Open Access

Learning to apply the pocket ultrasound device on the critically ill: comparing six 'quick-look' signs for quality and prognostic values during initial use by novices

  • Tuan V Mai1,
  • David J Shaw1,
  • Stanley A Amundson1,
  • Donna L Agan1 and
  • Bruce J Kimura1Email author
Critical Care201317:448

https://doi.org/10.1186/cc12875

Published: 4 September 2013

Biais and colleagues [1] have shown that echocardiographers can adequately perform a three-viewcardiac examination in the emergency setting using a pocket ultrasound device (PUD).We have similarly noted that an evidence-based 'quick-look', cardiac limitedultrasound examination has diagnostic and prognostic value [2], can affect medical decision-making [3], and can be successfully taught to internal medicine residents [4]. As few data describe the learning curve of ultrasound imaging with PUDs,we observed the initial quality and prognostic value of six 'quick-look' signsobtained by residents learning to use the PUD.

Internal medicine residents in an ultrasound training program [4] recorded a brief, previously described [2] cardiac limited ultrasound examination designed to detect six'quick-look' signs of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, left atrialenlargement, ultrasound lung comet (ULC) tail artifact representing interstitiallung edema, elevated central venous pressure, pleural effusion, and rightventricular enlargement on a convenience-sample of intensive care unit (ICU)patients with respiratory failure, shock, or severe cardiac disease, using a PUD(Vscan, GE Healthcare, Wauwatosa, WI, USA). An expert echocardiographer reviewed theresident-acquired images and assigned a quality score: 0 (no image), 1 (only motiondetected; off-axis), 2 ('suboptimal', poor delineation of structures), 3 ('adequate'for diagnosis of particular sign), or 4 ('optimal', good delineation of allstructures).

Only technically adequate quality views (score >2) were entered into amultivariate logistic regression combining the six signs, clinical presentation andinpatient mortality (SPSS version 12.0). A P- value <0.05 was consideredstatistically significant. The Scripps Institutional Review Board approved thestudy.

Twenty-one residents recorded 749 views on 107 critically ill patients (mean 5.1patients/resident): mean patient age of 65.2 ± 16.8 years,inpatient mortality of 25.2%, and mean quality score of 2.1 ± 1.4.Presentation, mortality and overall percentage adequate quality views were:respiratory failure (n = 55, 32.7%, 48.0%), shock (n = 16,25.0%, 51.6%) and cardiac disease (n = 36, 13.9%, 51.7%). ULC had themost adequate quality images and is the only sign that had statistically significantprognostic value in the residents’ and cardiologist’s interpretations(Table 1).
Table 1

Mortality odds ratios for 'quick-look' signs determined byresidents’ and cardiologist’s interpretations of adequatequality images

Sign

Technically adequate quality

Mortality odds ratios (resident interpretation)

95% CI

Mortality odds ratios (cardiologist interpretation)

95% CI

LVD

42.1%

0.6

[0.1, 2.2]

0.4

[0.1, 2.2]

LAE

43.9%

3.8

[0.7, 19.7]

1.7

[0.4, 6.6]

ULC

81.3%

3.0

[1.1, 7.9]

3.0

[1.1, 7.9]

Pleu. eff.

59.8%

6.067

[1.5, 24.1]

2.4

[0.7, 7.9]

RVE

49.5%

0.4

[0.8, 2.2]

0.6

[0.1, 3.1]

eCVP

36.0%

3.8

[0.6, 22.0]]

1.1

[0.2, 5.8]

CI, confidence interval; eCVP, elevated central venous pressure; LAE,left atrial enlargement; LVD, left ventricular systolic dysfunction;Pleu. eff., pleural effusion; RVE, right ventricular enlargement; ULC,ultrasound lung comet tail artifact. The numbers in bold representmortality odd ratios that are statistically significant(P < 0.05).

Galen cautioned against extrapolating Biais and colleagues’ data for non-expertusers [5]. As few studies address the learning curve of quick-look ultrasoundimaging tasks, this study suggests that novice users learning to use the PUD readilylearn to image ULC, which was prognostic in this ICU population. In light of asubstantial number of initially difficult psternal long-axis and subcostal views,the PUD’s most simple and immediate use may be in the rapid detection oflife-threatening pulmonary edema.

Authors' response

Cédric Carrié and Matthieu Biais

Recently developed, the new generation of PUDs made real the concept of an ultrasonicstethoscope. But at least three questions remained: first, what is the truediagnostic capacities of these PUDs; second, in which clinical settings should theybe used; and third, what is the level of competence needed for its optimal use?

After several years of experience with PUDs, we have demonstrated its reliability forgoal-directed examinations aiming to answer brief and important clinical questionsencountered by front-line physicians in the emergency setting [1, 6]. However, those examinations were performed by operators sensitized to avisual assessment of semi-quantitative pmeters. Therefore, our results could not beextrapolated for non-expert users.

Here, Mai and colleagues report their experience in implementing a trainingcurriculum dedicated to residents learning to use a PUD. Their observations are inaccordance with the literature. Previously published studies evaluated thefeasibility and the efficiency of limited training programs to reach recommendedcompetencies in basic echocardiography and general ultrasound. Most of these studieswere performed in emergency or critical care settings [7, 8]. However, the duration of theoretical and practical sessions variedconsiderably across studies, explaining the lack of uniformity and generallyaccepted standards in basic ultrasound education among emergency medicineresidents.

Thus, we insist on the need to define the specific learning curve of emergencyresidents for the acquisition of technical and cognitive skills in goal-directedemergency ultrasound. We continue to support the concept of a three-level system fortraining in ultrasound, as a limited field of competence cannot substitute for amore comprehensive imaging examination when indicated [9].

Abbreviations

ICU: 

Intensive care unit

PUD: 

Pocket ultrasound device

ULC: 

Ultrasound lungcomet.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank all the 21 residents who participated in this study by using the pocketultrasound device to assess for the six 'quick-look' signs during their initialevaluation of critically ill patients. The opinions, results, and conclusionsreported in this research letter are those of the authors and are independent ofany funding sources.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Medical Education, Scripps Mercy Hospital

References

  1. Biais M, Carrié C, Delaunay F, Morel N, Revel P, Janvier G: Evaluation of a new pocket echoscopic device for focused cardiacultrasonography in an emergency setting. Crit Care 2012, 16: R82. 10.1186/cc11340PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Kimura BJ, Yogo N, O'Connell CW, Phan JN, Showalter BK, Wolfson T: Cardiopulmonary limited ultrasound examination for ' quick-look' bedsideapplication. Am J Cardiol 2011, 108: 586-590. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.03.091View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Kimura BJ, Shaw DJ, Agan DL, Amundson SA, Ping AC, DeMaria AN: Value of a cardiovascular limited ultrasound examination using a hand-carrieddevice on clinical management in an outpatient medical clinic. Am J Cardiol 2007, 100: 321-325. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.02.104View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Kimura BJ, Amundson SA, Phan JN, Agan DL, Shaw DJ: Observations during development of an internal medicine residency trainingprogram in cardiovascular limited ultrasound examination. J Hosp Med 2012, 7: 537-542. 10.1002/jhm.1944View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Galen HT: Is pocket ultrasound ready for prime time? Crit Care 2012, 16: 463.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Carrié C, Delaunay F, Morel N, Revel P, Janvier G, Biais M: Ability of a new pocket echoscopic device to detect abdominal and pleuraleffusion in blunt trauma patients. Am J Emerg Med 2013, 31: 437-439. 10.1016/j.ajem.2012.11.008View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Vignon P, Mucke F, Bellec F, Marin B, Croce J, Brouqui T, Palobart C, Senges P, Truffy C, Wachmann A, Dugard A, Amiel JB: Basic critical care echocardiography: validation of a curriculum dedicated tononcardiologist residents. Crit Care Med 2011, 39: 636-642. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318206c1e4View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Jones AE, Tayal VS, Kline JA: Focused training of emergency medicine residents in goal-directedechocardiography: a prospective study. Acad Emerg Med 2003, 10: 1054-1058. 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2003.tb00574.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Mayo PH, Beaulieu Y, Doelken P, Feller-Kopman D, Harrod C, Kaplan A, Oropello J, Vieillard-Baron A, Slama M, Cholley B, Janvier G, Vignon P: Echocardiography in the intensive care unit: from evolution torevolution? Intensive Care Med 2008, 34: 243-249. 10.1007/s00134-007-0923-5View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

Advertisement