Shaw Matthew R, Godzdanker Iv, Hawbaker Nicolaus, McManis Beth G
Northern Arizona Healthcare, Flagstaff, AZ.
Northern Arizona Healthcare, Flagstaff, AZ.
Air Med J. 2023 Jan-Feb;42(1):42-47. doi: 10.1016/j.amj.2022.09.003. Epub 2022 Oct 12.
Prehospital medicine has struggled to manage critical patients without the resources available to hospital-based teams. Point-of-care ultrasound could bridge this resource gap by providing critical insight into the pathology of trauma patients. This study aimed to determine if early positive extended focused assessment with sonography in trauma (eFAST) identification would lead to improved patient outcomes.
This is a prospective observational trial that took place from February 1, 2019, to August 13, 2021. Paramedics, with no prior ultrasound experience, at a single ground ambulance agency were trained in obtaining and interpretating eFAST examinations.
Thirty-seven paramedics were trained and performed a total of 502 eFAST examinations with a total correct interpretation rate of 97.35%. There was a sensitivity of 30.0%/75.0%, specificity of 98.75%/94.05%, a positive predictive value of 33.33%/37.5%, a negative predictive value of 98.55%/98.75%, a positive likelihood ratio of 24.05/12.6, and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.71/0.27 for all exam/patient-only scans. The time spent on scene for eFAST and non-eFAST calls was not significantly different (F = 2.59, P = .051, η = .003).
Although we were able to show successful training and interpretation of eFAST with paramedics, given the low prevalence of disease, our study did not show eFAST use improving patient outcome. However, the large likelihood ratio suggests its benefit may lie with appropriate trauma resource utilization.
院前医学在管理危重症患者时面临困难,因为缺乏医院团队所具备的资源。床旁超声检查可为创伤患者的病理状况提供关键见解,从而弥合这一资源差距。本研究旨在确定早期创伤超声重点评估(eFAST)阳性识别是否会改善患者预后。
这是一项前瞻性观察性试验,于2019年2月1日至2021年8月13日进行。在一个地面救护车机构中,对没有超声经验的护理人员进行了获取和解读eFAST检查的培训。
37名护理人员接受了培训,共进行了502次eFAST检查,总正确解读率为97.35%。所有检查/仅针对患者的扫描中,灵敏度为30.0%/75.0%,特异度为98.75%/94.05%,阳性预测值为33.33%/37.5%,阴性预测值为98.55%/98.75%,阳性似然比为24.05/12.6,阴性似然比为0.71/0.27。eFAST呼叫和非eFAST呼叫在现场花费的时间没有显著差异(F = 2.59,P = 0.051,η = 0.003)。
尽管我们能够证明护理人员成功完成了eFAST检查的培训和解读,但鉴于疾病的低患病率,我们的研究并未显示使用eFAST能改善患者预后。然而,较大的似然比表明其益处可能在于合理利用创伤资源。