非散瞳眼底成像在普通急诊科:系统筛查的可行性和新考虑。

IF 4.2 1区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Nithya Shanmugam,Mung Yan Lin,Jessica G McHenry,Kevin Yan,Stuart Duffield,Andrew M Pendley,George Alencastro Landim,Daniel V Adamkiewicz,Duyen T Vo,Jordan Prosky,Matthew Keadey,David W Wright,Michael Dattilo,Nancy J Newman,Valérie Biousse
{"title":"非散瞳眼底成像在普通急诊科:系统筛查的可行性和新考虑。","authors":"Nithya Shanmugam,Mung Yan Lin,Jessica G McHenry,Kevin Yan,Stuart Duffield,Andrew M Pendley,George Alencastro Landim,Daniel V Adamkiewicz,Duyen T Vo,Jordan Prosky,Matthew Keadey,David W Wright,Michael Dattilo,Nancy J Newman,Valérie Biousse","doi":"10.1016/j.ajo.2025.09.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\r\nTo investigate the feasibility of systematic ocular imaging of consecutive patients presenting to our emergency department (ED) with chief complaints for which ocular funduscopic examination is standard of care.\r\n\r\nDESIGN\r\nProspective quality improvement feasibility project.\r\n\r\nSUBJECTS\r\nConsecutive patients presented to our general ED fulfilling one or more of the following criteria: current vision complaints, headaches, neurologic/neurosurgical disorders, hypertensive crisis, diabetes mellitus, or end-stage renal disease.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nStudy personnel acquired table-top non-mydriatic ocular fundus photographs with optical coherence tomography of the posterior pole (NMFP-OCT) on consecutive patients presenting to our ED over 16 consecutive days/nights with complaints that would warrant an ophthalmology evaluation, including vision complaints, headaches, neurologic/neurosurgical disorders, hypertensive crisis, diabetes mellitus, or end-stage renal disease.\r\n\r\nMAIN OUTCOME MEASURES\r\nDemographic information, indication for NMFP-OCT, findings, quality of NMFP/OCT, number of NMFP-OCT, and reasons why NMFP-OCT were not taken were documented.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nAmong 1838 ED visits over 16 days, orders for NMFP-OCT were placed for 801 patients (43.6%). 410/801 patients (51%) received NMFP-OCT in the ED; 391/801 patients (49%) did not. 93/410 with NMFP-OCT (22.7%) versus 23/391 without NMFP-OCT (5.9%) had vision complaints (p<0.001), 99/410 (24.1%) versus 35/391 (9%) had headaches (p<0.001), 125/410 (30.5%) versus 164/391 (41.9%) had neurological/neurosurgical disorders (p<0.05), 4/410 (1%) versus 4/391 (1%) had hypertensive crisis, and 76/410 (18.5%) versus 132/391 (33.8%) had diabetes. Demographics were similar in both groups. 220/391 patients (56.3%) did not have NMFP-OCT for medical reasons (47.3% too sick/unable to sit, 9% infectious precautions); 171/391 (43.7%) did not have NMFP-OCT because of process problems in the ED. Few ocular imaging studies (6.7%) was uninterpretable.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nDespite 24/7 coverage of the ED by our team, 49% of patients did not have NMFP-OCT for reasons related to underlying patient illness or specific to the ED setting. Realistic expectations are needed when considering the feasibility of implementation of new ophthalmic technology in the ED.","PeriodicalId":7568,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":"76 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Non-Mydriatic Ocular Fundus Imaging in a General Emergency Department: Feasibility and Novel Considerations for Systematic Screening.\",\"authors\":\"Nithya Shanmugam,Mung Yan Lin,Jessica G McHenry,Kevin Yan,Stuart Duffield,Andrew M Pendley,George Alencastro Landim,Daniel V Adamkiewicz,Duyen T Vo,Jordan Prosky,Matthew Keadey,David W Wright,Michael Dattilo,Nancy J Newman,Valérie Biousse\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajo.2025.09.016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVE\\r\\nTo investigate the feasibility of systematic ocular imaging of consecutive patients presenting to our emergency department (ED) with chief complaints for which ocular funduscopic examination is standard of care.\\r\\n\\r\\nDESIGN\\r\\nProspective quality improvement feasibility project.\\r\\n\\r\\nSUBJECTS\\r\\nConsecutive patients presented to our general ED fulfilling one or more of the following criteria: current vision complaints, headaches, neurologic/neurosurgical disorders, hypertensive crisis, diabetes mellitus, or end-stage renal disease.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nStudy personnel acquired table-top non-mydriatic ocular fundus photographs with optical coherence tomography of the posterior pole (NMFP-OCT) on consecutive patients presenting to our ED over 16 consecutive days/nights with complaints that would warrant an ophthalmology evaluation, including vision complaints, headaches, neurologic/neurosurgical disorders, hypertensive crisis, diabetes mellitus, or end-stage renal disease.\\r\\n\\r\\nMAIN OUTCOME MEASURES\\r\\nDemographic information, indication for NMFP-OCT, findings, quality of NMFP/OCT, number of NMFP-OCT, and reasons why NMFP-OCT were not taken were documented.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nAmong 1838 ED visits over 16 days, orders for NMFP-OCT were placed for 801 patients (43.6%). 410/801 patients (51%) received NMFP-OCT in the ED; 391/801 patients (49%) did not. 93/410 with NMFP-OCT (22.7%) versus 23/391 without NMFP-OCT (5.9%) had vision complaints (p<0.001), 99/410 (24.1%) versus 35/391 (9%) had headaches (p<0.001), 125/410 (30.5%) versus 164/391 (41.9%) had neurological/neurosurgical disorders (p<0.05), 4/410 (1%) versus 4/391 (1%) had hypertensive crisis, and 76/410 (18.5%) versus 132/391 (33.8%) had diabetes. Demographics were similar in both groups. 220/391 patients (56.3%) did not have NMFP-OCT for medical reasons (47.3% too sick/unable to sit, 9% infectious precautions); 171/391 (43.7%) did not have NMFP-OCT because of process problems in the ED. Few ocular imaging studies (6.7%) was uninterpretable.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSION\\r\\nDespite 24/7 coverage of the ED by our team, 49% of patients did not have NMFP-OCT for reasons related to underlying patient illness or specific to the ED setting. Realistic expectations are needed when considering the feasibility of implementation of new ophthalmic technology in the ED.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7568,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\"76 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2025.09.016\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2025.09.016","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的探讨以眼底镜检查为主要主诉的急诊科(ED)连续患者系统眼部成像的可行性。设计前瞻性质量改进可行性方案。受试者:连续出现在我们的普通急诊科,满足以下一个或多个标准的患者:当前视力主诉、头痛、神经系统/神经外科疾病、高血压危象、糖尿病或终末期肾病。研究人员使用光学相干后极断层扫描(NMFP-OCT)对连续16天/夜来我们急诊科就诊的患者进行桌面无散瞳眼底照片,这些患者的主诉需要眼科评估,包括视力主诉、头痛、神经系统/神经外科疾病、高血压危象、糖尿病或终末期肾病。记录了人口统计学信息、NMFP-OCT的适应症、结果、NMFP/OCT的质量、NMFP-OCT的数量以及未采用NMFP-OCT的原因。结果在16天的1838例ED就诊中,801例(43.6%)患者订购了NMFP-OCT。410/801例患者(51%)在急诊科接受了NMFP-OCT;391/801例患者(49%)没有。NMFP-OCT组93/410(22.7%)比非NMFP-OCT组23/391(5.9%)有视力问题(p<0.001), 99/410(24.1%)比35/391(9%)有头痛(p<0.001), 125/410(30.5%)比164/391(41.9%)有神经/神经外科疾病(p<0.05), 4/410(1%)比4/391(1%)有高血压危机,76/410(18.5%)比132/391(33.8%)有糖尿病。两组的人口统计数据相似。220/391例患者(56.3%)因医学原因未进行NMFP-OCT检查(47.3%病情太重/无法坐下,9%感染预防);171/391(43.7%)由于ED的过程问题而没有NMFP-OCT。少数眼部影像学研究(6.7%)无法解释。结论:尽管我们的团队对急诊科进行了24/7的覆盖,但49%的患者由于潜在的患者疾病或特定的急诊科环境的原因没有进行NMFP-OCT检查。当考虑在急诊科实施新的眼科技术的可行性时,需要现实的期望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Non-Mydriatic Ocular Fundus Imaging in a General Emergency Department: Feasibility and Novel Considerations for Systematic Screening.
OBJECTIVE To investigate the feasibility of systematic ocular imaging of consecutive patients presenting to our emergency department (ED) with chief complaints for which ocular funduscopic examination is standard of care. DESIGN Prospective quality improvement feasibility project. SUBJECTS Consecutive patients presented to our general ED fulfilling one or more of the following criteria: current vision complaints, headaches, neurologic/neurosurgical disorders, hypertensive crisis, diabetes mellitus, or end-stage renal disease. METHODS Study personnel acquired table-top non-mydriatic ocular fundus photographs with optical coherence tomography of the posterior pole (NMFP-OCT) on consecutive patients presenting to our ED over 16 consecutive days/nights with complaints that would warrant an ophthalmology evaluation, including vision complaints, headaches, neurologic/neurosurgical disorders, hypertensive crisis, diabetes mellitus, or end-stage renal disease. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Demographic information, indication for NMFP-OCT, findings, quality of NMFP/OCT, number of NMFP-OCT, and reasons why NMFP-OCT were not taken were documented. RESULTS Among 1838 ED visits over 16 days, orders for NMFP-OCT were placed for 801 patients (43.6%). 410/801 patients (51%) received NMFP-OCT in the ED; 391/801 patients (49%) did not. 93/410 with NMFP-OCT (22.7%) versus 23/391 without NMFP-OCT (5.9%) had vision complaints (p<0.001), 99/410 (24.1%) versus 35/391 (9%) had headaches (p<0.001), 125/410 (30.5%) versus 164/391 (41.9%) had neurological/neurosurgical disorders (p<0.05), 4/410 (1%) versus 4/391 (1%) had hypertensive crisis, and 76/410 (18.5%) versus 132/391 (33.8%) had diabetes. Demographics were similar in both groups. 220/391 patients (56.3%) did not have NMFP-OCT for medical reasons (47.3% too sick/unable to sit, 9% infectious precautions); 171/391 (43.7%) did not have NMFP-OCT because of process problems in the ED. Few ocular imaging studies (6.7%) was uninterpretable. CONCLUSION Despite 24/7 coverage of the ED by our team, 49% of patients did not have NMFP-OCT for reasons related to underlying patient illness or specific to the ED setting. Realistic expectations are needed when considering the feasibility of implementation of new ophthalmic technology in the ED.
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
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
406
审稿时长
36 days
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Ophthalmology is a peer-reviewed, scientific publication that welcomes the submission of original, previously unpublished manuscripts directed to ophthalmologists and visual science specialists describing clinical investigations, clinical observations, and clinically relevant laboratory investigations. Published monthly since 1884, the full text of the American Journal of Ophthalmology and supplementary material are also presented online at www.AJO.com and on ScienceDirect. The American Journal of Ophthalmology publishes Full-Length Articles, Perspectives, Editorials, Correspondences, Books Reports and Announcements. Brief Reports and Case Reports are no longer published. We recommend submitting Brief Reports and Case Reports to our companion publication, the American Journal of Ophthalmology Case Reports. Manuscripts are accepted with the understanding that they have not been and will not be published elsewhere substantially in any format, and that there are no ethical problems with the content or data collection. Authors may be requested to produce the data upon which the manuscript is based and to answer expeditiously any questions about the manuscript or its authors.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信