Department of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Am J Emerg Med. 2022 Oct;60:156-163. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2022.08.008. Epub 2022 Aug 8.
To determine the association between emergency department point-of-care cardiac ultrasonography (POCUS) utilization and time to pericardial effusion drainage during an 8-year period when the emergency ultrasound program was established at our institution.
We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study in patients undergoing pericardiocentesis or other procedure for evacuation of pericardial effusion. Data was collected using both direct queries to the electronic health record database and two-examiner chart review. The primary outcome was time to intervention for pericardial effusion drainage. Multivariable Cox regression, with and without inverse probability weighting for likelihood to receive POCUS, was used to determine the association between POCUS and time to intervention. Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality.
257 patient encounters were included with 137 receiving POCUS and 120 who did not. The proportion of patients receiving POCUS increased from 18.5% to 69.5% during the early to late periods of the study. POCUS was associated with an earlier median time to intervention of 21.6 h (95% CI 17.2, 24.2) compared to 34.6 h (27.0, 50.5) in the No POCUS group. After adjustment for patient demographics, anticoagulation, time of presentation and hemodynamic instability, POCUS was associated with earlier intervention (HR 2.08 [95% CI 1.56, 2.77]). POCUS use was not associated with a difference in 28-day mortality, which was evaluated as a secondary outcome. However, diagnosis of pericardial effusion by the ED physician using any means (POCUS or other imaging) was associated with decreased 28-day mortality (9.7% vs. 26.0%, -16.3% for POCUS [95% CI -29.1, -3.5]).
POCUS was associated with an earlier time to intervention for pericardial effusions after adjustment for multiple confounding factors. Failure to diagnose pericardial effusion in the ED using any diagnostic testing including POCUS, was associated with increased 28-day mortality.
在我院急诊超声项目建立的 8 年期间,确定急诊即时心脏超声(POCUS)使用与心包积液引流时间之间的关联。
我们对行心包穿刺或其他方法引流心包积液的患者进行了单中心回顾性队列研究。使用电子病历数据库的直接查询和两位检查者的图表审查收集数据。主要结局是心包积液引流的干预时间。使用多变量 Cox 回归,包括和不包括接受 POCUS 的可能性的逆概率加权,以确定 POCUS 与干预时间之间的关联。次要结局包括 28 天死亡率。
共纳入 257 例患者,其中 137 例接受了 POCUS,120 例未接受。在研究的早期到后期,接受 POCUS 的患者比例从 18.5%增加到 69.5%。与未接受 POCUS 的患者相比,接受 POCUS 的患者的中位干预时间更早,为 21.6 小时(95%CI 17.2,24.2),而未接受 POCUS 的患者为 34.6 小时(27.0,50.5)。在调整患者人口统计学、抗凝、就诊时间和血流动力学不稳定后,POCUS 与更早的干预相关(HR 2.08[95%CI 1.56,2.77])。POCUS 的使用与 28 天死亡率无差异相关,这是作为次要结局评估的。然而,ED 医生使用任何手段(POCUS 或其他影像学)诊断的心包积液与 28 天死亡率降低相关(9.7%比 26.0%,POCUS 降低 16.3%[95%CI -29.1,-3.5])。
在调整了多个混杂因素后,POCUS 与心包积液干预时间更早相关。在 ED 中使用任何诊断性检查(包括 POCUS)未能诊断心包积液与 28 天死亡率增加相关。