Introduction: Point of care ultrasound (US) is a key adjunct in the management of trauma patients, in the form of the extended focused assessment with sonography in trauma (E-FAST) scan. This study assessed the impact of adding an edus2 ultrasound simulator on the diagnostic capabilities of resident and attending physicians participating in simulated trauma scenarios. Methods: 12 residents and 20 attending physicians participated in 114 trauma simulations utilizing a Laerdal 3G mannequin. Participants generated a ranked differential diagnosis list after a standard assessment, and again after completing a simulated US scan for each scenario. We compared reports to determine if US improved diagnostic performance over a physical exam alone. Standard statistical tests (χ2 and Student t tests) were performed. The research team was independent of the edus2 designers. Results: Primary diagnosis improved significantly from 53 (46%) to 97 (85%) correct diagnoses with the addition of simulated US (χ2=37.7, 1df; p=<0.0001). Of the 61 scenarios where an incorrect top ranked diagnosis was given, 51 (84%) improved following US. Participants were assigned a score from 1 to 5 based on where the correct diagnosis was ranked, with a 5 indicating a correct primary diagnosis. Median scores significantly increased from 3.8 (IQR 3, 4.9) to 5 (IQR 4.7, 5; W=219, p<0.0001).Participants were significantly more confident in their diagnoses after using the US simulator, as shown by the increase in their mean confidence in the correct diagnosis from 53.1% (SD 22.8) to 83.5% (SD 19.1; t=9.0; p<0.0001)Additionally, participants significantly narrowed their differential diagnosis lists from an initial medium count of 3.5 (IQR 2.9, 4.4) possible diagnoses to 2.4 (IQR 1.9, 3; W=-378, p<0.0001) following US. The performance of residents was compared to that of attending physicians for each of the above analyses. No differences in performance were detected. Conclusion: This study showed that the addition of ultrasound to simulated trauma scenarios improved the diagnostic capabilities of resident and attending physicians. Specifically, participants improved in diagnostic accuracy, diagnostic confidence, and diagnostic precision. Additionally, we have shown that the edus2 simulator can be integrated into high fidelity simulation in a way that improves diagnostic performance.

Introduction: Point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) has become an established tool in the initial management of patients with undifferentiated hypotension in the emergency department (ED). Current established protocols (e.g. RUSH and ACES) were developed by expert user opinion, rather than objective, prospective data. Recently the SHoC Protocol was published, recommending 3 core scans; cardiac, lung, and IVC; plus other scans when indicated clinically. We report the abnormal ultrasound findings from our international multicenter randomized controlled trial, to assess if the recommended 3 core SHoC protocol scans were chosen appropriately for this population. Methods: Recruitment occurred at seven centres in North America (4) and South Africa (3). Screening at triage identified patients (SBP<100 or shock index>1) who were randomized to PoCUS or control (standard care with no PoCUS) groups. All scans were performed by PoCUS-trained physicians within one hour of arrival in the ED. Demographics, clinical details and study findings were collected prospectively. A threshold incidence for positive findings of 10% was established as significant for the purposes of assessing the appropriateness of the core recommendations. Results: 138 patients had a PoCUS screen completed. All patients had cardiac, lung, IVC, aorta, abdominal, and pelvic scans. Reported abnormal findings included hyperdynamic LV function (59; 43%); small collapsing IVC (46; 33%); pericardial effusion (24; 17%); pleural fluid (19; 14%); hypodynamic LV function (15; 11%); large poorly collapsing IVC (13; 9%); peritoneal fluid (13; 9%); and aortic aneurysm (5; 4%). Conclusion: The 3 core SHoC Protocol recommendations included appropriate scans to detect all pathologies recorded at a rate of greater than 10 percent. The 3 most frequent findings were cardiac and IVC abnormalities, followed by lung. It is noted that peritoneal fluid was seen at a rate of 9%. Aortic aneurysms were rare. This data from the first RCT to compare PoCUS to standard care for undifferentiated hypotensive ED patients, supports the use of the prioritized SHoC protocol, though a larger study is required to confirm these findings.

Introduction: Point-of-care-ultrasound is an established tool in the early diagnosis of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), with a reported pooled sensitivity of 97.5% and pooled specificity 98.9%. Despite these impressive numbers, body habitus and bowel gas often render emergency department (ED) PoCUS for AAA inconclusive. We devised a manual aid “the modified peace sign technique” to improve visualization of the aorta, consisting of placing the divided fingers of the free hand of the sonographer around the probe to increase gas dispersion and improve the view of the obscured aorta. We tested the technique on volunteers during a training course when the initial scan was indeterminate due to inability to view the aorta from sub-xiphoid to bifurcation. Methods: In our pilot study, 7 physicians were asked to make a best attempt to perform an aortic scan. If they were unable to visualize the aorta, they were asked to use the modified peace sign technique. Participants recorded the number of times which they used the technique and the frequency that the technique allowed for a complete aortic scan, previously unobtainable. All scans were supervised by certified PoCUS physicians. Results: The technique was used a total of 25 times. Following failure to complete an aortic scan using their best attempt, participants were subsequently able to obtain a complete aortic scan 70% (95% CI 48 to 83%) of the time using the modified peace sign technique. Conclusion: In our pilot study, the modified peace sign technique had an estimated effect size of 70% improvement for visualization of the aorta in volunteers. Further studies are required to validate the technique in clinical practice.

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.

Introduction: Point of Care Ultrasound (PoCUS) protocols are commonly used to guide resuscitation for emergency department (ED) patients with undifferentiated non-traumatic hypotension. While PoCUS has been shown to improve early diagnosis, there is a minimal evidence for any outcome benefit. We completed an international multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the impact of a PoCUS protocol on key resuscitation markers in this group. We report diagnostic impact and mortality elsewhere. Methods: The SHoC-ED1 study compared the addition of PoCUS to standard care within the first hour in the treatment of adult patients presenting with undifferentiated hypotension (SBP<100 mmHg or a Shock Index >1.0) with a control group that did not receive PoCUS. Scans were performed by PoCUS-trained physicians. 4 North American, and 3 South African sites participated in the study. Resuscitation outcomes analyzed included volume of fluid administered in the ED, changes in shock index (SI), modified early warning score (MEWS), venous acid-base balance, and lactate, at one and four hours. Comparisons utilized a T-test as well as stratified binomial log-regression to assess for any significant improvement in resuscitation amount the outcomes. Our sample size was powered at 0.80 (α:0.05) for a moderate effect size. Results: 258 patients were enrolled with follow-up fully completed. Baseline comparisons confirmed effective randomization. There was no significant difference in mean total volume of fluid received between the control (1658 ml; 95%CI 1365-1950) and PoCUS groups (1609 ml; 1385-1832; p=0.79). Significant improvements were seen in SI, MEWS, lactate and bicarbonate with resuscitation in both the PoCUS and control groups, however there was no difference between groups. Conclusion: SHOC-ED1 is the first RCT to compare PoCUS to standard of care in hypotensive ED patients. No significant difference in fluid used, or markers of resuscitation was found when comparing the use of a PoCUS protocol to that of standard of care in the resuscitation of patients with undifferentiated hypotension.

Introduction: Point of care ultrasonography (PoCUS) is an established tool in the initial management of hypotensive patients in the emergency department (ED). It has been shown rule out certain shock etiologies, and improve diagnostic certainty, however evidence on benefit in the management of hypotensive patients is limited. We report the findings from our international multicenter RCT assessing the impact of a PoCUS protocol on diagnostic accuracy, as well as other key outcomes including mortality, which are reported elsewhere. Methods: Recruitment occurred at 4 North American and 3 Southern African sites. Screening at triage identified patients (SBP<100 mmHg or shock index >1) who were randomized to either PoCUS or control groups. Scans were performed by PoCUS-trained physicians. Demographics, clinical details and 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. Final chart review was blinded to initial impressions and PoCUS findings. Categorical data was analyzed using Fishers two-tailed test. Our sample size was powered at 0.80 (α:0.05) for a moderate effect size. Results: 258 patients were enrolled with follow-up fully completed. Baseline comparisons confirmed effective randomization. The perceived shock category changed more frequently in the PoCUS group 20/127 (15.7%) vs. control 7/125 (5.6%); RR 2.81 (95% CI 1.23 to 6.42; p=0.0134). There was no significant difference in change of diagnostic impression between groups PoCUS 39/123 (31.7%) vs control 34/124 (27.4%); RR 1.16 (95% CI 0.786 to 1.70; p=0.4879). There was no significant difference in the rate of correct category of shock between PoCUS (118/127; 93%) and control (113/122; 93%); RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.936 to 1.08; p=1.00), or for correct diagnosis; PoCUS 90/127 (70%) vs control 86/122 (70%); RR 0.987 (95% CI 0.671 to 1.45; p=1.00). Conclusion: This is the first RCT to compare PoCUS to standard care for undifferentiated hypotensive ED patients. We found that the use of PoCUS did change physicians’ perceived shock category. PoCUS did not improve diagnostic accuracy for category of shock or diagnosis.