José Atilio Núñez-Ramos, Dagoberto Duarte-Misol, María Andrea Burgos Petro, Keren Jemima Sarmiento Pérez, Vanessa Paola Gutiérrez Echeverry, Sergio Velasco Malagón
{"title":"急性心力衰竭、急性冠状动脉综合征和休克患者的护理点超声检查与最终临床诊断的一致性:POCUS 并未错过目标。","authors":"José Atilio Núñez-Ramos, Dagoberto Duarte-Misol, María Andrea Burgos Petro, Keren Jemima Sarmiento Pérez, Vanessa Paola Gutiérrez Echeverry, Sergio Velasco Malagón","doi":"10.1007/s11739-024-03639-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is an important tool for clinical diagnosis and decision-making in critical and non-critical scenarios. Dyspnea, chest pain, and shock are conditions susceptible to evaluation with ultrasound considering diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact already proven. There is scarce evidence in diagnosis agreement using ultrasound as an extension of physical examination. We aimed to evaluate ED patients in whom POCUS was performed, to analyze agreement between clinical initial diagnosis using ultrasound images and final diagnosis. Furthermore, we analyze failed diagnosis, inconclusive POCUS exams, and discuss details. A cross-sectional analytical study was conducted on adults who visited the emergency department with any of these three chief complaints: dyspnea, chest pain, and shock. All were evaluated with ultrasound at admission. Agreement between initial diagnosis using POCUS and final definite diagnosis was calculated. Failed diagnosis and inconclusive exams were analyzed. A total of 209 patients were analyzed. Populations: mostly males, mean age 64 years old, hypertensive. Agreement on patients with dyspnea and suspicion of acute decompensated heart failure was 0.98; agreement on chest pain suspicion of non-ST acute coronary syndrome was 0.96; agreement on type of shock was 0.90. Among the population, 12 patients had an inconclusive POCUS exam, and 16 patients had a failed diagnosis. The use of POCUS in the emergency department shows almost perfect agreement when compared with the final diagnosis in individuals experiencing acutely decompensated heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, and shock. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the impact of this tool on mortality and prognosis when there are diagnostic errors.</p>","PeriodicalId":13662,"journal":{"name":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11405453/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Agreement of point of care ultrasound and final clinical diagnosis in patients with acute heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, and shock: POCUS not missing the target.\",\"authors\":\"José Atilio Núñez-Ramos, Dagoberto Duarte-Misol, María Andrea Burgos Petro, Keren Jemima Sarmiento Pérez, Vanessa Paola Gutiérrez Echeverry, Sergio Velasco Malagón\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11739-024-03639-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is an important tool for clinical diagnosis and decision-making in critical and non-critical scenarios. Dyspnea, chest pain, and shock are conditions susceptible to evaluation with ultrasound considering diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact already proven. There is scarce evidence in diagnosis agreement using ultrasound as an extension of physical examination. We aimed to evaluate ED patients in whom POCUS was performed, to analyze agreement between clinical initial diagnosis using ultrasound images and final diagnosis. Furthermore, we analyze failed diagnosis, inconclusive POCUS exams, and discuss details. A cross-sectional analytical study was conducted on adults who visited the emergency department with any of these three chief complaints: dyspnea, chest pain, and shock. All were evaluated with ultrasound at admission. Agreement between initial diagnosis using POCUS and final definite diagnosis was calculated. Failed diagnosis and inconclusive exams were analyzed. A total of 209 patients were analyzed. Populations: mostly males, mean age 64 years old, hypertensive. Agreement on patients with dyspnea and suspicion of acute decompensated heart failure was 0.98; agreement on chest pain suspicion of non-ST acute coronary syndrome was 0.96; agreement on type of shock was 0.90. Among the population, 12 patients had an inconclusive POCUS exam, and 16 patients had a failed diagnosis. The use of POCUS in the emergency department shows almost perfect agreement when compared with the final diagnosis in individuals experiencing acutely decompensated heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, and shock. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the impact of this tool on mortality and prognosis when there are diagnostic errors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13662,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Internal and Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11405453/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Internal and Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-024-03639-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-024-03639-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Agreement of point of care ultrasound and final clinical diagnosis in patients with acute heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, and shock: POCUS not missing the target.
Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is an important tool for clinical diagnosis and decision-making in critical and non-critical scenarios. Dyspnea, chest pain, and shock are conditions susceptible to evaluation with ultrasound considering diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact already proven. There is scarce evidence in diagnosis agreement using ultrasound as an extension of physical examination. We aimed to evaluate ED patients in whom POCUS was performed, to analyze agreement between clinical initial diagnosis using ultrasound images and final diagnosis. Furthermore, we analyze failed diagnosis, inconclusive POCUS exams, and discuss details. A cross-sectional analytical study was conducted on adults who visited the emergency department with any of these three chief complaints: dyspnea, chest pain, and shock. All were evaluated with ultrasound at admission. Agreement between initial diagnosis using POCUS and final definite diagnosis was calculated. Failed diagnosis and inconclusive exams were analyzed. A total of 209 patients were analyzed. Populations: mostly males, mean age 64 years old, hypertensive. Agreement on patients with dyspnea and suspicion of acute decompensated heart failure was 0.98; agreement on chest pain suspicion of non-ST acute coronary syndrome was 0.96; agreement on type of shock was 0.90. Among the population, 12 patients had an inconclusive POCUS exam, and 16 patients had a failed diagnosis. The use of POCUS in the emergency department shows almost perfect agreement when compared with the final diagnosis in individuals experiencing acutely decompensated heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, and shock. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the impact of this tool on mortality and prognosis when there are diagnostic errors.
期刊介绍:
Internal and Emergency Medicine (IEM) is an independent, international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal designed for internists and emergency physicians. IEM publishes a variety of manuscript types including Original investigations, Review articles, Letters to the Editor, Editorials and Commentaries. Occasionally IEM accepts unsolicited Reviews, Commentaries or Editorials. The journal is divided into three sections, i.e., Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment, with three separate editorial boards. In the Internal Medicine section, invited Case records and Physical examinations, devoted to underlining the role of a clinical approach in selected clinical cases, are also published. The Emergency Medicine section will include a Morbidity and Mortality Report and an Airway Forum concerning the management of difficult airway problems. As far as Critical Care is becoming an integral part of Emergency Medicine, a new sub-section will report the literature that concerns the interface not only for the care of the critical patient in the Emergency Department, but also in the Intensive Care Unit. Finally, in the Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment section brief discussions of topics of evidence-based medicine (Cochrane’s corner) and Research updates are published. IEM encourages letters of rebuttal and criticism of published articles. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to the science and practice of Internal and Emergency Medicine.