Key result
Focused cardiac ultrasound reveals new findings in ~27% of hemodynamically stable ED patients.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to determine the diagnostic yield of focused cardiac ultrasound (FOCUS) in hemodynamically stable emergency department patients, and to confirm the accuracy of these studies compared to formal echocardiography.
Does emergency physician-performed focused cardiac ultrasound provide high diagnostic yield and accuracy compared to formal echocardiography in hemodynamically stable emergency department patients?
Observational (n=976)
Does emergency physician-performed focused cardiac ultrasound provide high diagnostic yield and accuracy compared to formal echocardiography in hemodynamically stable emergency department patients?
Effect estimate: κ = 0.53
Emergency physician-performed focused cardiac ultrasound in hemodynamically stable patients yields new cardiac diagnoses in 27% of cases and has modest agreement with formal echocardiography.
Should not yet change practice in stable ED patients; leaves open accuracy of focused cardiac ultrasound versus formal echocardiography.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine the diagnostic yield of focused cardiac ultrasound (FOCUS) in hemodynamically stable patients in the emergency department and secondarily to confirm the accuracy of these studies when compared to formal echocardiography. METHODS: All hemodynamically stable adult patients who had an emergency physician-performed FOCUS examination completed over a 1-year period were identified using our electronic ultrasound database. Hemodynamic stability was defined as presenting systolic blood pressure higher than 90 mm Hg and not requiring any form of positive pressure ventilation. RESULTS: There were 1198 FOCUS examinations performed: 976 in hemodynamically stable patients who were included in our analysis. Twenty-seven percent of patients had new findings, including 154 (16%) new diagnoses of reduced left ventricular function, 105 (11%) new pericardial effusions, and 44 (5%) new diagnoses of RV dilatation. Dyspnea as an indication for the FOCUS examination was the strongest predictor of a positive study. Of patients included, 28% underwent formal echocardiography within 2 days and were analyzed for concordance with regard to left ventricular function and the presence of pericardial effusion. Of 270 studies, 208 were accurate, and 62 were inaccurate, for raw agreement of 77% (κ = 0.53). When stratified by sonographer experience, there was no impact on accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Focused cardiac ultrasound in the emergency department for hemodynamically stable patients revealed new findings in 27% of studies, with a modest correlation with formal echocardiography. In stable patients, FOCUS has the potential for rapid diagnosis of cardiac disease, particularly in patients with dyspnea.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Balderston et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Hemodynamically stable patients in the emergency department (n=976). Focused cardiac ultrasound (FOCUS) vs. Formal echocardiography was evaluated on Diagnostic yield (new findings) and accuracy compared to formal echocardiography (κ = 0.53). Focused cardiac ultrasound in hemodynamically stable emergency department patients revealed new findings in 27% of studies and showed 77% raw agreement (κ = 0.53) with formal echocardiography.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: