Evaluation of point-of-care ultrasound use in the diagnostic approach for right upper quadrant abdominal pain management in the emergency department: a prospective study

被引:0
作者
Florence Dupriez
Alexandre Niset
Claire Couvreur
Laurent Marissiaux
Félix Gendebien
Laurent Peyskens
Boris Germeau
Antoine Fasseaux
Bastian Rodrigues de Castro
Andrea Penaloza
Dominique Vanpee
Xavier Bobbia
机构
[1] Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc,Emergency Department
[2] Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège,Emergency Department
[3] Hôpital de Jolimont,Emergency Department
[4] Lobbes,Emergency Department
[5] Grand Hôpital de Charleroi,Emergency Department
[6] Cliniques Saint-Pierre Ottignies,Emergency Department
[7] Hôpital de Jolimont,Institute of Health and Society and CHU UCL Namur
[8] Lobbes,Emergency Department
[9] UCLOUVAIN,undefined
[10] CHU Montpellier,undefined
来源
Internal and Emergency Medicine | 2024年 / 19卷
关键词
Point of care ultrasound; Abdominal pain; Diagnostic approach; Abdominal ultrasound;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) is commonly used at the bedside in the emergency department (ED) as part of clinical examinations. Studies frequently investigate PoCUS diagnostic accuracy, although its contribution to the overall diagnostic approach is less often evaluated. The primary objective of this prospective, multicenter, cohort study was to assess the contribution of PoCUS to the overall diagnostic approach of patients with right upper quadrant abdominal pain. Two independent members of an adjudication committee, who were blind to the intervention, independently evaluated the diagnostic approaches before and after PoCUS for the same patient. The study included 62 patients admitted to the ED with non-traumatic right upper quadrant abdominal pain from September 1, 2022, to March 6, 2023. The contribution of PoCUS to the diagnostic approach was evaluated using a proportion test assuming that 75% of diagnostic approaches would be better or comparable with PoCUS. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests evaluated the impact of PoCUS on the mean number of differential diagnoses, planned treatments, and complementary diagnostic tests. Overall, 60 (97%) diagnostic approaches were comparable or better with PoCUS (χ2 = 15.9, p < 0.01). With PoCUS, the mean number of differential diagnoses significantly decreased by 2.3 (95% CI – 2.7 to – 1.5) (p < 0.01), proposed treatments by 1.3 (95% CI – 1.8 to – 0.9) (p < 0.01), and complementary diagnostic tests by 1.3 (95% CI – 1.7 to – 1.0) (p < 0.01). These findings show that PoCUS positively impacts the diagnostic approach and significantly decreases the mean number of differential diagnoses, treatments, and complementary tests.
引用
收藏
页码:803 / 811
页数:8
相关论文
共 241 条
[1]  
Meadley B(2017)Educational standards for training paramedics in ultrasound: a scoping review BMC Emerg Med 17 18-463
[2]  
Olaussen A(2021)Point of care ultrasound use by registered nurses and nurse practitioners in clinical practice: an integrative review Collegian 28 456-375
[3]  
Delorenzo A(2018)Use of thoracic ultrasound by physiotherapists: a scoping review of the literature Physiotherapy 104 367-90
[4]  
Roder N(2015)American Academy of emergency medicine position statement: ultrasound should be integrated into undergraduate medical education curriculum J Emerg Med juill 49 89-7
[5]  
Martin C(2016)EFSUMB statement on medical student education in ultrasound [long version] Ultrasound Int Open. 02 E2-2465
[6]  
St. Clair T(2021)The current status of ultrasound education in United States Medical Schools J Ultrasound Med 40 2459-33
[7]  
Totenhofer R(2020)Ultrasound curricula of student education in Europe: summary of the experience Ultrasound Int Open 06 E25-170
[8]  
Luck L(2015)International federation for emergency medicine point of care ultrasound curriculum CJEM mars 17 161-362
[9]  
Wilkes L(2016)Epidemiology and outcomes of acute abdominal pain in a large urban Emergency Department: retrospective analysis of 5,340 cases Ann Transl Med 4 362-529
[10]  
Hayward SA(2014)Studies of the symptom abdominal pain–a systematic review and meta-analysis Fam Pract 31 517-224