EFSUMB Clinical Practice Guidelines for Point-of-Care Ultrasound: Part One (Common Heart and Pulmonary Applications) SHORT VERSION

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the evidence and produce a summary and recommendations for the most common heart and lung point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS).

Methods We reviewed 10 clinical domains/questions related to common heart and lung applications of PoCUS. Following review of the evidence, a summary and recommendations were produced, including assigning levels of evidence (LoE) and grading of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE). 38 international experts, the expert review group (ERG), were invited to review the evidence presented for each question. A level of agreement of over 75 % was required to progress to the next section. The ERG then reviewed and indicated their level of agreement of the summary and recommendation for each question (using a 5-point Likert scale), which was approved in the case of a level of agreement of greater than 75 %. A level of agreement was defined as a summary of “strongly agree” and “agree” on the Likert scale responses.

Findings and Recommendations One question achieved a strong consensus for an assigned LoE of 3 and a weak GRADE recommendation (question 1), the remaining 9 questions achieved broad agreement with an assigned LoE of 4 and a weak GRADE recommendation (question 2), three achieved an LoE of 3 with a weak GRADE recommendation (questions 3–5), three achieved an LoE of 3 with a strong GRADE recommendation (questions 6–8) and the remaining two were assigned an LoE of 2 with a strong GRADE recommendation (questions 9 and 10).

Conclusion These consensus-derived recommendations should aid clinical practice and highlight areas of further research for PoCUS in acute settings.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel Bewertung der Evidenz und Erstellung einer Zusammenfassung sowie von Empfehlungen für die häufigsten Herz- und Lungenanwendungen des Point-of-Care-Ultraschalls (PoCUS).

Methoden Wir überprüften 10 klinische Bereiche bzw. Fragen im Zusammenhang mit den häufigsten Herz- und Lungenanwendungen des PoCUS. Nach der Überprüfung der Evidenz wurden eine Zusammenfassung und Empfehlungen erstellt, einschließlich der Zuordnung von Evidenzgraden (“Level of Evidence” LoE) und der Einstufung der Empfehlung, Bewertung, Entwicklung und Evaluierung (GRADE). Die Expert Review Group (ERG), bestehend aus 38 internationale Experten, wurde aufgefordert, die für jede Fragestellung vorgelegte Evidenz zu überprüfen. Eine Zustimmung von über 75 % war erforderlich, um zum nächsten Teilbereich überzugehen. Anschließend überprüfte die ERG die Ergebnisse und gab den Grad der Zustimmung (mittels 5-stufiger Likert-Skala) bezüglich der Zusammenfassung und Empfehlung für jede Fragestellung an. Diese wurde anerkannt, wenn der Grad der Zustimmung – definiert als Summe der Antworten „stimme voll zu“ und „stimme zu“ auf der Likert-Skala – mehr als 75 % betrug.

Ergebnisse und Empfehlungen Bei einer Frage wurde ein starker Konsens bei einem zugeordneten LoE von 3 und einer schwachen GRADE-Empfehlung erzielt (Frage 1). Die übrigen 9 Fragen erzielten eine breite Zustimmung, wobei eine Frage einen LoE von 4 und eine schwache GRADE-Empfehlung erhielt (Frage 2), 3 Fragen erreichten einen LoE von 3 mit schwacher GRADE-Empfehlung (Fragen 3–5), 3 Fragen erreichten einen LoE von 3 mit starker GRADE-Empfehlung (Fragen 6–8) und die verbleibenden 2 Fragen erhielten einen LoE von 2 mit einer starken GRADE-Empfehlung (Fragen 9 und 10).

Schlussfolgerung Diese konsensbasierten Empfehlungen sollen die klinische Praxis unterstützen und Bereiche für weitere Forschung hinsichtlich des PoCUS in der Akutversorgung aufzeigen.

Key words

clinical practice guidelines - EFSUMB - POCUS - chest ultrasound - point-of-care ultrasound

• References

• 1 Jarman RD. Hocus PoCUS: introducing point-of-care ultrasound. Ultrasound 2011; 19: 2-2
• 2 Dietrich CF, Goudie A, Chiorean L. et al. Point of Care Ultrasound: A WFUMB Position Paper. Ultrasound Med Biol 2017; 43: 49-58
• 3 Ultrasound Guidelines: Emergency, Point-of-Care and Clinical Ultrasound Guidelines in Medicine. Ann Emerg Med 2017; 69: e27-e54
• 4 Baribeau Y, Sharkey A, Chaudhary O. et al. Handheld Point-of-Care Ultrasound Probes: The New Generation of POCUS. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2020; 34: 3139-3145
• 5 Thavanathan RS, Woo MY, Hall G. The future is in your hands – Handheld ultrasound in the emergency department. Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine 2020; 22: 742-744
• 6 Blaivas M, Brannam L, Theodoro D. Ultrasound image quality comparison between an inexpensive handheld emergency department (ED) ultrasound machine and a large mobile ED ultrasound system. Acad Emerg Med 2004; 11: 778-781
• 7 Frohlich E, Beller K, Muller R. et al. Point of Care Ultrasound in Geriatric Patients: Prospective Evaluation of a Portable Handheld Ultrasound Device. Ultraschall in Med 2020; 41: 308-316
• 8 Barreiros AP, Dong Y, Ignee A. et al. EchoScopy in scanning abdominal diseases; a prospective single center study. Med Ultrason 2019; 21: 8-15
• 9 Barreiros AP, Cui XW, Ignee A. et al. EchoScopy in scanning abdominal diseases: initial clinical experience. Z Gastroenterol 2014; 52: 269-275
• 10 Cormack CJ, Wald AM, Coombs PR. et al. Time to establish pillars in point-of-care ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 2019; 45: S35
• 11 Kollmann C, Jenderka KV, Moran CM. et al. EFSUMB Clinical Safety Statement for Diagnostic Ultrasound – (2019 revision). Ultraschall in Med 2020; 41: 387-389
• 12 ECMUS – The Safety Committee of EFSUMB. Recommendations and Information about regulatory aspects related to the use of hand-held ultrasound devices 2019. https://efsumb.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Recommendation-handheld-devices_2019.pdf (accessed May 1, 2021).
• 13 Nielsen MB, Cantisani V, Sidhu PS. et al. The Use of Handheld Ultrasound Devices – An EFSUMB Position Paper. Ultraschall in Med 2019; 40: e1
• 14 Weile J, Brix J, Moellekaer AB. Is point-of-care ultrasound disruptive innovation? Formulating why POCUS is different from conventional comprehensive ultrasound. Crit Ultrasound J 2018; 10: 25
• 15 AIUM Practice Parameter for the Performance of Selected Ultrasound-Guided Procedures. J Ultrasound Med 2016; 35: 1-40
• 16 Atkinson P, Bowra J, Lambert M. et al. International Federation for Emergency Medicine point of care ultrasound curriculum. CJEM 2015; 17: 161-170
• 17 Smallwood N, Dachsel M, Matsa R. et al. Focused acute medicine ultrasound (FAMUS) – point of care ultrasound for the acute medical unit. Acute Med 2016; 15: 193-196
• 18 Wong A, Galarza L, Duska F. Critical Care Ultrasound: A Systematic Review of International Training Competencies and Program. Crit Care Med 2019; 47: e256-e262
• 19 Hoppmann RA, Rao VV, Poston MB. et al. An integrated ultrasound curriculum (iUSC) for medical students: 4-year experience. Crit Ultrasound J 2011; 3: 1-12
• 20 Bahner DP, Royall NA. Advanced ultrasound training for fourth-year medical students: a novel training program at The Ohio State University College of Medicine. Acad Med 2013; 88: 206-213
• 21 Hoppmann RA, Rao VV, Bell F. et al. The evolution of an integrated ultrasound curriculum (iUSC) for medical students: 9-year experience. Crit Ultrasound J 2015; 7: 18
• 22 Shokoohi H, Boniface K, Kaviany P. et al. An Experiential Learning Model Facilitates Learning of Bedside Ultrasound by Preclinical Medical Students. J Surg Educ 2016; 73: 208-214
• 23 Ang J, Doyle B, Allen P. et al. Teaching bedside ultrasound to medical students. Clin Teach 2018; 15: 331-335
• 24 Wong CK, Hai J, Chan KYE. et al. Point-of-care ultrasound augments physical examination learning by undergraduate medical students. Postgrad Med J 2021; 97: 10-15
• 25 Jenssen C, Gilja OH, Serra AL. et al. European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB) Policy Document Development Strategy – Clinical Practice Guidelines, Position Statements and Technological Reviews. Ultrasound Int Open 2019; 5: E2-E10
• 26 Jarman RD, McDermott C, Colclough A. et al. EFSUMB Clinical Practice Guidelines for Point-of-Care Ultrasound: Part One (Common Heart and Pulmonary Applications) LONG VERSION. Ultraschall in Med 2022;
• 27 Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015; 4: 1
• 28 Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou P. et al. The 2011 Oxford CEBM evidence levels of evidence (introductory document). Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medi-Cine. 2011. https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/ocebm-levels-of-evidence
• 29 Neumann I, Santesso N, Akl EA. et al. A guide for health professionals to interpret and use recommendations in guidelines developed with the GRADE approach. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 72: 45-55