Key result
POCUS is linked to ~87% faster time-to-diagnosis for symptomatic pericardial effusion vs. departmental echocardiography.
Why the study?
Symptomatic pericardial effusion presents with non-specific features and is often missed on initial physical exam, CXR, and ECG, risking progression to life-threatening cardiac tamponade.
Does point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) reduce time-to-diagnosis and time-to-intervention in patients with clinically significant pericardial effusion compared to departmental echocardiography?
Comparison
Point-of-care ultrasound vs departmental echocardiogram or other imaging modalities
Design
Retrospective single-center chart review
Authors
Loading...
POCUS was associated with faster diagnosis of symptomatic pericardial effusion; leaves open whether adoption improves outcomes or warrants RCTs.
Observational (n=342)
No
Does point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) reduce time-to-diagnosis and time-to-intervention in patients with clinically significant pericardial effusion compared to departmental echocardiography?
Absolute Event Rate: 5.9% vs 45.1%
Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) significantly expedites the diagnosis and subsequent therapeutic pericardiocentesis in patients with symptomatic pericardial effusion compared to traditional departmental echocardiography.
Hanson et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Clinically significant pericardial effusion (n=342). Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) vs. Departmental echocardiography (ECHO) or other imaging was evaluated on Time-to-diagnosis (hours). Point-of-care ultrasound expedited the diagnosis of symptomatic pericardial effusion to an average of 5.9 hours compared to 45.1 hours with departmental echocardiography.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: