GMJ Medicine
eISSN : 2626-3041
Embase
Biosis Previews
description
Volume 3, Issue 3 (2024)
GMJM 2024, 3(3): 103-106 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2023/12/28 | Accepted: 2024/06/21 | Published: 2024/08/8
Received: 2023/12/28 | Accepted: 2024/06/21 | Published: 2024/08/8
How to cite this article
Tabibzadeh Dezfuli S, Ghasemi H, Yazdani R. Accuracy of Rapid Ultrasound in Shock on Detection of Early Rapid Shock Type in Emergency Patients. GMJM 2024; 3 (3) :103-106
URL: http://gmedicine.de/article-2-239-en.html
URL: http://gmedicine.de/article-2-239-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
1- Trauma and Emergency Medicine Research Center, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran
2- Emergency Medicine Specialist, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran
2- Emergency Medicine Specialist, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran
Abstract (716 Views)
Aims: Shock detection techniques based on ultrasound technology have been used. This study was conducted to investigate the accuracy of RUSH in the early recognition of emergency department patients.
Materials & Methods: From April 2016 to May 2017, we recorded all the patients with shock at the emergency department of Shahid Mohammadi Hospital. The samples were selected using a simple sampling method. Shock was classified into four groups: hypovolemic, cardiogenic, distributive, and obstructive. The Kappa index was used for the final diagnosis.
Findings: The data for hypovolemic shock showed good sensitivity, excellent agreement, specificity, and accuracy, and the highest agreement with final diagnoses was observed for this shock. Good sensitivity, excellent specificity, accuracy, and agreement were observed for cardiogenic shock. The data for obstructive shock showed good sensitivity and agreement, as well as excellent specificity and accuracy. Moreover, low agreement, excellent specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy were seen in distributive shock.
Conclusion: These results provided reliable information for clinicians to quickly and accurately recognize the shock type in a hypotensive patient, especially for obstructive, cardiogenic, or hypovolemic shock types.
Materials & Methods: From April 2016 to May 2017, we recorded all the patients with shock at the emergency department of Shahid Mohammadi Hospital. The samples were selected using a simple sampling method. Shock was classified into four groups: hypovolemic, cardiogenic, distributive, and obstructive. The Kappa index was used for the final diagnosis.
Findings: The data for hypovolemic shock showed good sensitivity, excellent agreement, specificity, and accuracy, and the highest agreement with final diagnoses was observed for this shock. Good sensitivity, excellent specificity, accuracy, and agreement were observed for cardiogenic shock. The data for obstructive shock showed good sensitivity and agreement, as well as excellent specificity and accuracy. Moreover, low agreement, excellent specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy were seen in distributive shock.
Conclusion: These results provided reliable information for clinicians to quickly and accurately recognize the shock type in a hypotensive patient, especially for obstructive, cardiogenic, or hypovolemic shock types.
Keywords:
| | Full-Text (HTML) (117 Views)
References
1. Wacker DA, Winters ME. Shock. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2014;32(4):747-58. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.emc.2014.07.003]
2. Wongwaisayawan S, Suwannanon R, Prachanukool T, Sricharoen P, Saksobhavivat N, Kaewlai R. Trauma ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015;41(10): 543-61. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2015.05.009]
3. Volpicelli G, Lamorte A, Tullio M, Cardinale L, Giraudo M, Stefanone V, et al. Point-of-care multiorgan ultrasonography for the evaluation of undifferentiated hypotension in the emergency department. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(7):1290-8. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s00134-013-2919-7]
4. Gaieski DF, Mikkelsen M. Definition, classification, etiology, and pathophysiology of shock in adults [Internet]. Tehran: UpToDate. 2017 [Cited 22 June 15]. Available from: https://www.medilib.ir/uptodate/show/1594. [Persian] [Link]
5. Peterson D, Arntfield RT. Critical care ultrasonography. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2014;32(4):907-26. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.emc.2014.07.011]
6. Jones AE, Tayal VS, Sullivan DM, Kline JA. Randomized, controlled trial of immediate versus delayed goal-directed ultrasound to identify the cause of nontraumatic hypotension in emergency department patients. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(8):1703-8. [Link] [DOI:10.1097/01.CCM.0000133017.34137.82]
7. Atkinson PRT, McAuley DJ, Kendall RJ. Abdominal and cardiac evaluation with sonography in shock (ACES): An approach by emergency physicians for the use of ultrasound in patients with undifferentiated hypotension. Emergency Med J. 2009;26(2):87-91. [Link] [DOI:10.1136/emj.2007.056242]
8. Gunst M, Ghaemmaghami V, Sperry J. Accuracy of cardiac function and volume status estimates using the bedside echocardiographic assessment in trauma/critical care. The J Trauma. 2008;65(3):509-16. [Link] [DOI:10.1097/TA.0b013e3181825bc5]
9. Perera P, Mailhot T, Riley D, Mandavia D. The RUSH exam: Rapidultrasound in shock in the evaluation of critically ill patient. Emerg MedClin North Am. 2010;28(1):29-56. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.emc.2009.09.010]
10. Perera P, Mailhot T, Riley D, Mandavia D. The RUSH Exam 2012: Rapidultrasound in shock in the evaluation of critically ill patient. Ultrasound Clin. 2012;7:255-78. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.cult.2011.12.010]
11. Seif D, Perera P, Mailhot T, Riley D, Mandavia D. Bedside ultrasound in resuscitation and the rapid ultrasound in shock protocol. Crit Care Res Pract. 2012;2012:503254. [Link] [DOI:10.1155/2012/503254]
12. Keikha M, Salehi-Marzijarani M, SoldooziNejat R, Sheikh MotaharVahedi H, Mirrezaie SM. Diagnostic Accuracy of Rapid Ultrasound in Shock (RUSH) Exam; A systematic review and meta-analysis. Bull Emerg Trauma. 2018;6(4):271-8. [Link] [DOI:10.29252/beat-060402]
13. Deville WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, Montori VM, de Vet HC, van der Windt DA, et al. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002;2:9. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/1471-2288-2-9]
14. Jones CM, Athanasiou T. Summary receiver operating characteristic curve analysis techniques in the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79(1):16-20. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.09.040]
15. Hernandez C, Shuler K, Hannan H, Sonyika C, Likourezos A, Mar¬shall J. C.A.U.S.E.: Cardiac arrest ultra-sound exam-a better approach to managing patients in primary non-arrhythmogenic cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2008;76(2):198-206. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.06.033]
16. Dwamena B. MIDAS: Stata module for meta-analytical integration of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Statistical Software Components. 2009;10:23-32. [Link]
17. Bagheri-Hariri S, Yekesadat M, Farahmand S, Arbab M, Sedaghat M, Shahlafar N, et al. The impact of using RUSH protocol for diagnosing the type of unknown shock in the emergency department. Emerg Radiol. 2015;22(5):517-20. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s10140-015-1311-z]