LO45: Does the use of point of care ultrasonography improve survival in emergency department patients with undifferentiated hypotension? The first Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHOC-ED1) Study; an international randomized controlled trial
Introduction: Point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) is an established tool in the initial management of patients with undifferentiated hypotension in the emergency department (ED). While PoCUS protocols have been shown to improve early diagnostic accuracy, there is little published evidence for any morta...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Canadian journal of emergency medicine 2017-05, Vol.19 (S1), p.S43-S43 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | S43 |
---|---|
container_issue | S1 |
container_start_page | S43 |
container_title | Canadian journal of emergency medicine |
container_volume | 19 |
creator | Atkinson, P.R. Milne, J. Diegelmann, L. Lamprecht, H. Stander, M. Lussier, D. Pham, C. Henneberry, R. Fraser, J. Howlett, M. Mekwan, J. Ramrattan, B. Middleton, J. van Hoving, D.J. Fredericks, D. Peach, M. Taylor, L. Dahn, T. Hurley, S.T. MacSween, K. Cox, C. Richardson, L. Loubani, O. Stoica, G. Hunter, S. Olszynski, P. Lewis, D. |
description | Introduction: Point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) is an established tool in the initial management of patients with undifferentiated hypotension in the emergency department (ED). While PoCUS protocols have been shown to improve early diagnostic accuracy, there is little published evidence for any mortality benefit. We report the findings from our international multicenter randomized controlled trial, assessing the impact of a PoCUS protocol on survival and key clinical outcomes. Methods: Recruitment occurred at 7 centres in North America (4) and South Africa (3). Scans were performed by PoCUS-trained physicians. Screening at triage identified patients (SBP1), randomized to PoCUS or control (standard care and no PoCUS) groups. Demographics, clinical details and study findings were collected prospectively. Initial and secondary diagnoses were recorded at 0 and 60 minutes, with ultrasound performed in the PoCUS group prior to secondary assessment. The primary outcome measure was 30-day/discharge mortality. Secondary outcome measures included diagnostic accuracy, changes in vital signs, acid-base status, and length of stay. Categorical data was analyzed using Fishers test, and continuous data by Student T test and multi-level log-regression testing. (GraphPad/SPSS) Final chart review was blinded to initial impressions and PoCUS findings. Results: 258 patients were enrolled with follow-up fully completed. Baseline comparisons confirmed effective randomization. There was no difference between groups for the primary outcome of mortality; PoCUS 32/129 (24.8%; 95% CI 14.3-35.3%) vs. Control 32/129 (24.8%; 95% CI 14.3-35.3%); RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.869 to 1.15; p=1.00). There were no differences in the secondary outcomes; ICU and total length of stay. Our sample size has a power of 0.80 (α:0.05) for a moderate effect size. Other secondary outcomes are reported separately. Conclusion: This is the first RCT to compare PoCUS to standard care for undifferentiated hypotensive ED patients. We did not find any mortality or length of stay benefits with the use of a PoCUS protocol, though a larger study is required to confirm these findings. While PoCUS may have diagnostic benefits, these may not translate into a survival benefit effect. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/cem.2017.107 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1898621859</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_cem_2017_107</cupid><sourcerecordid>1898621859</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1427-ed9f63afa75749ab13437af2dcd3a8f94b3bcffa4c0aeac575addb1b0a9ae9ee3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptUcFu00AQNQgkSuHGidNKXKhEgje2axsOqEoCQYqUQ8rZGu_OJlvZu-7sOlX4eiZq1fbAad6M3rz3didJPsh0KlNZflXYT2cMuCtfJmcyr-SkSvPs1SPOijfJ2xBu0lTOClmdvfi43uTFN7HwGETcoxgDCm_E4K2LJ6CAeNhFguCd3xEM-6Ow_UD-gCKMdLAH6IR1AnukHTp1FBoHoNgjCwwQLdcg7mzci9FpawwSTyxE1GJ_HHxEF6x3P8Q1uxtLIYrtMycnVk8kAU6LOZC2oMQVETKZGafcy0f7xZP95-1qM58sF_JCbOOoj99ZgBcikuNg3nFyYknf27-cRnkXyXcdw0gWunfJawNdwPcP9Tz583N5PV9N1ptfv-dX64mS-aycoK7NZQYGyqLMa2hllmclmJlWOoPK1HmbtcoYyFUKCKooC9C6lW0KNWCNmJ0nn-51-VNvR35Tc-NHTtiFRlZ1dTmTVVEz68s9S5EPgdA0A9ke6NjItDldv-HrN6frc1cyffpAh74lq3f4TPV_C_8Axru6Ow</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1898621859</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>LO45: Does the use of point of care ultrasonography improve survival in emergency department patients with undifferentiated hypotension? The first Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHOC-ED1) Study; an international randomized controlled trial</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Atkinson, P.R. ; Milne, J. ; Diegelmann, L. ; Lamprecht, H. ; Stander, M. ; Lussier, D. ; Pham, C. ; Henneberry, R. ; Fraser, J. ; Howlett, M. ; Mekwan, J. ; Ramrattan, B. ; Middleton, J. ; van Hoving, D.J. ; Fredericks, D. ; Peach, M. ; Taylor, L. ; Dahn, T. ; Hurley, S.T. ; MacSween, K. ; Cox, C. ; Richardson, L. ; Loubani, O. ; Stoica, G. ; Hunter, S. ; Olszynski, P. ; Lewis, D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Atkinson, P.R. ; Milne, J. ; Diegelmann, L. ; Lamprecht, H. ; Stander, M. ; Lussier, D. ; Pham, C. ; Henneberry, R. ; Fraser, J. ; Howlett, M. ; Mekwan, J. ; Ramrattan, B. ; Middleton, J. ; van Hoving, D.J. ; Fredericks, D. ; Peach, M. ; Taylor, L. ; Dahn, T. ; Hurley, S.T. ; MacSween, K. ; Cox, C. ; Richardson, L. ; Loubani, O. ; Stoica, G. ; Hunter, S. ; Olszynski, P. ; Lewis, D.</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction: Point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) is an established tool in the initial management of patients with undifferentiated hypotension in the emergency department (ED). While PoCUS protocols have been shown to improve early diagnostic accuracy, there is little published evidence for any mortality benefit. We report the findings from our international multicenter randomized controlled trial, assessing the impact of a PoCUS protocol on survival and key clinical outcomes. Methods: Recruitment occurred at 7 centres in North America (4) and South Africa (3). Scans were performed by PoCUS-trained physicians. Screening at triage identified patients (SBP<100 or shock index>1), randomized to PoCUS or control (standard care and no PoCUS) groups. Demographics, clinical details and study findings were collected prospectively. Initial and secondary diagnoses were recorded at 0 and 60 minutes, with ultrasound performed in the PoCUS group prior to secondary assessment. The primary outcome measure was 30-day/discharge mortality. Secondary outcome measures included diagnostic accuracy, changes in vital signs, acid-base status, and length of stay. Categorical data was analyzed using Fishers test, and continuous data by Student T test and multi-level log-regression testing. (GraphPad/SPSS) Final chart review was blinded to initial impressions and PoCUS findings. Results: 258 patients were enrolled with follow-up fully completed. Baseline comparisons confirmed effective randomization. There was no difference between groups for the primary outcome of mortality; PoCUS 32/129 (24.8%; 95% CI 14.3-35.3%) vs. Control 32/129 (24.8%; 95% CI 14.3-35.3%); RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.869 to 1.15; p=1.00). There were no differences in the secondary outcomes; ICU and total length of stay. Our sample size has a power of 0.80 (α:0.05) for a moderate effect size. Other secondary outcomes are reported separately. Conclusion: This is the first RCT to compare PoCUS to standard care for undifferentiated hypotensive ED patients. We did not find any mortality or length of stay benefits with the use of a PoCUS protocol, though a larger study is required to confirm these findings. While PoCUS may have diagnostic benefits, these may not translate into a survival benefit effect.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1481-8035</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1481-8043</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/cem.2017.107</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Cardiac arrest ; Clinical trials ; Emergency medical care ; Mortality ; Oral Presentations</subject><ispartof>Canadian journal of emergency medicine, 2017-05, Vol.19 (S1), p.S43-S43</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Atkinson, P.R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Milne, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diegelmann, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lamprecht, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stander, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lussier, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pham, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henneberry, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fraser, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Howlett, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mekwan, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramrattan, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Middleton, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Hoving, D.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fredericks, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peach, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taylor, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dahn, T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hurley, S.T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacSween, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cox, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Richardson, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loubani, O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stoica, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hunter, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olszynski, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lewis, D.</creatorcontrib><title>LO45: Does the use of point of care ultrasonography improve survival in emergency department patients with undifferentiated hypotension? The first Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHOC-ED1) Study; an international randomized controlled trial</title><title>Canadian journal of emergency medicine</title><addtitle>CJEM</addtitle><description>Introduction: Point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) is an established tool in the initial management of patients with undifferentiated hypotension in the emergency department (ED). While PoCUS protocols have been shown to improve early diagnostic accuracy, there is little published evidence for any mortality benefit. We report the findings from our international multicenter randomized controlled trial, assessing the impact of a PoCUS protocol on survival and key clinical outcomes. Methods: Recruitment occurred at 7 centres in North America (4) and South Africa (3). Scans were performed by PoCUS-trained physicians. Screening at triage identified patients (SBP<100 or shock index>1), randomized to PoCUS or control (standard care and no PoCUS) groups. Demographics, clinical details and study findings were collected prospectively. Initial and secondary diagnoses were recorded at 0 and 60 minutes, with ultrasound performed in the PoCUS group prior to secondary assessment. The primary outcome measure was 30-day/discharge mortality. Secondary outcome measures included diagnostic accuracy, changes in vital signs, acid-base status, and length of stay. Categorical data was analyzed using Fishers test, and continuous data by Student T test and multi-level log-regression testing. (GraphPad/SPSS) Final chart review was blinded to initial impressions and PoCUS findings. Results: 258 patients were enrolled with follow-up fully completed. Baseline comparisons confirmed effective randomization. There was no difference between groups for the primary outcome of mortality; PoCUS 32/129 (24.8%; 95% CI 14.3-35.3%) vs. Control 32/129 (24.8%; 95% CI 14.3-35.3%); RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.869 to 1.15; p=1.00). There were no differences in the secondary outcomes; ICU and total length of stay. Our sample size has a power of 0.80 (α:0.05) for a moderate effect size. Other secondary outcomes are reported separately. Conclusion: This is the first RCT to compare PoCUS to standard care for undifferentiated hypotensive ED patients. We did not find any mortality or length of stay benefits with the use of a PoCUS protocol, though a larger study is required to confirm these findings. While PoCUS may have diagnostic benefits, these may not translate into a survival benefit effect.</description><subject>Cardiac arrest</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Emergency medical care</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Oral Presentations</subject><issn>1481-8035</issn><issn>1481-8043</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNptUcFu00AQNQgkSuHGidNKXKhEgje2axsOqEoCQYqUQ8rZGu_OJlvZu-7sOlX4eiZq1fbAad6M3rz3didJPsh0KlNZflXYT2cMuCtfJmcyr-SkSvPs1SPOijfJ2xBu0lTOClmdvfi43uTFN7HwGETcoxgDCm_E4K2LJ6CAeNhFguCd3xEM-6Ow_UD-gCKMdLAH6IR1AnukHTp1FBoHoNgjCwwQLdcg7mzci9FpawwSTyxE1GJ_HHxEF6x3P8Q1uxtLIYrtMycnVk8kAU6LOZC2oMQVETKZGafcy0f7xZP95-1qM58sF_JCbOOoj99ZgBcikuNg3nFyYknf27-cRnkXyXcdw0gWunfJawNdwPcP9Tz583N5PV9N1ptfv-dX64mS-aycoK7NZQYGyqLMa2hllmclmJlWOoPK1HmbtcoYyFUKCKooC9C6lW0KNWCNmJ0nn-51-VNvR35Tc-NHTtiFRlZ1dTmTVVEz68s9S5EPgdA0A9ke6NjItDldv-HrN6frc1cyffpAh74lq3f4TPV_C_8Axru6Ow</recordid><startdate>201705</startdate><enddate>201705</enddate><creator>Atkinson, P.R.</creator><creator>Milne, J.</creator><creator>Diegelmann, L.</creator><creator>Lamprecht, H.</creator><creator>Stander, M.</creator><creator>Lussier, D.</creator><creator>Pham, C.</creator><creator>Henneberry, R.</creator><creator>Fraser, J.</creator><creator>Howlett, M.</creator><creator>Mekwan, J.</creator><creator>Ramrattan, B.</creator><creator>Middleton, J.</creator><creator>van Hoving, D.J.</creator><creator>Fredericks, D.</creator><creator>Peach, M.</creator><creator>Taylor, L.</creator><creator>Dahn, T.</creator><creator>Hurley, S.T.</creator><creator>MacSween, K.</creator><creator>Cox, C.</creator><creator>Richardson, L.</creator><creator>Loubani, O.</creator><creator>Stoica, G.</creator><creator>Hunter, S.</creator><creator>Olszynski, P.</creator><creator>Lewis, D.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FQ</scope><scope>8FV</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M3G</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201705</creationdate><title>LO45: Does the use of point of care ultrasonography improve survival in emergency department patients with undifferentiated hypotension? The first Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHOC-ED1) Study; an international randomized controlled trial</title><author>Atkinson, P.R. ; Milne, J. ; Diegelmann, L. ; Lamprecht, H. ; Stander, M. ; Lussier, D. ; Pham, C. ; Henneberry, R. ; Fraser, J. ; Howlett, M. ; Mekwan, J. ; Ramrattan, B. ; Middleton, J. ; van Hoving, D.J. ; Fredericks, D. ; Peach, M. ; Taylor, L. ; Dahn, T. ; Hurley, S.T. ; MacSween, K. ; Cox, C. ; Richardson, L. ; Loubani, O. ; Stoica, G. ; Hunter, S. ; Olszynski, P. ; Lewis, D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1427-ed9f63afa75749ab13437af2dcd3a8f94b3bcffa4c0aeac575addb1b0a9ae9ee3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Cardiac arrest</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Emergency medical care</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Oral Presentations</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Atkinson, P.R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Milne, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diegelmann, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lamprecht, H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stander, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lussier, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pham, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henneberry, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fraser, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Howlett, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mekwan, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramrattan, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Middleton, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Hoving, D.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fredericks, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peach, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taylor, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dahn, T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hurley, S.T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacSween, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cox, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Richardson, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loubani, O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stoica, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hunter, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olszynski, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lewis, D.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database</collection><collection>Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>CBCA Reference & Current Events</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Canadian journal of emergency medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Atkinson, P.R.</au><au>Milne, J.</au><au>Diegelmann, L.</au><au>Lamprecht, H.</au><au>Stander, M.</au><au>Lussier, D.</au><au>Pham, C.</au><au>Henneberry, R.</au><au>Fraser, J.</au><au>Howlett, M.</au><au>Mekwan, J.</au><au>Ramrattan, B.</au><au>Middleton, J.</au><au>van Hoving, D.J.</au><au>Fredericks, D.</au><au>Peach, M.</au><au>Taylor, L.</au><au>Dahn, T.</au><au>Hurley, S.T.</au><au>MacSween, K.</au><au>Cox, C.</au><au>Richardson, L.</au><au>Loubani, O.</au><au>Stoica, G.</au><au>Hunter, S.</au><au>Olszynski, P.</au><au>Lewis, D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>LO45: Does the use of point of care ultrasonography improve survival in emergency department patients with undifferentiated hypotension? The first Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHOC-ED1) Study; an international randomized controlled trial</atitle><jtitle>Canadian journal of emergency medicine</jtitle><addtitle>CJEM</addtitle><date>2017-05</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>S1</issue><spage>S43</spage><epage>S43</epage><pages>S43-S43</pages><issn>1481-8035</issn><eissn>1481-8043</eissn><abstract>Introduction: Point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) is an established tool in the initial management of patients with undifferentiated hypotension in the emergency department (ED). While PoCUS protocols have been shown to improve early diagnostic accuracy, there is little published evidence for any mortality benefit. We report the findings from our international multicenter randomized controlled trial, assessing the impact of a PoCUS protocol on survival and key clinical outcomes. Methods: Recruitment occurred at 7 centres in North America (4) and South Africa (3). Scans were performed by PoCUS-trained physicians. Screening at triage identified patients (SBP<100 or shock index>1), randomized to PoCUS or control (standard care and no PoCUS) groups. Demographics, clinical details and study findings were collected prospectively. Initial and secondary diagnoses were recorded at 0 and 60 minutes, with ultrasound performed in the PoCUS group prior to secondary assessment. The primary outcome measure was 30-day/discharge mortality. Secondary outcome measures included diagnostic accuracy, changes in vital signs, acid-base status, and length of stay. Categorical data was analyzed using Fishers test, and continuous data by Student T test and multi-level log-regression testing. (GraphPad/SPSS) Final chart review was blinded to initial impressions and PoCUS findings. Results: 258 patients were enrolled with follow-up fully completed. Baseline comparisons confirmed effective randomization. There was no difference between groups for the primary outcome of mortality; PoCUS 32/129 (24.8%; 95% CI 14.3-35.3%) vs. Control 32/129 (24.8%; 95% CI 14.3-35.3%); RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.869 to 1.15; p=1.00). There were no differences in the secondary outcomes; ICU and total length of stay. Our sample size has a power of 0.80 (α:0.05) for a moderate effect size. Other secondary outcomes are reported separately. Conclusion: This is the first RCT to compare PoCUS to standard care for undifferentiated hypotensive ED patients. We did not find any mortality or length of stay benefits with the use of a PoCUS protocol, though a larger study is required to confirm these findings. While PoCUS may have diagnostic benefits, these may not translate into a survival benefit effect.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/cem.2017.107</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1481-8035 |
ispartof | Canadian journal of emergency medicine, 2017-05, Vol.19 (S1), p.S43-S43 |
issn | 1481-8035 1481-8043 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1898621859 |
source | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals |
subjects | Cardiac arrest Clinical trials Emergency medical care Mortality Oral Presentations |
title | LO45: Does the use of point of care ultrasonography improve survival in emergency department patients with undifferentiated hypotension? The first Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHOC-ED1) Study; an international randomized controlled trial |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T17%3A41%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=LO45:%20Does%20the%20use%20of%20point%20of%20care%20ultrasonography%20improve%20survival%20in%20emergency%20department%20patients%20with%20undifferentiated%20hypotension?%20The%20first%20Sonography%20in%20Hypotension%20and%20Cardiac%20Arrest%20in%20the%20Emergency%20Department%20(SHOC-ED1)%20Study;%20an%20international%20randomized%20controlled%20trial&rft.jtitle=Canadian%20journal%20of%20emergency%20medicine&rft.au=Atkinson,%20P.R.&rft.date=2017-05&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=S1&rft.spage=S43&rft.epage=S43&rft.pages=S43-S43&rft.issn=1481-8035&rft.eissn=1481-8043&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/cem.2017.107&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1898621859%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1898621859&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_cem_2017_107&rfr_iscdi=true |