Does Point-of-care Ultrasonography Change Emergency Department Care Delivered to Hypotensive Patients When Categorized by Shock Type? A Post-Hoc Analysis of an International Randomized Controlled Trial from the SHoC-ED Investigators.
hypotension
interventions
point-of-care ultrasound
shock
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Nov 2019
03 Nov 2019
Historique:
entrez:
13
12
2019
pubmed:
13
12
2019
medline:
13
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Introduction Our previously reported randomized-controlled-trial of point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) for patients with undifferentiated hypotension in the emergency department (ED) showed no survival benefit with PoCUS. Here, we examine the data to see if PoCUS led to changes in the care delivered to patients with cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic shock. Methods A post-hoc analysis was completed on a database of 273 hypotensive ED patients randomized to standard care or PoCUS in six centres in Canada and South Africa. Shock categories recorded one hour after the ED presentation were used to define subcategories of shock. We analyzed initial intravenous fluid volumes, as well as rates of inotrope use and procedures. Results 261 patients could be classified as cardiogenic or non-cardiogenic shock types. Although there were expected differences in the mean fluid volume administered between patients with non-cardiogenic and cardiogenic shock (p-value<0.001), there was no difference between the control and PoCUS groups (mean non-cardiogenic control 1881mL (95% CI 1567-2195mL) vs non-cardiogenic PoCUS 1763mL (1525-2001mL); and cardiogenic control 680mL (28.4-1332mL) vs. cardiogenic PoCUS 744mL (370-1117mL; p= 0.67). Likewise, there were no differences in rates of inotrope administration nor procedures for any of the subcategories of shock between the control group and PoCUS group patients. Conclusion Despite differences in care delivered by subcategory of shock, we did not find any difference in key elements of emergency department care delivered between patients receiving PoCUS and those who did not. This may help explain the previously reported lack of outcome differences between groups.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31827989
doi: 10.7759/cureus.6058
pmc: PMC6890162
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e6058Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019, Atkinson et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2001 Nov 8;345(19):1368-77
pubmed: 11794169
Ann Emerg Med. 2018 Oct;72(4):478-489
pubmed: 29866583
Emerg Med Int. 2017;2017:6248687
pubmed: 28357139
Crit Care Med. 2007 Nov;35(11):2568-75
pubmed: 17901831
Crit Care Med. 2015 Dec;43(12):2562-9
pubmed: 26575653
Ann Emerg Med. 2004 Jan;43(1):106-13
pubmed: 14707949