Key result
Emergency medicine trainees achieved 93% agreement (K=0.79; 95% CI 0.773-0.842) with a cardiologist for visual estimation of left ventricular function after limited training.
Why the study?
Does limited training (web module + 3h practical) allow emergency medicine trainees to reliably perform and interpret point-of-care echocardiography compared to a board-certified cardiologist?
Cross-Sectional (n=100)
Does limited training (web module + 3h practical) allow emergency medicine trainees to reliably perform and interpret point-of-care echocardiography compared to a board-certified cardiologist?
Emergency medicine trainees can reliably perform and interpret focused echocardiography for left ventricular function and pericardial effusion after a short training program, though IVC assessment showed lower agreement.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports limited training for EM LV assessment; hypothesis-generating for broader POCUS adoption pending prospective validation.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate if emergency medicine trainees with a short duration of training in echocardiography could perform and interpret bedside-focused echocardiography reliably on emergency department patients. METHODS: Following a web-based learning module and 3 h of proctored practical training, emergency medicine trainees were evaluated in technical and interpretative skills in estimating left ventricular function, detection of pericardial effusion and inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter measurements using bedside-focused echocardiography on emergency department patients. An inter-rater agreement analysis was performed between the trainees and a board-certified cardiologist. RESULTS: 100 focused echocardiography examinations were performed by nine emergency medicine trainees. Agreement between the trainees and the cardiologist was 93% (K=0.79, 95% CI 0.773 to 0.842) for visual estimation of left ventricular function, 92.9% (K=0.80, 95% CI 0.636 to 0.882) for quantitative left ventricular ejection fraction by M-mode measurements, 98% (K=0.74, 95% CI 0.396 to 1.000) for the detection of pericardial effusion, and 64.2% (K=0.45, 95% CI 0.383 to 0.467) for IVC diameter assessment. The Bland-Altman limits of agreement for left ventricular function was -9.5% to 13.7%, and a Pearson's correlation yielded a value of 0.82 (p<0.0001, 95% CI 0.734 to 0.881). The trainees detected pericardial effusion with a sensitivity of 60%, specificity of 100%, positive predictive value of 100% and negative predictive value of 97.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency medicine trainees were found to be able to perform and interpret focused echocardiography reliably after a short duration of training.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bustam et al. (2013) conducted a cross-sectional in Emergency department patients (n=100). Point-of-care echocardiography by emergency medicine trainees after limited training vs. Board-certified cardiologist was evaluated on Agreement between trainees and cardiologist for visual estimation of left ventricular function (K=0.79, 95% CI 0.773 to 0.842). Emergency medicine trainees achieved 93% agreement (K=0.79; 95% CI 0.773-0.842) with a cardiologist for visual estimation of left ventricular function after limited training.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: