急诊医生超声检查对急性腹痛成人患者评估的影响:前瞻性随机双中心试验

François Brau, Mathilde Papin, Eric Batard, Emeric Abet, Eric Frampas, Aurélie Le Thuaut, Emmanuel Montassier, Quentin Le Bastard, Philippe Le Conte
{"title":"急诊医生超声检查对急性腹痛成人患者评估的影响:前瞻性随机双中心试验","authors":"François Brau, Mathilde Papin, Eric Batard, Emeric Abet, Eric Frampas, Aurélie Le Thuaut, Emmanuel Montassier, Quentin Le Bastard, Philippe Le Conte","doi":"10.1186/s13049-024-01182-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abdominal pain is common in patients visiting the emergency department (ED). The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic contribution of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in patients presenting to the ED with acute abdominal pain. We designed an interventional randomized, controlled, open label, parallel-group, trial in two French EDs. We included adult patients presenting to the ED with acute abdominal pain. Exclusion criteria were a documented end-of-life, an immediate need of life-support therapy and pregnant or breast-feeding women. Patients were randomized in the experimental group (i.e., workup including POCUS) or control group (usual care). The primary objective of the study was to assess the added value of POCUS on diagnostic pathway in the ED, according to the diagnostic established a posteriori by an adjudication committee. The primary endpoint was the proportion of exact preliminary diagnosis between the 2 groups. The preliminary diagnosis made after clinical examination and biological results with POCUS (intervention arm) or without POCUS (usual care) was considered exact if it was similar to the adjudication committee diagnosis. Between June 2021 11th and June 2022 23th, 256 patients were randomized, but five were not included in the primary analysis, leaving 125 patients in the POCUS group and 126 patients in the usual care group (130 women and 121 men, median [Q1-Q3] age: 42 [30;57]). There was no difference for exact diagnosis between the two groups (POCUS 70/125, 56% versus control 78/126 (62%), RD 1.23 [95% CI 0.74–2.04]). There was no difference in the accuracy for the diagnosis of non-specific abdominal pain nor number of biological or radiological exams. Diagnostic delays and length of stay in the ED were also similar. In this trial, systematic POCUS did not improve the rate of diagnostic accuracy in unselected patients presenting to the ED with acute abdominal pain. However, as it was a safe procedure, further research should focus on patients with suspected etiologies where POCUS is particularly useful. Trial registration: This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on 2022/07/20 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04912206?id=NCT04912206&rank=1 ) (NCT04912206).","PeriodicalId":501057,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of emergency physician performed ultrasound in the evaluation of adult patients with acute abdominal pain: a prospective randomized bicentric trial\",\"authors\":\"François Brau, Mathilde Papin, Eric Batard, Emeric Abet, Eric Frampas, Aurélie Le Thuaut, Emmanuel Montassier, Quentin Le Bastard, Philippe Le Conte\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13049-024-01182-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abdominal pain is common in patients visiting the emergency department (ED). The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic contribution of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in patients presenting to the ED with acute abdominal pain. We designed an interventional randomized, controlled, open label, parallel-group, trial in two French EDs. We included adult patients presenting to the ED with acute abdominal pain. Exclusion criteria were a documented end-of-life, an immediate need of life-support therapy and pregnant or breast-feeding women. Patients were randomized in the experimental group (i.e., workup including POCUS) or control group (usual care). The primary objective of the study was to assess the added value of POCUS on diagnostic pathway in the ED, according to the diagnostic established a posteriori by an adjudication committee. The primary endpoint was the proportion of exact preliminary diagnosis between the 2 groups. The preliminary diagnosis made after clinical examination and biological results with POCUS (intervention arm) or without POCUS (usual care) was considered exact if it was similar to the adjudication committee diagnosis. Between June 2021 11th and June 2022 23th, 256 patients were randomized, but five were not included in the primary analysis, leaving 125 patients in the POCUS group and 126 patients in the usual care group (130 women and 121 men, median [Q1-Q3] age: 42 [30;57]). There was no difference for exact diagnosis between the two groups (POCUS 70/125, 56% versus control 78/126 (62%), RD 1.23 [95% CI 0.74–2.04]). There was no difference in the accuracy for the diagnosis of non-specific abdominal pain nor number of biological or radiological exams. Diagnostic delays and length of stay in the ED were also similar. In this trial, systematic POCUS did not improve the rate of diagnostic accuracy in unselected patients presenting to the ED with acute abdominal pain. However, as it was a safe procedure, further research should focus on patients with suspected etiologies where POCUS is particularly useful. Trial registration: This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on 2022/07/20 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04912206?id=NCT04912206&rank=1 ) (NCT04912206).\",\"PeriodicalId\":501057,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-024-01182-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-024-01182-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

腹痛是急诊科(ED)就诊患者的常见病。本研究旨在评估床旁超声(POCUS)对急诊科急性腹痛患者的诊断作用。我们在两家法国急诊室设计了一项介入性随机对照开放标签平行组试验。研究对象包括因急性腹痛就诊于急诊室的成年患者。排除标准为有生命末期记录、急需生命支持治疗以及孕妇或哺乳期妇女。患者被随机分为实验组(即包括 POCUS 在内的检查)或对照组(常规护理)。研究的主要目的是根据评审委员会事后确定的诊断结果,评估 POCUS 对急诊室诊断路径的附加值。主要终点是两组之间初步诊断准确的比例。根据临床检查和生物学结果做出的初步诊断,如果与评审委员会的诊断结果相似,则认为使用 POCUS(干预组)或不使用 POCUS(常规护理组)的诊断结果准确。在2021年6月11日至2022年6月23日期间,256名患者被随机分组,但有5名患者未纳入主要分析,因此POCUS组和常规护理组分别有125名和126名患者(女性130名,男性121名,年龄中位数[Q1-Q3]:42[30;57])。两组患者的准确诊断率没有差异(POCUS 70/125,56%;对照组 78/126(62%),RD 1.23 [95% CI 0.74-2.04])。两组在诊断非特异性腹痛的准确性、生物或放射检查的次数上没有差异。诊断延迟和在急诊室停留的时间也相似。在这项试验中,系统性 POCUS 并未提高因急性腹痛前往急诊室就诊的非选择性患者的诊断准确率。不过,由于这是一种安全的检查方法,进一步的研究应侧重于疑似病因的患者,因为在这些患者中,POCUS 尤为有用。试验注册:该试验于 2022/07/20 在 ClinicalTrials.gov 上注册 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04912206?id=NCT04912206&rank=1 ) (NCT04912206)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of emergency physician performed ultrasound in the evaluation of adult patients with acute abdominal pain: a prospective randomized bicentric trial
Abdominal pain is common in patients visiting the emergency department (ED). The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic contribution of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in patients presenting to the ED with acute abdominal pain. We designed an interventional randomized, controlled, open label, parallel-group, trial in two French EDs. We included adult patients presenting to the ED with acute abdominal pain. Exclusion criteria were a documented end-of-life, an immediate need of life-support therapy and pregnant or breast-feeding women. Patients were randomized in the experimental group (i.e., workup including POCUS) or control group (usual care). The primary objective of the study was to assess the added value of POCUS on diagnostic pathway in the ED, according to the diagnostic established a posteriori by an adjudication committee. The primary endpoint was the proportion of exact preliminary diagnosis between the 2 groups. The preliminary diagnosis made after clinical examination and biological results with POCUS (intervention arm) or without POCUS (usual care) was considered exact if it was similar to the adjudication committee diagnosis. Between June 2021 11th and June 2022 23th, 256 patients were randomized, but five were not included in the primary analysis, leaving 125 patients in the POCUS group and 126 patients in the usual care group (130 women and 121 men, median [Q1-Q3] age: 42 [30;57]). There was no difference for exact diagnosis between the two groups (POCUS 70/125, 56% versus control 78/126 (62%), RD 1.23 [95% CI 0.74–2.04]). There was no difference in the accuracy for the diagnosis of non-specific abdominal pain nor number of biological or radiological exams. Diagnostic delays and length of stay in the ED were also similar. In this trial, systematic POCUS did not improve the rate of diagnostic accuracy in unselected patients presenting to the ED with acute abdominal pain. However, as it was a safe procedure, further research should focus on patients with suspected etiologies where POCUS is particularly useful. Trial registration: This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on 2022/07/20 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04912206?id=NCT04912206&rank=1 ) (NCT04912206).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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