LO44: Initial validation of the core components in the SHoC-Hypotension Protocol. What rates of ultrasound findings are reported in emergency department patients with undifferentiated hypotension? Results from the first Sonography in Hypotension and Cardiac Arrest in the Emergency Department (SHOC-ED1) Study; an international randomized controlled trial

• Published in: Canadian journal of emergency medicine Vol. 19; no. S1; pp. S42 - S43
• Main Authors: Lussier, D., Pham, C., Milne, J., Lewis, D., Diegelmann, L., Lamprecht, H., Henneberry, R., Fraser, J., Stander, M., van Hoving, D.J., Fredericks, D., Howlett, M., Mekwan, J., Ramrattan, B., Middleton, J., Olszynski, P., Peach, M., Taylor, L., Dahn, T., Hurley, S.T., MacSween, K., Cox, C., Hunter, S., Bowra, J., Lambert, M., Jarman, R., Harris, T., Noble, V., Connolly, J., Atkinson, P.R.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York, USA Cambridge University Press 01.05.2017; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Cardiac arrest; Clinical trials; Emergency medical care; Oral Presentations; Ultrasonic imaging; hypotension; emergency medicine; point of care ultrasound (PoCUS)
• ISSN: 1481-8035; 1481-8043
• DOI: 10.1017/cem.2017.106

Introduction: Point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) has become an established tool in the initial management of patients with undifferentiated hypotension in the emergency department (ED). Current established protocols (e.g. RUSH and ACES) were developed by expert user opinion, rather than objective, prospective data. Recently the SHoC Protocol was published, recommending 3 core scans; cardiac, lung, and IVC; plus other scans when indicated clinically. We report the abnormal ultrasound findings from our international multicenter randomized controlled trial, to assess if the recommended 3 core SHoC protocol scans were chosen appropriately for this population. Methods: Recruitment occurred at seven centres in North America (4) and South Africa (3). Screening at triage identified patients (SBP<100 or shock index>1) who were randomized to PoCUS or control (standard care with no PoCUS) groups. All scans were performed by PoCUS-trained physicians within one hour of arrival in the ED. Demographics, clinical details and study findings were collected prospectively. A threshold incidence for positive findings of 10% was established as significant for the purposes of assessing the appropriateness of the core recommendations. Results: 138 patients had a PoCUS screen completed. All patients had cardiac, lung, IVC, aorta, abdominal, and pelvic scans. Reported abnormal findings included hyperdynamic LV function (59; 43%); small collapsing IVC (46; 33%); pericardial effusion (24; 17%); pleural fluid (19; 14%); hypodynamic LV function (15; 11%); large poorly collapsing IVC (13; 9%); peritoneal fluid (13; 9%); and aortic aneurysm (5; 4%). Conclusion: The 3 core SHoC Protocol recommendations included appropriate scans to detect all pathologies recorded at a rate of greater than 10 percent. The 3 most frequent findings were cardiac and IVC abnormalities, followed by lung. It is noted that peritoneal fluid was seen at a rate of 9%. Aortic aneurysms were rare. This data from the first RCT to compare PoCUS to standard care for undifferentiated hypotensive ED patients, supports the use of the prioritized SHoC protocol, though a larger study is required to confirm these findings.