Detection of Foreign Bodies in Soft Tissue – A PoCUS-Guided Approach

 

Medical Student Clinical Pearl

Sophia Miao, CC4

MD Candidate, Class of 2021

Dalhousie University

 

Reviewed & Edited by Dr David Lewis (@e_med_doc)

All case histories are illustrative and not based on any individual.


 

Case Report

A 33-year-old woman presents to the ED with pain and swelling over the third digit of her right hand.  One week prior to this, she had shattered a jar and a small glass splinter lodged into her finger.  This was promptly removed at home, and the puncture wound healed without intervention.

She presented to the emergency room 7 days later with new pain and swelling surrounding the initial puncture wound.  There is no significant past medical history and most recent Td booster was given 2 years ago.  On examination, there was some mild erythema, swelling, and tenderness on palpation of the lateral aspect of the middle phalanx of the right hand.  She is otherwise well.  You wonder about the possibility of a retained foreign body.


 

PoCUS-Guided Approach to the Detection of Foreign Bodies in Soft Tissue

Foreign bodies in soft tissue are a common complaint in the emergency department, with open wounds comprising 5.7 million (or 4.5% of total) visits to the ED in 2010.[1]  Foreign bodies were found in up to 15% of wounds.[2]  If retained, complications of these include allergic reaction, inflammation, delayed wound healing, damage to adjacent tissue structures, neurovascular damage, tetanus, and infectious complications including cellulitis, necrotizing fasciitis, synovitis, and abscess formation.[3],[4]  Proper detection, and subsequent removal, of retained foreign bodies is therefore essential to evaluate the wound and prevent associated complications.

Diagnosis of a retained FB requires a high index of suspicion.  Clinical suspicion should be raised when there is a compelling history and physical exam.  The latter may include signs of inflammation and/or infection, including warmth, swelling, erythema, tenderness, abscess formation, and discharging wound).[5],[6]

Conventional radiography is known to commonly miss radiolucent materials such as wood and plastic.  It has been shown that plain radiographs have only a 7.4% sensitivity in the detection of wood foreign bodies.5  Remarkably, even glass – a radiopaque material – has been demonstrated to have been missed in up to 35% of x-ray film studies.[7]  There is increasingly compelling evidence for the clinical usefulness and accuracy of bedside ultrasonography in the detection of soft-tissue foreign bodies.  It has been shown to have a specificity of 92% (95% CI = 88%-95%) and sensitivity ranging from 83.3% to 100%.[8],[9]


PoCUS Technique

Probe selection: the use of a high-frequency ultrasound probe is recommended.  This allows for greater axial resolution at the expense of less penetration, which is suitable for the detection of small foreign bodies, as they typically lodge in superficial tissues.[10]

If the wound is open, a transparent covering such as a Tegaderm or probe cover can be used to cover either the wound or probe before scanning.[11]

Medium: standard technique for assessment of soft-tissue structures by ultrasound involves the use of a standoff pad or gel mound.  However, this is not always possible due to the irregular curvature of extremities such as fingers and feet, which may result in poor contact between the probe and skin, decreased field of view, and patient discomfort.  A water-bath technique can circumvent this and has been shown to be superior in such cases.[12]

Method: the area of interest should be scanned in both longitudinal and transverse planes.  Foreign bodies are best detected when the transducer aligns with the longitudinal axis of the foreign body, and therefore revealing the span of the object.[13]  As foreign bodies tend to embed less than 2 cm below the surface of the skin, the depth of field should remain superficial in order to avoid false positives.

US Probe: Ultrasound Water Bath for Distal Extremity Evaluation

 


Findings

Ultrasonography and plain film findings of foreign bodies in soft tissue are summarized in the table below.

Table 1. Ultrasound and x-ray findings of foreign bodies.6,[14],[15],[16]

Material Ultrasound findings X-ray findings
Wood Hyperechoic; may become isoechoic with surrounding tissue as it denatures over time

Posterior acoustic shadowing

Radiolucent, often undetectable
Glass Hyperechoic, bright

Posterior acoustic shadowing

± Posterior comet tail reverberation, diffuse beam scattering

Radiopaque
Plastic Hyperechoic

Posterior acoustic shadowing

Radiolucent, often undetectable
Metal Hyperechoic, bright

Posterior acoustic shadowing

± Posterior comet tail reverberation

Radiopaque

 

Foreign bodies may also display a straight or regular contour.6

 

Image 1 – Wood splinter in volar aspect digit, mildly hyperechoic, surrounding hypoechoic halo, irregular acoustic shadowing

Image 2 – Plastic FB, within tendon sheath, volar aspect digit, brightly hyperechoic, long axis

Image 3 – Plastic FB, within tendon sheath, volar aspect digit, brightly hyperechoic, short axis

 

Image 4 – Glass FB – brightly echogenic, posterior reverberation, FB long axis

 

Image 5 – Metal FB – brightly echogenic, posterior reverberation, FB long axis

 

 

It is important to note that the acoustic shadowing may be complete or partial, as this is dependent on the angle of sonography and foreign body material.[17]  It is also possible to see a hypoechoic halo around the FB, which may be suggest edema, abscess formation, granulation tissue, or other inflammatory process.[18]  As the inflammatory reaction develops, the halo effect becomes more apparent; therefore the foreign body is therefore best visualized by PoCUS several days after the initial injury.6


PoCUS-Guided Foreign Body Removal

There are several options for removal of a foreign body with PoCUS:[19]

  1. Needle localization. Once the foreign body has been identified on PoCUS, a hollow injection needle can be inserted under ultrasound guidance and local anesthetic is delivered through this.  This can be done in either the transverse or longitudinal plane.  The ultrasound probe is then removed, and an incision is made along the needle.  Through the incision site, tweezers or forceps can be used to remove the foreign body.
  2. Real-time ultrasound-guided extraction. This technique is similar to the needle localization method. However, rather than removing the transducer following the needle insertion, the entire procedure is done under direct ultrasound visualization.  The probe is held in the longitudinal plane to visualize both the forceps and the foreign body during the extraction process.

 

There is a risk of obscuring the view of the foreign body on ultrasound with air as a result of the incision itself or through anesthetic delivery.  Saline may be used to irrigate and therefore mitigate the issue.19

The patient’s tetanus status should be verified and updated, if required.  Antibiotic therapy may also be provided, should the risk of infection justify it.


Limitations

There is the possibility of false positives.  Foreign bodies must be differentiated from other hyperechoic body structures, including ossified cartilage, sesamoid bones, scar tissue, gas bubbles, and intermuscular fascia.14  Visualization is therefore important in both longitudinal and transverse planes, as well as comparison with the opposite side.  Acoustic shadowing, hypoechoic halo, and posterior comet tails, if present, can also be indicative of a FB rather than organic body tissue.

Traumatic air injection as a result of penetrating injury can create a scatter artifact on ultrasound, which can be misinterpreted as an acoustic shadow associated with a foreign body.  To differentiate this from a true acoustic shadow, pressure may be applied through the transducer to displace the scatter artifact.6

As is commonplace with all emergency ultrasonography, limitations also include the technical skill of the operator.[20]  A foreign body may also be too small to be detectable by ultrasound.  It is therefore important to remember that a negative scan does not necessarily rule out the possibility of a retained foreign body, and the history and physical examination must be considered in conjunction with the ultrasound findings.

 


 

References

[1] National Center for Health Statistics. Emergency Department Visits. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/emergency-department.htm.

[2] Steele MT, Tran LV, Watson WA, Muelleman RL. Retained glass foreign bodies in wounds: predictive value of wound characteristics, patient perception, and wound exploration. Am J Emerg Med. 1998 Nov;16(7):627-30. DOI: 10.1016/s0735-6757(98)90161-9. PMID: 9827733.

[3] Skinner EJ, Morrison CA. Wound Foreign Body Removal. In:StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2020. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554447/.

[4] Ebrahimi A, Radmanesh M, Rabiei S, Kavoussi H. Surgical removal of neglected soft tissue foreign bodies by needle-guided technique. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2013 Winter;25(70):29-36. PMID: 24303416; PMCID: PMC3846242.

[5] Levine MR, Gorman SM, Young CF, Courtney DM. Clinical characteristics and management of wound foreign bodies in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2008 Oct;26(8):918-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2007.11.026. PMID: 18926353.

[6] Atkinson P, Bowra J, Harris T, Jarman B, Lewis D. Point of Care Ultrasound for Emergency Medicine and Resuscitation. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2019. DOI: 10.1093/med/9780198777540.001.0001.

[7] Kaiser, C. William MD; Slowick, Timothy MBA; Spurling, Kathleen Pfeifer RN, JD; Friedman, Sissie MA. Retained Foreign Bodies, The Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care: July 1997 – Volume 43 – Issue 1 – p 107-111.

[8] Davis J, Czerniski B, Au A, Adhikari S, Farrell I, Fields JM. Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasonography in Retained Soft Tissue Foreign Bodies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Acad Emerg Med. 2015 Jul;22(7):777-87. DOI: 10.1111/acem.12714. Epub 2015 Jun 25. PMID: 26111545.

[9] Atkinson P, Madan R, Kendall R, Fraser J, Lewis D. Detection of soft tissue foreign bodies by nurse practitioner-performed ultrasound. Crit Ultrasound J. 2014 Jan 29;6(1):2. DOI: 10.1186/2036-7902-6-2. PMID: 24476553; PMCID: PMC3922659.

[10] Dean AJ, Gronczewski CA, Costantino TG. Technique for emergency medicine bedside ultrasound identification of a radiolucent foreign body. The Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2003;24(3):303–8. DOI: 10.1016/S0736-4679(02)00765-5.

[11] Chen KC, Lin AC, Chong CF, Wang TL. An overview of point-of-care ultrasound for soft tissue and musculoskeletal applications in the emergency department. J Intensive Care. 2016 Aug 15;4:55. DOI: 10.1186/s40560-016-0173-0. PMID: 27529031; PMCID: PMC4983782.

[12] Krishnamurthy R, Yoo JH, Thapa M, Callahan MJ. Water-bath method for sonographic evaluation of superficial structures of the extremities in children. Pediatr Radiol. 2013 Mar;43 Suppl 1:S41-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00247-012-2592-y. Epub 2013 Mar 12. PMID: 23478918.

[13] Rooks VJ, Shiels WE 3rd, Murakami JW. Soft tissue foreign bodies: A training manual for sonographic diagnosis and guided removal. J Clin Ultrasound. 2020 Jul;48(6):330-336. DOI: 10.1002/jcu.22856. Epub 2020 May 8. PMID: 32385865.

[14] Mohammadi A, Ghasemi-Rad M, Khodabakhsh M. Non-opaque soft tissue foreign body: sonographic findings. BMC Med Imaging. 2011 Apr 10;11:9. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2342-11-9. PMID: 21477360; PMCID: PMC3079678.

[15] Lewis D, Jivraj A, Atkinson P, Jarman R. My patient is injured: identifying foreign bodies with ultrasound. Ultrasound. 2015 Aug;23(3):174-80. DOI: 10.1177/1742271X15579950. Epub 2015 Mar 26. PMID: 27433254; PMCID: PMC4760591.

[16] Campbell EA, Wilbert CD. Foreign Body Imaging. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2020. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470294/.

[17] Anderson MA, Newmeyer WL 3rd, Kilgore ES Jr. Diagnosis and treatment of retained foreign bodies in the hand. Am J Surg. 1982 Jul;144(1):63-7. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9610(82)90603-1. PMID: 7091533.

[18] Little CM, Parker MG, Callowich MC, Sartori JC. The ultrasonic detection of soft tissue foreign bodies. Invest Radiol. 1986 Mar;21(3):275-7. DOI: 10.1097/00004424-198603000-00014. PMID: 3514541.

[19] Paziana K, Fields JM, Rotte M, Au A, Ku B. Soft tissue foreign body removal technique using portable ultrasonography. Wilderness Environ Med. 2012 Dec;23(4):343-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.wem.2012.04.006. Epub 2012 Jul 25. PMID: 22835803.

[20] Pinto A, Pinto F, Faggian A, Rubini G, Caranci F, Macarini L, Genovese EA, Brunese L. Sources of error in emergency ultrasonography. Crit Ultrasound J. 2013 Jul 15;5 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S1. DOI: 10.1186/2036-7902-5-S1-S1. Epub 2013 Jul 15. PMID: 23902656; PMCID: PMC3711733.

Continue Reading

A Case of Ectopic Pregnancy

 

Medical Student Clinical Pearl – December 2020

Marisa O’Brien

@mbob58

MD Candidate, Class of 2021

Memorial University of Newfoundland

Reviewed and Edited by Dr. David Lewis

All case histories are illustrative and not based on any individual

 


Case Report

A 36-year-old G2P1 female presented to the Emergency Department following a pre-syncopal episode at work. The patient noted a sudden onset of significant abdominal cramping, nausea, and vaginal bleeding with clots that morning followed by an episode of lightheadedness while sitting at her desk. The patient denied any loss of consciousness, no dyspnea, no chest pain, no palpitations, and no fevers/chills. She had no known allergies and no current medications. She was a non-smoker and denied any alcohol or drug usage.

The patient’s past medical history was significant for recent treatment with methotrexate for an ectopic pregnancy eight days prior. The patient had a history of amenorrhea for 7 weeks and a serum β-hCG of 302 mlU/mL at that time. A transvaginal ultrasound was performed at 8 weeks for abdominal pain and light spotting which revealed an IUD in situ with no evidence of an intrauterine pregnancy. An early ectopic pregnancy was diagnosed and the patient was consented to receive medical management with methotrexate. She was followed up with serial β-hCG’s which gradually, but slowly, trended down to 110 mIU/ml by day 6. The patient noted slight abdominal cramping and PV bleeding following the methotrexate however this had settled after 3 days with no ongoing symptoms until today.

On initial assessment, the patient appeared well, no acute distress, and all vital signs were stable.  The abdominal exam revealed bowel sounds present in all four quadrants and the abdomen was tympanic to percussion. On palpation the abdomen was soft and nondistended with LLQ and suprapubic tenderness however, no guarding or rebound tenderness was appreciated.

Initial investigations included a CBC, β-hCG, PT & PTT, type and screen, urinalysis, EKG, & POCUS.

 


Definition

An ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg implants at a site other then the endometrium of the uterus, most commonly the fallopian tubes. They often present as vaginal bleeding and/or abdominal pain in the setting of a positive β-hCG.1

A critical complication is a ruptured ectopic pregnancy which occurs by erosion through the tissue the zygote has implanted in resulting in intraabdominal bleeding from the exposed vessel and possible hypovolemic shock.2 Rupture should be suspected in patients presenting with hemodynamic instability including syncope, hypotension, and tachycardia. However, young healthy females may appear vitally stable initially due to compensatory mechanisms. Additional physical exam findings suggestive of a ruptured ectopic pregnancy include severe abdominal pain with guarding or rebound tenderness and abdominal distention. Pain may radiate to the shoulder due to irritation of the diaphragm from blood in the peritoneal cavity.1,3

 


Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy4

  • Previous ectopic pregnancy
  • Prior fallopian tube surgery
  • Previous pelvic or abdominal surgery
  • Sexually transmitted infections
  • Pelvic inflammatory disease
  • Endometriosis
  • Cigarette smoking
  • Maternal age > 35 years
  • History of infertility
  • Assisted reproductive technology (IVF)

 

 


Differential diagnosis for vaginal bleeding in early pregnancy1:

  • Physiologic
  • Spontaneous abortion
  • Cervical, vaginal, or uterine pathology
  • Subchorionic hematoma
  • Heterotopic pregnancy
  • Gestational trophoblastic disease

 


Sonography

According to the discriminatory zones, an intrauterine pregnancy is expected to be visualized on a transvaginal ultrasound at β-hCG levels of 1500 – 2000 mlU/mL and on a transabdominal ultrasound at levels of 4000 – 6500 mlU/mL.5

Gestational Age Β-hCG range (mlU/mL)
<1 week 5 – 50
1-2 weeks 50 – 500
2-3 weeks 100 – 5000
3-4 weeks 500 – 10,000
4-5 weeks 1000 – 50,000
5-6 weeks 10,000 – 100,000
6-8 weeks 15,000 – 200,000
8-12 weeks 10,000 – 100,000

Table 1: Estimated β-hCG levels in relation to gestational age.3

In the first trimester of a normal pregnancy, the serum β-hCG should increase by ≥ 53% every 48 hrs until 41 days of gestation.1,3 Serum β-hCG will then continue to rise more slowly until approximately 10 weeks after which it will begin to decline until reaching a plateau. Serum β-hCG levels are noted to raise more slowly in an ectopic pregnancy, thus a slower rate of increase, plateau, or decline in serum β-hCG in the first 41 days suggests a possible miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy.1

Note on β-hCG Discriminatory Zones

The value of discriminatory zones in the emergency management of ectopic pregnancy is low, with many considering it unreliable and potentially dangerous. In short, a low β-hCG does not exclude an ectopic. This useful post provides a good summary on ectopic rule-out in the ED:

Rule Out Ectopic in the Emergency Department

 

An intrauterine pregnancy is confirmed by visualization of a gestational sac and a yolk sac within the uterus (juxtaposed to bladder).1 A gestational sac alone is not sufficient for diagnoses of an intrauterine pregnancy as it may be a pseudogestational sac formed by hormonal stimulation from an ectopic pregnancy.5 Additionally, if an intrauterine pregnancy is visualized, a heterotopic pregnancy should also be considered.1 The risk of heterotopic pregnancy when conceived normally is estimated to be 1 in 30,000.

Figure 1: Visualization of an intrauterine pregnancy on a transvaginal ultrasound.3

 

 

Structure Transvaginal Ultrasound Transabdominal Ultrasound
Gestational Sac 4.5-5 weeks 5.5-6 weeks
Yolk Sac 5-5.5 weeks 6-6.5 weeks
Fetal Pole 5.5-6 weeks 7 weeks
Cardiac Activity 6 weeks 7 weeks
Fetal Parts 8 weeks >8 weeks

Table 2: Ultrasound findings based on gestational age.5

 


Diagnosis of Ectopic Pregnancy

An ectopic pregnancy is suspected in all women with a positive pregnancy test when no intrauterine pregnancy is visualized on ultrasonography. A low β-hCG or declining β-hCG does not exclude an ectopic. Ultrasound findings of an ectopic pregnancy may include an extrauterine gestational sac or embryonic cardiac activity outside of the uterus, a complex adnexal mass, or intraperitoneal fluid.3

From emupdates.com

 


Management of Ectopic Pregnancy

Is the patient unstable?

  • If the patient is hemodynamically unstable (tachycardia or hypotension or pale or syncopal) then commence immediate resuscitation (IV Access, CBC, type & crossmatch,  iv fluids, transfusion, etc) and stat consult to ObGyn.

In stable patients

  • Consult ObGyn
  • The gold-standard of treatment for ectopic pregnancy is surgical management however, treatment options include expectant, or medical management.6 Medical management with methotrexate, a folic acid antagonist that inhibits DNA synthesis and cell production, has a higher success rate when initiated at lower β-hCG levels. Methotraxate is initiated if β-hCG is <5000 mlU/mL and is reserved for those with reliable follow up as β-hCG levels are required to be trended until they are undetectable. Individuals with renal disease, hepatic disease, active pulmonary disease, or immunodeficiencies are not candidates for methotrexate.3,7 Individuals who do not meet the criteria for medical management, are hemodynamically unstable, have failed methotrexate, or a ruptured ectopic is suspected, will receive surgical management.6

 


Case Report Continued

The patient was hemodynamically stable on presentation. Her vital signs were normal. As part of the initial assessment, PoCUS was used to further evaluate for the presence of free fluid in the abdomen or pelvis. Free fluid was identified in the RUQ in both Morrison’s pouch and surrounding the caudal tip of the liver. Intraperitoneal fluid was also seen in the LUQ in both the subphrenic and splenorenal spaces. Free fluid was also visualized in Douglas’ pouch in the pelvic view.

RUQ

LUQ

Pelvis

 

Throughout the PoCUS examination the patient remained well appearing, however she had become hypotensive with a blood pressure of 90/53 mmHg. Her initial bloodwork had come back at this time revealing a β-hCG of 32 mlU/mL and a Hgb of 67 g/L. The patient received 1g of TXA, and a 1L bolus of normal saline while PRBC’s were ordered. She was documented to be Rh+ thus, she did not require RhoGAM (anti-D immune globulin). An urgent consultation to Obstetrics and Gynecology was made following the visualization of intraabdominal fluid and the patient underwent an exploratory laparotomy shortly after.

 


Key Points

  • Ectopic pregnancy should be considered in the differential diagnosis of any female patient, of childbearing age, presenting with abdominal pain, syncope or shock
  • An Intrauterine contraceptive device does not exclude an ectopic
  • Unless a previous ultrasound has documented the presence of an intrauterine pregnancy, an empty uterus in a patient with a positive pregnancy test should be considered to be a possible ectopic until ruled out
  • An intrauterine pregnancy on ultrasound requires the following to be confirmed:
    • A gestational sac and a yolk sac, in the uterus which is juxtaposed to the bladder
    • or a gestational sac containing a normal fetal pole, in the uterus which is juxtaposed to the bladder
  • A low β-hCG or declining β-hCG does not exclude an ectopic
  • Medical management of ectopic pregnancy with methotrexate requires close follow-up. Failure can occur. Ruptured ectopic pregnancy can still occur.

 


Further Reading

Ectopic Pregnancy and Ruptured Ectopic: Pitfalls in Diagnosis

ED Rounds – Early Pregnancy

The Pregnant ED Patient – A Compendium of Pearls

 

 


References

  1. Tulandi, T. (2020, November 2). Ectopic pregnancy: Clinical manifestations and diagnosis. Retrieved from: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/ectopic-pregnancy-clinical-manifestations-and-diagnosis?search=ectopic%20pregnancy&source=search_result&selectedTitle=1~150&usage_type=default&display_rank=1#H1
  2. Toy, E.C., Simon, B.C., Takenaka, K.Y., Liu, T.H., & Rosh, A.J. (2017). Ectopic Pregnancy. Case Files Emergency Medicine. (4th, pp. 369-376). McGraw-Hill Education.
  3. Hang, B.S. (2016). Obstetrics and Gynecology. Tintinalli’s Emergency Medicine: A Comprehensive Guide. (8th, pp. 629-633). McGraw-Hill Education.
  4. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2018, February). Retrieved from: https://www.acog.org/womens-health/faqs/ectopic-pregnancy
  5. Leonard, N.J. (2019, January 23). The Pregnant Pelvic POCUS. EMRounds. Retrieved from: https://emrounds.org/the-pregnant-pelvic-pocus/
  6. Tulandi, T. (2020, March 31). Ectopic pregnancy: Choosing a treatment. Retrieved from: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/ectopic-pregnancy-choosing-a-treatment?search=ectopic%20pregnancy&topicRef=5407&source=see_link#H2976630177
Continue Reading

Small Bowel Obstruction & PoCUS

Small Bowel Obstruction & PoCUS – Medical Student Pearl

Patrick Rogers, Clinical Clerk (CC3)

Memorial University of Medicine Class of 2021

Reviewed by Dr. Kavish Chandra

Small bowel obstructions (SBO) are a common cause of acute abdominal pain in emergency departments across Canada. Diagnostic imaging plays a key role in the diagnosis and management of SBO as the history, clinical examination and laboratory investigations lack the sensitivity and specificity needed. Furthermore, diagnostic imaging may help differentiate SBO from other causes of abdominal pain (hernias, malignancies, intussusception, etc).

Historically, plain film abdominal radiography (AXR) has been an initial investigation in emergency departments when an SBO is suspected.  However, the current literature suggests that abdominal radiography is a relatively poor test for the diagnosis or exclusion of SBO when compared to other available modalities like US, CT, or MRI. In fact, multiple studies argue for the reduction of abdominal x-rays, especially when patients come in presenting with general abdominal tenderness. 1 Fortunately, there exists a compelling alternative: point of care ultrasound (PoCUS), and is being increasingly used as a first line investigation for SBO. 2

There are several reasons why physicians may start to choose PoCUS over traditional diagnostic modalities:

  • PoCUS avoids the radiation exposure that patients receive from cumulative plain films and abdominal CT’s. 3
  • PoCUS has been shown to reduce time to diagnosis and treatment in comparison to abdominal plain films. 3
  • PoCUS is more sensitive/specific modality when compared to abdominal plain film. 4
  • PoCUS allows for serial examination in the ED. 5
  • PoCUS may be rapidly available to centers with limited access to CT scanner. 6

The current evidence is highly favorable for the diagnostic efficacy of PoCUS in SBO. Here are the findings of peer-reviewed studies on the subject (published between 2013-2020):

  • PoCUS has high diagnostic accuracy and may also decrease time to diagnosis of SBO in comparison to other imaging modalities like CT and plain film.2
  • PoCUS has been found to have superior diagnostic accuracy for SBO in comparison to plain abdominal radiography. 4
  • PoCUS has been shown to be an accurate tool in the diagnosis of SBO with a consistently high sensitivity of 94-100% and specificity of 81-100%. 5
  • Current evidence suggests PoCUS is comparable in sensitivity and specificity to a CT scan when diagnosing SBO. 6
  • Ultrasound was found to be equivalent to CT in terms of diagnostic accuracy with a sensitivity of 92.31% (95% CI, 74.87% to 99.05%) and a specificity of 94.12% (95% CI, 71.31% to 99.85%) in the diagnosis of SBO. 7
  • In a study comparing XR, US, CT, and MRI, the abdominal x-ray was shown to be to be the least accurate imaging modality for the diagnosis of SBO. AXR’s were found to have a positive likelihood ratio of 1.64 (95% CI 1.07 to 2.52). In contrast, CT and MRI were both quite accurate in diagnosing SBO with positive likelihood ratios of 3.6 (95% CI = 2.3 to 5.4) and 6.77 (95% CI = 2.13 to 21.55). The use of ultrasound was found to have a positive likelihood ratio of 9.55 (95% CI = 2.16 to 42.21) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.04 (95% CI = 0.01 to 0.13) for beside scans. 4

There are two major barriers identified in the literature that may prevent the effective use of PoCUS in the diagnosis of SBO. First, not every emergency physician has been trained on the use of PoCUS. Fortunately, two recent studies show that even minimally trained ED physicians can use it accurately. 8 Secondly, some surgeons have argued that PoCUS does not show the location of the obstruction accurately. This becomes a concern when the care team elects for surgical management of the patient’s SBO. However, recent evidence suggests that PoCUS may lead to quicker time to diagnosis and enteric tube insertion in conservative management. 8

Finally, how can learners use this technology? 5 Here are some specific sonographic findings to look for when evaluating a patient for SBO with US:

 

  • Dilatation of small bowel loops > 25 mm *
  • Altered intestinal peristalsis *
  • Increased thickness of the bowel wall
  • Intraperitoneal fluid accumulation

Figure 1. Dilatation of small bowel loops. Image courtesy Dr. Kavish Chandra

Figure 2. Altered intestinal peristalsis*. Image courtesy Dr. Kavish Chandra

Figure 3. – abnormal peristalsis “to and fro”9

References

  1. Denham G, Smith T, Daphne J, Sharmaine M, Evans T. 2020. Exploring the evidence-practice gap in the use of plain radiography for acute abdominal pain and intestinal obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Evidence Based Healthcare. DOI: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000218
  2. Guttman J, Stone M, Kimberly H, Rempell J. 2015. Point of care ultrasonography for the diagnosis of small bowel obstruction in the emergency department. CJEM. DOI: 10.2310/8000.2014.141382
  3. Flemming H, Lewis D. 2016. SBO- A New Focus for PoCUS. Saint John Regional Hospital Department of Emergency Medicine
  4. Taylor M, Lalani N. 2013. Adult small bowel obstruction. Academic Emergency Medicine. DOI: 10.1111/acem.12150
  5. Pourman A, Dimbil U, Shokoohi H. 2018. The accuracy of point of care ultrasound in detecting small bowel obstruction in emergency department. Emergency Medicine International. DOI: 10.1155/2018/3684081
  6. Gottlieb M, Peska, G, Pandurangadu A, Nakitende D, Takhar S, Seethala R. 2018. Utilization of ultrasound for the evaluation of small bowel obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2017.07.085
  7. Tamburrini S, etal. 2019. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in the diagnosis of small bowel obstruction. Diagnostics. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics9030088
  8. Carpenter C. 2013. The end of X-Rays for suspected small bowel obstruction? Using evidence-based diagnostics to inform best practices in emergency medicine. Academic Emergency Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.12143
  9. The PoCUS Atlas. https://www.thepocusatlas.com/bowel-gi

Copyedited by Dr. Mandy Peach

Continue Reading

Lung PoCUS – Podcast

Lung PoCUS in Pediatric Emergency Medicine – Podcast

PoCUS Fellowship Clinical Pearl (RCP) May 2020

Dr. Mandy Peach (Emergency Physician and Dalhousie PoCUS Fellow, Saint John, NB, Canada)

Reviewed by Dr. David Lewis

 


Extract:

“My name is Mandy Peach and I am Emergency Physician at the Saint John Regional Hospital in Saint John, New Brunswick. I’m currently completing a PoCUS Fellowship and a pediatric rotation through the IWK Emergency Department in Halifax…….

What is the evidence for the use of PoCUS and diagnosing pediatric pneumonia. Well trained PoCUS Physicians can identify pneumonia with a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 94%, compared community-acquired pneumonia chest x-ray has a sensitivity of 69% and a specificity of 100%, if you see it great…. but what about early bacterial pneumonia and this case PoCUS has the upper hand, and if you consider consolidations behind the heart that can be visualized on PoCUS and obscured on chest x-ray – PoCUS 2  chest x-ray zero. So clearly it’s a useful tool to have when trying to differentiate between bacterial pneumonia that requires treatment and viral causes that would indicate conservative management. So how do we actually ultrasound the lungs…..the first step is to make the kid comfortable scan them in a position of comfort for example and their parents arms what the patient touch the ultrasound gel or the probe so it’s less of a scary thing maybe play their favourite music or YouTube video on the background or give them their favourite or snack do you want to choose a high frequency linear probe and scanning the longitudinal plane ……….”

 

Listen to the Podcast for some useful tips on performing and interpreting lung ultrasound in the pediatric population.

Continue Reading

PoCUS in COVID

Point of Care Ultrasound (PoCUS) during the Covid-19 pandemic – Is this point of care tool more efficacious than standard imaging?

Resident Clinical Pearl (RCP) May 2020

Dr. Colin Rouse– (PGY-3  CCFP Emergency Medicine) | Dalhousie University

and Dr. Sultan Alrobaian (Dalhousie PoCUS Fellow, Saint John, NB, Canada)

Reviewed by Dr. David Lewis

 


Case

A 70 year of woman present to the ED with a history of fever, cough and dyspnoea. After a full clinical assessment (with appropriate PPE), Lung PoCUS is performed.


Introduction

The Covid-19 Pandemic has created the largest international public health crisis in decades. It has fundamentally changed both societal norms and health care delivery worldwide. Changes have been implemented into resuscitation protocols including ACLS to prioritise appropriate donning of personal protective equipment (PPE) and consideration of resuscitation appropriateness prior to patient contact.1 Equipment has been removed from rooms to limit cross-contamination between patients. In this Pearl we will explore why PoCUS should not be discarded as an unnecessary tool and should be strongly considered in the assessment of a potential Covid Patient.

Disclaimer: Given the novel nature of CoVid-19 there is a lack of RCT data to support the use of PoCUS. These recommendations are based solely on expert opinion and case reports until superior evidence becomes available.


Potential Benefits of PoCUS

  • Lung PoCUS has increased sensitivity compared to conventional lung X-ray for known lung pathologies such as CHF4 and Pneumonia5 with similar specificities. Given that Pneumonia is the most common complication of Covid-19 it may help diagnose this complication in patients who have a normal CXR.
  • PoCUS can be performed by the assessing physician limiting the unnecessary exposure to other health care providers such and Radiologic Technologists and other staff in the diagnostic imaging department.
  • Lung PoCUS is low cost, repeatable and available in rural settings
  • Once pneumonia is diagnosed other potential complications can be sought including VTE and cardiovascular complications.

The assessment of the potential Covid-19 patient.

First one must consider the potential risk for coronavirus transmission at each patient encounter and ensure proper PPE2 for both oneself and the PoCUS device3.


Lung Ultrasound in the potential Covid-19 Patient

Technique

  • Appropriate level PPE
  • A low-frequency (3–5 MHz) curvilinear transducer
  • Set Focus to Pleural Line and turn off machine filters (e.g THI) to maximize artifacts
  • Scanning should be completed in a 12-zone assessment6
    • 2 anterior windows
    • 2 lateral windows
    • 2 posterior windows

Findings7

Mild Disease

  • Focal Patchy B-lines in early disease/mild infection (May have normal CXR at this point)
  • Areas of normal lung

 

Moderate/Severe Disease – Findings of bilateral Pneumonitis

  • B-lines begin to coalesce (waterfall sign)
  • Thickened and irregular pleura
  • Subpleural Hypoechoic consolidation      +/- air bronchograms

 

Other Covid-19 Pearls

  • Large/Moderate Pleural Effusion rarely seen in Covid-19 (consider another diagnosis) – Small peripleural effusions are common in COVID
  • The virus has a propensity for the base of the posterior lung windows and it imperative to include these views in your assessment.


Example COVID PoCUS Videos8

Confluent B Lines and small sub pleural consolidation

 

Patchy B lines and Irregular pleura

 

Irregular pleura

 

Air Bronchogram


CT & ultrasonographic features of COVID-19 pneumonia9

It has been noted that lung abnormalities may develop before clinical manifestations and nucleic acid detection with some experts recommending early Chest CT for screening suspected patients.10 Obviously there are challenges with this recommendation mainly regarding feasibility and infection control. A group of researchers in China compared Ultrasound and CT findings in 20 patients with COVID-19. Their findings are summarized in the table below:

Their conclusion was that ultrasound has a major utility for management of COVID-19 due to its safety, repeatability, absence of radiation, low cost and point of care use. CT can be reserved for patients with a clinical question not answered by PoCUS. CT is required to assess for pneumonia that does not extend to the pleura. Scatter artifact from aerated lung obscures visualization of deep lung pathology with PoCUS. When PoCUS is sufficient it can be used to assess disease severity at presentation, track disease evolution, monitor lung recruitment maneuvers and prone positioning and guide decisions related to weaning of mechanical ventilation.


Learning Points

  • Lung PoCUS is helpful in the initial assessment of the suspected or known COVID19 Patient
  • Lung PoCUS may reveal pathology not visible on CXR
  • Lung PoCUS can provide insight into COVID19 disease severity
  • Lung PoCUS is a useful tool to track disease progression in COVID19

Lung PoCUS in COVID Deep Dive

Deep Dive Lung PoCUS – COVID 19 Pandemic

 

 


References

  1. Edelson, D. P., Sasson, C., Chan, P. S., Atkins, D. L., Aziz, K., Becker, L. B., … & Escobedo, M. (2020). Interim Guidance for Basic and Advanced Life Support in Adults, Children, and Neonates With Suspected or Confirmed COVID-19: From the Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and Get With the Guidelines®-Resuscitation Adult and Pediatric Task Forces of the American Heart Association in Collaboration with the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association for Respiratory Care, American College of Emergency Physicians, The Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists, and American Society of …. Circulation.
  2. COVID-19 – Infection Protection and Control. http://sjrhem.ca/covid-19-infection-protection-and-control/
  3. Johri, A. M., Galen, B., Kirkpatrick, J. N., Lanspa, M., Mulvagh, S., & Thamman, R. (2020). ASE Statement on Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) During the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Pandemic. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography.
  4. Maw, A. M., Hassanin, A., Ho, P. M., McInnes, M., Moss, A., Juarez-Colunga, E., Soni, N. J., Miglioranza, M. H., Platz, E., DeSanto, K., Sertich, A. P., Salame, G., & Daugherty, S. L. (2019). Diagnostic Accuracy of Point-of-Care Lung Ultrasonography and Chest Radiography in Adults With Symptoms Suggestive of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA network open, 2(3), e190703. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.0703
  5. Balk, D. S., Lee, C., Schafer, J., Welwarth, J., Hardin, J., Novack, V., … & Hoffmann, B. (2018). Lung ultrasound compared to chest X‐ray for diagnosis of pediatric pneumonia: A meta‐analysis. Pediatric pulmonology, 53(8), 1130-1139.
  6. Wurster, C., Turner, J., Kim, D., Woo, M., Robichaud, L. CAEP. COVID-19 Town Hall April 15: Hot Topics in POCUS and COVID-19. https://caep.ca/covid-19-town-hall-april-15-hot-topics-in-pocus-and-covid-19/
  7. Riscinti, M. Macias, M., Scheel, T., Khalil, P., Toney, A., Thiessen, M., Kendell, J. Denver Health Ultrasound Card. http://www.thepocusatlas.com/covid19
  8. Images obtained from. Ultrasound in COVID-19. The PoCUS Atlas. http://www.thepocusatlas.com/covid19
  9. Peng, Q., Wang, X. & Zhang, L. Findings of lung ultrasonography of novel corona virus pneumonia during the 2019–2020 epidemic. Intensive Care Med (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-020-05996-6
  10. National Health Commission of the people’s Republic of China. Diagnosis and treatment of novel coronavirus pneumonia (trial, the fifth version)[EB/OL]. (2020-02-05)[2020-02-06]. http://www.nhc.gov.cn/yzygj/s7653p/202002/3b09b894ac9b4204a79db5b8912d4440.shtml
Continue Reading

Deep Dive Lung PoCUS – COVID 19 Pandemic

SJRHEM Weekly COVID-19 Rounds – May 2020

Dr. David Lewis


 

 

Part One covers aspects of core and advanced aspects of lung ultrasound application including: Zones, Technique, and Artifacts

Part Two covers PoCUS in COVID, the recent research, PoCUS findings, Infection Protection and Control, Indications and Pathways.


Part 1

 


Part 2

 

Continue Reading

Whose Line is it Anyway? – PoCUS in a Patient with Dyspnea

Medical Student Clinical Pearl – March 2020

Nguyet (Na) Nguyen

MD Class of 2021
Memorial University of Newfoundland

Reviewed and Edited by Dr. David Lewis

All case histories are illustrative and not based on any individual


 

Case Report

ID: 60 y/o M with dyspnea presenting to the ED late evening

HPI: Patient complained of increasing SOB starting the morning on day of presentation, with a worsening 3 days of non-productive cough. No chest pain or other cardiac features. No complaint suggestive of URTI or GI illness. Patient was given Atrovent and Ventolin en route by EMS, and was allegedly moving more air into his lungs after this intervention. Patient reports no ankle swelling, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, but reports using 2 pillows to elevate himself when sleeping. Patient reports no fever, unexplained weight loss or fatigue.

Past medical history includes chronic back pain, DM, atrial fibrillation, peripheral DM-related ulcers, chronic kidney disease, BPH, colon cancer with hepatic metastases. Past surgical history significant for 5x CABG, liver and colon resection.

His medications are amitriptyline 10mg PO qhs, acetaminophen 650mg PO BID, dutasteride 0.5mg PO daily, ferrous sulfate 300mg PO daily, furosemide 40mg PO BID, metformin 500mg BID, pantoprazole 40mg PO BID, pregabalin 150mg PO BID, primidone 125mg PO daily, rosuvastatin 40mg PO qhs, rivaroxaban 15mg PO daily.

He has a distant 10 pack-years smoking history, drinks alcohol occasionally, and does not use recreational drugs. The patient lives with his wife in their own home.

Physical exam: Patient was markedly pale, non-diaphoretic, in tripod position with increased work of breathing. His temperature was 36.9, regular pulse rate at 105, respiratory rate 22, oxygen saturation 90% on room air and a nebulizer mask through which he was receiving aerosolized Atrovent and Ventolin. His BP was 125/78mmHg.

Cardiovascular exam revealed distant S1S2 in a chest with no visible deformity. His JVD was at the level of the sternal angle, there was no pedal edema bilateral. Capillary refill was 3 seconds bilateral at the thumbs. Percussion revealed no focal dullness, however on auscultation, basal crackles were heard more prominently in the right lung base, though also present on the left. There were also wheezes noted in the upper lobes heard in the anterior chest. Abdomen was soft, non-distended, non-tender. Neurological exam unremarkable.

Investigations: ECG showed sinus tachycardia with a LBBB, bloods drawn for routine labs, VBG, lactate, CXR ordered.

Differential diagnosis: AECOPD vs congestive heart failure.

PoCUS (Arrival Time + 10 mins): B-lines were observed in both lungs when a curvilinear probe was placed over different areas of the anterior chest. A small pleural effusion was also noted at the bottom of the right lung. B-lines represent increased fluid in an area of the lung, and given different clinical contexts maye represent pulmonary edema, pneumonia, or pulmonary contusion. In this case the most likely explanation for bilateral diffuse B-Lines is CHF and Pulmonary Edema. 

Working Diagnosis (Arrival Time + 10 mins): CHF and Pulmonary Edema

Management (Arrival Time + 15 mins): Pending transfer fo CXR and results of investigations the patient was treated with intravenous diuretics. He passed 500mls of urine and his symptoms improved considerably.

 

Investigations Results (Arrival Time + 45 mins): leukocytes 6.4, hemoglobin 83, platelet 165, sodium 140, potassium 5/0, chloride 101, creatinine 120, urea 11.7, glucose 17.0. Venous blood gas showed pH 7.31, pCO2 555, HCO3- 28 and lactate 2.7.

CXR (Arrival Time + 45 mins):

CXR was similar to above, this image is from: https://radiopaedia.org/cases/acute-pulmonary-oedema-6

 

Final impression: Congestive heart failure


What are B Lines?

These are the ultrasound equivalent of Kerley-B lines often reported on chest X-ray, which indicate edema in the lungs. For an exam to be positive (i.e indicative of pathology), one needs to see a minimum of 3 B-lines per view. B-lines look like flashlight beams traveling undisrupted down the entire ultrasound screen, as seen in the images above obtained during the exam.

These need to be distinguished from other artifacts such as ‘A-lines’ and ‘comet tails’. A-lines are seen in normal lungs. These are ‘repetitive reverberation’ artifacts of the normal pleura in motion. (Figure 1)(1)

‘Comet tails’- reported first by Lichenstein et al. in 1998 (although he was describing B-Lines in this paper) (Figure 2) (1), are ‘short, hypoechoic artifacts’ that only descend vertically partially down the screen. These are normal lung artifacts. This paper explains “a common misunderstanding in lung ultrasound” nomenclature that stems from Lichtenstein’s original paper.

Download pdf

 

From: https://www.mdedge.com/emergencymedicine/article/96697/imaging/emergency- ultrasound-lung-assessment

 


More on Comet Tails Artifact in this post from LitFL:

Comet tail artefact

 


 

Protocols

There are multiple protocols that guide the ultrasound technique (4) , some of which are:

  • Lichenstein et al (1998): longitudinal scans of anterior and lateral chest walls of patients in semi- recumbent position. Positive test defined as bilateral multiple B-lines diffuse anterolateral or lateral. The protocol had reported sensitivity (true positive) of 100%, and specificity (true negative) 92% for cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Blue Protocol (2015)
  • Liteplo et al (2008): anterior and lateral chest walls with patient supine: each chest divided into 4 zones (anterior, lateral, upper and lower). Positive test: pathologic pattern found in >1 zone on each side, with both sides involved.
  • Volpicelli et al. (2008): longitudinal scans of supine patients with chest divided into 11 areas (3 anterior R, 3 lateral R, 2 anterior L, 3 lateral L) to obtain score 0-11. Scores strongly correlated with radiologic and BNP (lab marker of CHF) at presentation.

 

 


 

What is the Evidence?

Al Deeb et al. conducted a systematic review and analysis of prospective cohort and prospective case-control studies in the ED, IDU, inpatient wards and prehospital settings (n = 1075). This was published in Acad Emerg Med (2014), which reported a sensitivity of 94.1% for using B-lines to diagnosis acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE), and a specificity of 92.4% for patients with a moderate- high pretest probability for ACPE.

The SIMEU Multicenter study reported in 2015 reported a significantly higher accuracy (97% sensitivity and 97.4% specificity) with an approach incorporating lung ultrasound (LUS) in differentiating acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and non-cardiac causes of acute dyspnea, compared to approaches using the initial clinical workup (past medical history, history of presenting illness, physical examination, ECG, ABG), chest X-ray alone and natriuretic peptides.

Martindale et al. reported in 2016 (Academic Emergency Medicine) high positive likelihood ratio of pulmonary edema observed on lung ultrasound and low negative likelihood ratio of B-line pattern on lung US in affirming the presence of acute heart failure, after a systematic review and analysis of 57 prospective and cross-sectional studies (n = 1,918).

A useful Systematic Review “Emergency department ultrasound for the detection of B-lines in the early diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis ” from McGivery et al from SJRHEM (7), was published in 2018.


 

Learning Point

For a patient presenting to the ER with dyspnea, using PoCUS to observe 3 or more B-lines in two bilateral lung zones +/- pleural effusion can rapidly guide an accurate diagnosis of acute congestive heart failure.


 

References

  1. Taylor, T., Meer, J., Beck, S. Emerg Med. (2015) https://www.mdedge.com/emergencymedicine/article/96697/imaging/emergency- ultrasound-lung-assessment Last accessed Feb 29, 2020
  2. Lee, FCY, Jenssen, C., Dietrich, CF Med Ultrason (2018); 20(3): 379-384
  3. Ang SH. & Andrus P Curr Cardiol Rev. 2012 May; 8(2): 123-136https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3406272/
  4. Al. Deeb M., Barbic S., Featherstone R., Dankoff J., Barbic D. Acad Emerg Med 2014 Aug; 21(8): 843-52 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25176151
  5. Pivetta E et al. Chest. 2015 Jul; 148(1): 202-210 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25654562/
  6. Martindale JL, Wakai A, Collins SP, Levy PD, Diercks D, Hiestand BC, Fermann GJ, deSouza I, Sinert R, Acad Emerg Med. 2016 Mar; 23(3): 223-242 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26910112
  7. McGivery K, Atkinson P, Lewis D, et al. Emergency department ultrasound for the detection of B-lines in the early diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CJEM. 2018;20(3):343‐352. doi:10.1017/cem.2018.27

 

Continue Reading

Introduction to Transesophageal Echo – Basic Technique

Thanks to Dr. Jennifer Cloutier, Cardiac Anesthesiologist, for delivering a great session.


This beginner guide is designed for those familiar with transthoracic echo and just starting to use TEE. ED indications and TEE utility in the emergency setting are briefly discussed at the end of this post.


Requirements

  • Sterile transducer – This requires a sterilization facility, protocol and collaboration with other departments
  • Patient preparation – In ED usually intubated, unconscious or sedated.
  • Optional – spray the transducer with topical local anesthetic

Contraindications

  • Suspected esophageal perforation, stricture or trauma
  • Varices

Insertion

  • Hold transducer control module with left hand and support against your abdomen (see pic 1)
  • Extend transducer to full length, holding end with right hand
  • Check the control wheels are functioning correctly before inserting the transducer
  • Ensure transducer head is facing upwards (use anterior length markings to maintain orientation)
  • Insert transducer on left side of tongue
  • Use bite guard – e.g cut corrugated airway tubing
  • Advance to mid esophagus
  • Look for left atrium – this is the first window

 

Orientation

The transducer can be manipulated into several orientations:

  • Rotate control module clockwise to orientate to patient right
  • Rotate control module anticlockwise to orientate to patient left
  • Rotate “Big Wheel” clockwise to antiflex and orientate anteriorly
  • Rotate “Big Wheel” anticlockwise to retroflex and orientate posteriorly
  • Rotate “Small Wheel” clockwise to flex right
  • Rotate “Small Wheel” anticlockwise to flex left
  • Advance transducer deeper into esophagus
  • Withdraw transducer less deeply in esophagus

(a) Advance, withdraw: Pushing or pulling the tip of the TEE probe; (b) turn to right, turn to left (also referred as clockwise and anticlockwise): rotating the anterior aspect of the TEE probe to the right or left of the patient; (c) anteflex, retroflex: anteflex is flexing the tip of the TEE probe anteriorly by turning the large control wheel clockwise. Retroflex is flexing the tip of the TEE probe posteriorly by turning the large wheel anticlockwise; (d) Flex to right, Flex to left: flexing the tip of the TEE probe with the small control wheel to the patient’s right or left. The probe flexion to the right and left may not be necessary and should be avoided to minimize trauma to the esophagus 

 

 

Multiplane Imaging Angle

With all modern TEE transducers the transducer beam can be rotated within the probe to generate different beam angles. This is achieved using 2 buttons on the control module, one button rotates from 0 to 180 degrees, the other button rotates it back from 180 to 0 degrees. Using the buttons in combination any desired angle between 0 and 180 degrees can be achieved.

At 0 degrees the transducer beam is transverse (orientated Left screen – Right patient)

At 90 degrees the transducer beam is longitudinal

At 180 degrees the transducer beam is transverse (orientated Left screen – Left patient)

 

Multiplane Imaging angle is depicted on the monitor using a pictogram dial.

In this example the TEE probe is located in the Mid Esophageal location. View A – the multiplane imaging angle is 10 degrees and a 4 chamber view is generated. View B – the multiplane imaging angle is 90 degrees and a 2 chamber view is generated.

 

 


 

Useful video tutorial explaining orientation

 

 


 

Core Views

For the beginner, standard views can be achieved by using a guide that shows the location of the transducer (e.g Mid Esophageal, Trans-Gastric along with the optimal multiplane angle (see below).

Clearly every patient will have slightly different anatomy and cardiac axis, so these guides are just a starting point. Fine tuning of all the above will be required.

The Consensus Statement of the American Society of Echocardiography and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists provides an excellent outline of the basic perioperative TEE examination. Although this examination is likely to be much more comprehensive than what is needed in the Emergency Department (e.g during a code or peri arrest), it provides a useful guide to practicing all the important views that may be required in most situations.

 


 

This short video tutorial provides a useful outline of core views

 


ME 4 Chamber View


 

Indications

  • Cardiac Arrest – continuous echo evaluation of cardiac contractility, without impacting chest compression
  • Peri Arrest – assists with diagnosis and fluid resuscitation,
  • Undifferentiated Hypotension – assists with diagnosis and fluid resuscitation

US Probe: Transesophageal Echocardiography in Cardiac Arrest

The post above and the article below provide a more detailed discussion on the use of TEE in cardiac arrest.

New Concepts of Ultrasound in the Emergency Department: Focused Cardiac Ultrasound in Cardiac Arrest

 

 


References

Reeves ST, Finley AC, Skubas NJ, et al. Basic perioperative transesophageal echocardiography examination: a consensus statement of the American Society of Echocardiography and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013;26(5):443–456. doi:10.1016/j.echo.2013.02.015

Arntfield, Robert et al. Focused Transesophageal Echocardiography by Emergency Physicians is Feasible and Clinically Influential: Observational Results from a Novel Ultrasound Program. Journal of Emergency Medicine, Volume 50, Issue 2, 286 – 294

 


Further Reading and Viewing

 

Continue Reading

PoCUS in Pericardial Effusion

Medical Student Clinical Pearl – October 2019

 

Alex Pupek

Faculty of Medicine
Dalhousie University
CC4
Class of 2020

Reviewed and Edited by Dr. David Lewis

All case histories are illustrative and not based on any individual


Case

A 70F with a history of bladder CA, HTN and 4.9cm AAA presented to the Emergency Department (ED) and was Triaged as Level 3 with a chief complaint of generalized weakness. Initial assessment was significant for hypotension and low-grade fever with dysuria elicited on history; she was started on Ceftriaxone with a working diagnosis of urosepsis. Bloodwork and imaging studies were sent to rule out other potential sources of infection.

She had a mild leukocytosis of 12.4, pH of 7.23 and a lactate of 5.0. Point-of-care urinalysis was unremarkable. The chest x-ray revealed an enlarged cardiothoracic ratio of 0.62 compared to 0.46 ten months previously, concerning for a pericardial effusion.

Upon reassessment, the patient appeared unwell with slight mottling to the skin, cool extremities and tenuous blood pressure; point of care ultrasound revealed a large pericardial effusion.  Interventional cardiology was paged; the patient was moved to the trauma area and an emergent pericardiocentesis was performed: 360cc of bloody fluid was removed. The pericardial drain was left in situ.

Post-procedure bloodwork included a troponin of 216 and CK of 204. The patient was admitted to the Cardiac Care Unit and discharged within a week’s time.

 


Pericardial Effusions and The Role of Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS)

The normal pericardial sac contains up to 50 mL of plasma ultrafiltrate [1]. Any disease affecting the pericardium can contribute to the accumulation of fluid beyond 50mL, termed a pericardial effusion. The most commonly identified causes of pericardial effusions include malignancy and infection (Table 1).

 

Table 1 – UpToDate, 2019 – Diagnosis and Treatment of Pericardial Effusions


 

Evaluation of the pericardium with point-of-care ultrasound includes one of four standard views: parasternal long axis, parasternal short axis, subxiphoid and apical (Figure 1). A pericardial effusion appears as an anechoic stripe or accumulation surrounding the heart. Larger effusions may completely surround the heart while smaller fluid collections form only a thin stripe layering out posteriorly with gravity. Seen most commonly post-cardiac surgery, pericardial effusions may be loculated and compress only a portion of the heart. [1,2] (Table 2)

Figure 1[1]


Table 2 [2]


 

Both the pericardial fat pad and pleural effusions can be mistaken for pericardial effusions. The parasternal long-axis view is most helpful to accurately define the effusion with the descending aorta, posterior to the mitral valve and left atrium, serving as a landmark: the posterior pericardial reflection is located anterior to this structure. Fluid anterior to the posterior pericardial wall is pericardial, whereas a pleural effusion will lie posterior. The pericardial fat pad is an isolated dark area with bright speckles, located anteriorly; unlike fluid, it is not gravity dependent. Rather than competing with the cardiac chambers for space within the pericardial sac, the fat pad moves synchronously with the myocardium throughout the cardiac cycle. [1,2] (Figure 2)

Figure 2[1]


A pericardial effusion discovered on POCUS in the ED may be mistaken for tamponade, leading to inappropriate and invasive management in the form of pericardiocentesis.[2]

Patient tolerance of pericardial effusions depends on the rate by which they accumulate. As little as 150-200 mL of rapidly accumulating effusion can cause tamponade whereas much larger amounts of slowly accumulating fluid can be well tolerated. Pericardial effusions formed gradually are accommodated by adaptations in pericardial compliance. A tamponade physiology is reached once the intrapericardial pressure overcomes the pericardial stretch limit.[2] (Figure 3)

Figure 3[2]


The core echocardiographic findings of pericardial tamponade consist of:

  • a pericardial effusion
  • diastolic right ventricular collapse (high specificity)
  • systolic right atrial collapse (earliest sign)
  • a plethoric inferior vena cava with minimal respiratory variation (high sensitivity)
  • exaggerated respiratory cycle changes in mitral and tricuspid valve in-flow velocities as a surrogate for pulsus paradoxus

In the unstable patient with clinical and echocardiographic findings of tamponade, an emergent pericardiocentesis is indicated.[2]

A retrospective cohort study of non-trauma emergency department patients with large pericardial effusions or tamponade, ultimately undergoing pericardiocentesis, found that effusions identified by POCUS in the ED rather than incidentally or by other means saw a decreased time to drainage procedures, (11.3 vs 70.2 hours, p=0.055).[3]

Point of care ultrasound is a valuable tool during the initial evaluation of the undifferentiated hypotensive emergency department patient but should be interpreted judiciously and within clinical context to avoid unnecessary emergency procedures.


Additional Images

From GrepMed


 

echocardiogram-pericardial-tamponade-alternans-effusion

 


References

  1. Goodman, A., Perera, P., Mailhot, T., & Mandavia, D. (2012). The role of bedside ultrasound in the diagnosis of pericardial effusion and cardiac tamponade. Journal of emergencies, trauma, and shock, 5(1), 72.
  2. Alerhand, S., & Carter, J. M. (2019). What echocardiographic findings suggest a pericardial effusion is causing tamponade?. The American journal of emergency medicine, 37(2), 321-326.
  3. Alpert, E. A., Amit, U., Guranda, L., Mahagna, R., Grossman, S. A., & Bentancur, A. (2017). Emergency department point-of-care ultrasonography improves time to pericardiocentesis for clinically significant effusions. Clinical and experimental emergency medicine, 4(3), 128.

 

Continue Reading

Pediatric Hip PoCUS

Pediatric Hip PoCUS

PoCUS Pearl

Dr. Sultan Ali Alrobaian

Dalhousie EM PoCUS Fellowship

Saint John, NB

@AlrobaianSultan

 

Reviewed and Edited by Dr. David Lewis


 

Case:

A 5 year old healthy boy, came to ED with history of limping since waking that morning. He had worsening right hip discomfort. No history of trauma. He had history of cold symptoms for the last 3 days associated with documented low grade fever.

On physical examination, he looked uncomfortable and unwell looking, he had temperature of 38.1 C, HR 130, BP 110/70, RR 20 and O2 saturation of 98% on RA. He was non-weight-bearing with decreased ROM of right hip because of pain.

Pelvis x-ray was unremarkable, he had WBC of 14.4 x 103  and CRP of 40 .

PoCUS of the right hip was performed.


 

Pediatric Hip Ultrasound

Ultrasonography is an excellent modality to evaluate pathologies in both the intra-articular and extra-articular soft tissues including muscles, tendons, and bursae. PoCUS to detect hip effusion can serve as an adjunct to the history and physical examination in case with hip pain.  It is easily accessible, no radiation exposure and low cost.

Technique:

The child should be in supine position. Expose the hip with drapes for patient comfort. If the patient will tolerate it, position the leg in slight abduction and external rotation. A high frequency linear probe is the preferred transducer to scan the relatively superficial pediatric hip, use the curvilinear probe if increased depth is required.

With the patient lying supine, identify the greater trochanter on the symptomatic hip of the patient. Place the linear probe in the sagittal oblique plane parallel to the long axis of the femoral neck (with the indicator toward the patient’s head).

If the femoral neck cannot easily be found, it can be approached using the proximal femur. Place the probe transversely across the upper thigh. Identify the cortex of the proximal femur and then move the probe proximally until the femoral neck appears medially, then slightly rotate the probe and move medially to align in the long axis of the femoral neck.

Assistance is often required from a parent who may be asked to provide reassurance, apply the gel and help with positioning.

Both symptomatic and asymptomatic hips should be examined.

Negative hip ultrasound in a limping child should prompt examination of the knee and ankle joint (for effusion) and the tibia (for toddler’s fracture)

Hip X-ray should be performed to rule out other causes (depending on age – e.g. Perthes, Osteomyelitis, SCFE, Tumour). Limb X-ray should be performed if history of trauma or NAI.

 

Anatomy of the Pediatric Hip:

The ED Physician should readily identify the sonographic landmarks of the pediatric hip. These landmarks include the femoral head, epiphysis and neck, acetabulum, joint capsule and iliopsoas muscle and tendon.

 

A normal joint may have a small anechoic stripe (normal hypoechoic joint cartilage) between cortex and capsule. This will measure less than 2mm and be symmetrical between hips.

 

Ultrasound Findings:

Measure the maximal distance between the anterior surface of the femoral neck and the posterior surface of the iliopsoas muscle. An effusion will result in a larger anechoic stripe (>2mm) that takes on a lenticular shape as the capsule distends. Asymmetry between hips is confirmatory. Synovial thickening may also be visualized.

FH- Femoral Head, S- Synovium, E – Effusion, FN – Femoral Neck

Criteria for a pediatric hip effusion is:

  • A capsular-synovial thickness of 5 mm measured at the concavity of the femoral neck, from the anterior surface of the femoral neck to the posterior surface of the iliopsoas muscle
  • OR a 2-mm difference compared to the asymptomatic contralateral hip

Right hip effusion, normal left hip, arrow heads – joint capsule, IP – iliopsoas


Interpretation

PoCUS has high sensitivity and specificity for pediatric hip effusion.

  • —
  • Sensitivity of 90%
  • Specificity of 100%
  • Positive predictive value of 100%
  • Negative predictive value of 92%

 

PoCUS cannot determine the cause of an effusion. It cannot differentiate between transient synovitis and septic arthritis. Diagnosis will be determined by combining history, pre-test probability, examination, inflammatory markers and PoCUS findings. If in doubt, septic arthritis is the primary differential diagnosis until proven otherwise.

Several clinical prediction algorithms have been proposed. This post from pedemmorsels.com outlines these nicely:

 

Septic Arthritis

 

 


 

Back to our case:

Ultrasonography cannot definitively distinguish between septic arthritis and transient synovitis, the ED physician’s concern for septic arthritis should be based on history, clinical suspicion and available laboratory findings.

The patient was diagnosed as case of septic arthritis. The patient received intravenous antibiotics empirically. Pediatric orthopedic consultation was obtained, and ED arthrocentesis was deferred as the patient was immediately taken to the operating room for hip joint aspiration and irrigation, confirming the diagnosis.


 

References

 

Continue Reading