0-Echo-assisted life support (eALS)?. Resuscitation 2021; 160: 103-105 DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.
• 14 McConnell MV, Solomon SD, Rayan ME. et al. Regional right ventricular dysfunction detected by echocardiography in acute pulmonary embolism. Am J Cardiol 1996; 78: 469-473 DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9149(96)00339-6. (PMID: 8752195)
• 15 Lichtenstein DA, Mezière GA. Relevance of lung ultrasound in the diagnosis of acute respiratory failure: the BLUE protocol. Chest 2008; 134: 117-125 DOI: 10.1378/chest.07-2800. (PMID: 18403664)
• 16 Gulati M, Levy PD, Mukherjee D. et al. 2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2021; 144: e368-e454 DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001029. (PMID: 34709879)
• 17 Agresti A, Coull BA. Approximate is better than “exact” for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Am Stat 1998; 52: 119-126
• 18 Anonymous. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 3rd edn. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2003
• 19 Chou CH, Chiu TF, Yen AM. et al. Analyzing Factors Affecting Emergency Department Length of Stay-Using a Competing Risk-accelerated Failure Time Model. Medicine 2016; 95: e3263 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000003263.
• 20 Mowery NT, Dougherty SD, Hildreth AN. et al. Emergency department length of stay is an independent predictor of hospital mortality in trauma activation patients. The Journal of trauma 2011; 70: 1317-1325 DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3182175199. (PMID: 21817968)
• 21 Milne J, Atkinson P, Lewis D. et al. Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest (SHoC): Rates of Abnormal Findings in Undifferentiated Hypotension and During Cardiac Arrest as a Basis for Consensus on a Hierarchical Point of Care Ultrasound Protocol. Cureus 2016; 8: e564 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.564.
• 22 Reynolds JC, Nicholson T, O’Neil B. et al. Diagnostic test accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound during cardiopulmonary resuscitation to indicate the etiology of cardiac arrest: A systematic review. Resuscitation 2022; 172: 54-63 DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2022.01.006.
• 23 Atkinson PR, Milne J, Diegelmann L. et al. Does Point-of-Care Ultrasonography Improve Clinical Outcomes in Emergency Department Patients With Undifferentiated Hypotension? An International Randomized Controlled Trial From the SHoC-ED Investigators. Ann Emerg Med 2018; 72: 478-489 DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.04.002.
• 24 Qaseem A, Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I, Mustafa RA. et al. Appropriate Use of Point-of-Care Ultrasonography in Patients With Acute Dyspnea in Emergency Department or Inpatient Settings: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 2021; 174: 985-993 DOI: 10.7326/M20-7844. (PMID: 33900792)
• 25 [Anonymous]. Reforming Emergency Care. In: Health, ed. United Kingdom: 2001
• 26 Steg PG, James SK, Atar D. et al. ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J 2012; 33: 2569-2619 DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs215.
• 27 Hollander JE, Than M, Mueller C. State-of-the-Art Evaluation of Emergency Department Patients Presenting With Potential Acute Coronary Syndromes. Circulation 2016; 134: 547-564 DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.021886. (PMID: 27528647)
• 28 Kurnicka K, Lichodziejewska B, Goliszek S. et al. Echocardiographic Pattern of Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Analysis of 511 Consecutive Patients. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2016; 29: 907-913 DOI: 10.1016/j.echo.2016.05.016. (PMID: 27427291)
• 29 Levitov A, Frankel HL, Blaivas M. et al. Guidelines for the Appropriate Use of Bedside General and Cardiac Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Critically Ill Patients-Part II: Cardiac Ultrasonography. Crit Care Med 2016; 44: 1206-1227 DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001847. (PMID: 27182849)
• 30 McCambridge J, Witton J, Elbourne DR. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67: 267-277 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.015.