Contribution of point-of-care ultrasound in the prehospital management of patients with non-trauma acute dyspnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Omide Taheri, Julie Samain, Frédéric Mauny, Marc Puyraveau, Thibaut Desmettre, Tania Marx
{"title":"Contribution of point-of-care ultrasound in the prehospital management of patients with non-trauma acute dyspnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Omide Taheri, Julie Samain, Frédéric Mauny, Marc Puyraveau, Thibaut Desmettre, Tania Marx","doi":"10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Acute dyspnea is a common symptom whose management is challenging in prehospital settings. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is increasingly accessible because of device miniaturization. To assess the contribution of POCUS in the prehospital management of patients with acute nontraumatic dyspnea, we performed a systematic review on nontrauma patients of any age managed in the prehospital setting for acute dyspnea and receiving a POCUS examination. We searched seven databases and gray literature for English-language studies published from January 1995 to November 2023. Two independent reviewers completed the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. The primary outcome was the assessment of the contribution of POCUS to feasibility, diagnostic, therapeutic, prognosis, patient referral, and transport vector modification. Twenty-three studies were included. The risk of bias assessment identified 3 intermediate-risk, 18 serious-risk, and 2 critical-risk studies. Three studies reported moderate to excellent feasibility for lung POCUS, and three studies reported poor to mediocre feasibility for cardiac POCUS. The median duration of the POCUS examination was less than 5 minutes (six studies). POCUS improved diagnostic identification (seven studies). The diagnostic accuracy of POCUS was excellent for pneumothorax (sensitivity = 100%, specificity = 100%, two studies), very good for acute heart failure (sensitivity = 71-100%, specificity = 72-95%, eight studies), good for pneumonia (sensitivity = 88%, specificity = 59%, one study), and moderate for pleural effusion (sensitivity = 26-53%, specificity = 83-92%, two studies). Treatment was modified in 11 to 54% of the patients (seven studies). POCUS had no significant effect on patient prognosis (two studies). POCUS contributed to patient referrals and transport vectors in 51% (four studies) and 25% (three studies) of patients, respectively. The evidence supports the use of POCUS for managing acute nontraumatic dyspnea in the prehospital setting in terms of feasibility, overall diagnostic contribution, and, particularly, lung ultrasound for acute heart failure diagnosis. Moreover, POCUS seems to have a therapeutic contribution. There is not enough evidence supporting the use of POCUS for pneumonia, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or asthma exacerbation diagnosis, nor does it support prognostic, patient referral, and transport vector contribution. A high level of evidence is lacking and needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":11893,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001205","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Acute dyspnea is a common symptom whose management is challenging in prehospital settings. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is increasingly accessible because of device miniaturization. To assess the contribution of POCUS in the prehospital management of patients with acute nontraumatic dyspnea, we performed a systematic review on nontrauma patients of any age managed in the prehospital setting for acute dyspnea and receiving a POCUS examination. We searched seven databases and gray literature for English-language studies published from January 1995 to November 2023. Two independent reviewers completed the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. The primary outcome was the assessment of the contribution of POCUS to feasibility, diagnostic, therapeutic, prognosis, patient referral, and transport vector modification. Twenty-three studies were included. The risk of bias assessment identified 3 intermediate-risk, 18 serious-risk, and 2 critical-risk studies. Three studies reported moderate to excellent feasibility for lung POCUS, and three studies reported poor to mediocre feasibility for cardiac POCUS. The median duration of the POCUS examination was less than 5 minutes (six studies). POCUS improved diagnostic identification (seven studies). The diagnostic accuracy of POCUS was excellent for pneumothorax (sensitivity = 100%, specificity = 100%, two studies), very good for acute heart failure (sensitivity = 71-100%, specificity = 72-95%, eight studies), good for pneumonia (sensitivity = 88%, specificity = 59%, one study), and moderate for pleural effusion (sensitivity = 26-53%, specificity = 83-92%, two studies). Treatment was modified in 11 to 54% of the patients (seven studies). POCUS had no significant effect on patient prognosis (two studies). POCUS contributed to patient referrals and transport vectors in 51% (four studies) and 25% (three studies) of patients, respectively. The evidence supports the use of POCUS for managing acute nontraumatic dyspnea in the prehospital setting in terms of feasibility, overall diagnostic contribution, and, particularly, lung ultrasound for acute heart failure diagnosis. Moreover, POCUS seems to have a therapeutic contribution. There is not enough evidence supporting the use of POCUS for pneumonia, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or asthma exacerbation diagnosis, nor does it support prognostic, patient referral, and transport vector contribution. A high level of evidence is lacking and needed.

即时超声在非创伤性急性呼吸困难患者院前管理中的作用:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
急性呼吸困难是一种常见的症状,其管理是具有挑战性的院前设置。由于设备的小型化,医疗点超声(POCUS)越来越容易获得。为了评估POCUS在急性非外伤性呼吸困难患者院前管理中的作用,我们对在院前处理急性呼吸困难并接受POCUS检查的任何年龄的非外伤性患者进行了系统回顾。我们检索了7个数据库和灰色文献,检索了1995年1月至2023年11月发表的英语研究。两名独立审稿人完成了研究选择、数据提取和偏倚风险评估。主要结果是评估POCUS在可行性、诊断、治疗、预后、患者转诊和转运载体修饰方面的贡献。纳入了23项研究。偏倚风险评估确定了3项中度风险研究,18项严重风险研究和2项严重风险研究。3项研究报道了肺POCUS的中等到极好的可行性,3项研究报道了心脏POCUS的差到一般的可行性。POCUS检查的中位持续时间小于5分钟(6项研究)。POCUS提高了诊断鉴定(7项研究)。POCUS对气胸的诊断准确性很好(敏感性= 100%,特异性= 100%,2项研究),对急性心力衰竭的诊断准确性很好(敏感性= 71-100%,特异性= 72-95%,8项研究),对肺炎的诊断准确性很好(敏感性= 88%,特异性= 59%,1项研究),对胸腔积液的诊断准确性中等(敏感性= 26-53%,特异性= 83-92%,2项研究)。11% - 54%的患者(7项研究)接受了改良治疗。POCUS对患者预后无显著影响(两项研究)。POCUS分别在51%(4项研究)和25%(3项研究)的患者中促成了患者转诊和运输媒介。证据支持POCUS在院前治疗急性非创伤性呼吸困难的可行性、总体诊断贡献,特别是肺超声在急性心力衰竭诊断中的应用。此外,POCUS似乎具有治疗作用。没有足够的证据支持POCUS用于肺炎、胸腔积液、气胸、慢性阻塞性肺疾病或哮喘加重诊断,也不支持预后、患者转诊和运输媒介的贡献。缺乏且需要高水平的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
27.30%
发文量
180
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Emergency Medicine is the official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine. It is devoted to serving the European emergency medicine community and to promoting European standards of training, diagnosis and care in this rapidly growing field. Published bimonthly, the Journal offers original papers on all aspects of acute injury and sudden illness, including: emergency medicine, anaesthesiology, cardiology, disaster medicine, intensive care, internal medicine, orthopaedics, paediatrics, toxicology and trauma care. It addresses issues on the organization of emergency services in hospitals and in the community and examines postgraduate training from European and global perspectives. The Journal also publishes papers focusing on the different models of emergency healthcare delivery in Europe and beyond. With a multidisciplinary approach, the European Journal of Emergency Medicine publishes scientific research, topical reviews, news of meetings and events of interest to the emergency medicine community. Submitted articles undergo a preliminary review by the editor. Some articles may be returned to authors without further consideration. Those being considered for publication will undergo further assessment and peer-review by the editors and those invited to do so from a reviewer pool. ​
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信