AimsAlthough acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is a common cause of dyspnoea, its diagnosis still represents a challenge. Lung ultrasound (LUS) is an emerging point-of-care diagnostic tool, but its diagnostic performance for ADHF has not been evaluated in randomized studies. We evaluated, in patients with acute dyspnoea, accuracy and clinical usefulness of combining LUS with clinical assessment compared to the use of chest radiography (CXR) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in conjunction with clinical evaluation.This was a randomized trial conducted in two emergency departments. After initial clinical evaluation, patients with acute dyspnoea were classified by the treating physician according to presumptive aetiology (ADHF or non-ADHF). Patients were subsequently randomized to continue with either LUS or CXR/NT-proBNP. A new diagnosis, integrating the results of both initial assessment and the newly obtained findings, was then recorded. Diagnostic accuracy and clinical usefulness of LUS and CXR/NT-proBNP approaches were calculated. A total of 518 patients were randomized. Addition of LUS had higher accuracy [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.95] than clinical evaluation alone (AUC 0.88) in identifying ADHF (P < 0.01). In contrast, use of CXR/NT-proBNP did not significantly increase the accuracy of clinical evaluation alone (AUC 0.87 and 0.85, respectively; P > 0.05). The diagnostic accuracy of the LUS-integrated approach was higher then that of the CXR/Nt-proBNP-integrated approach (AUC 0.95 vs. 0.87, p < 0.01). Combining LUS with the clinical evaluation reduced diagnostic errors by 7.98 cases/100 patients, as compared to 2.42 cases/100 patients in the CXR/Nt-proBNP group.

Type A aortic dissection (AD) is a deadly disease. Rapid identification of patients requiring immediate advanced aortic imaging or transfer to specialized centers is needed to improve outcomes. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of transthoracic focus cardiac ultrasound (FOCUS) performed by emergency physicians, alone and in combination with the aortic dissection detection (ADD) risk score in suspected type A AD. This was a prospective study performed on patients with suspected type A AD. FOCUS evaluated the presence of intimal flap/intramural hematoma (direct signs of AD), ascending aorta dilatation, aortic valve insufficiency or pericardial effusion/tamponade (indirect signs of AD). The ADD risk score of each patient was calculated according to guidelines. The final diagnosis was established after review of complete clinical data. 50 (18%) patients of 281 had a final diagnosis of type A AD. Detection of any FOCUS sign (direct or indirect) of AD had a sensitivity of 88% (95% CI 76-95%) for the diagnosis of type A AD. Presence of ADD risk score > 0 or detection of any FOCUS sign increased diagnostic sensitivity to 96% (95% CI 86-99%). Detection of direct FOCUS signs had a specificity of 94% (95% CI 90-97%), while combination of ADD risk score > 1 with detection of direct FOCUS signs had a specificity of 98% (95% CI 96-99%). FOCUS demonstrated acceptable accuracy as a triage tool to rapidly identify patients with suspected type A AD needing advanced aortic imaging or transfer, but it cannot be used as a stand-alone test even if combined with ADD risk score classification.

No abstract

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the world with 80% of cardiovascular events that occur in low-and middle-income countries. Reliable data on the prevalence of risk factors in developing countries can be obtained in doorto-door epidemiologic studies with the use of automatic instruments. This study was performed to assess the sensitivity and specificity of a low-cost and manageable point-of-care testing (POCT) instrument (HPS MultiCare-in, Italy) for cholesterol and triglyceride assays. Plasma blood samples were obtained from consecutive subjects referred to our clinic for diagnostic evaluation. The analyzer currently used in our central laboratory (ADVIA 2400; Siemens, Deerfield, Ill) was used as comparison method. The inter-assay imprecision (expressed as variation coefficient) of the MultiCare POCT system was 4.51% (range, 2.38%-8.54%) and was 3.29% (range, 1.06%-7.45%) for cholesterol and triglycerides systems, respectively. The mean percent bias for capillary samples was 3.5 6 4.3% for total cholesterol and -2.4 6 4.9% for triglycerides. The difference in results obtained by nonprofessionals compared with professionals (practicability testing) was 0.28 6 7.61% and 1.26 6 9.86%, respectively (P value was nonsignificant for both). Sensitivity and specificity measurements were 95.7% and 61.9% (threshold value of cholesterol 190 mg/dL) and 98% and 93.5% (threshold value of triglycerides 170 mg/ dL), respectively. POCT instruments are essential to perform epidemiologic studies while avoiding transportation and storage of biologic material. The characteristics of sensitivity and specificity as well as diagnostic accuracy make the POCT instrument useful for obtaining an accurate stratification of a study population.

BackgroundPneumoperitoneum is a rare cause of abdominal pain characterized by a high mortality. Ultrasonography (US) can detect free intraperitoneal air; however, its accuracy remains unclear. The aims of this pilot study were to define the diagnostic performance and the reliability of abdominal US for the diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum.MethodsThis was a prospective observational study. Four senior and two junior physicians were shown, in an unpaired randomized order, abdominal US videos from 11 patients with and 11 patients without pneumoperitoneum. Abdominal US videos were obtained from consecutive patients presenting to ED complaining abdominal pain with the diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum established by CT. Abdominal US was performed according to a standardized protocol that included the following scans: epigastrium, right and left hypochondrium, umbilical area and right hypochondrium with the patient lying on the left flank. We evaluated accuracy, intra- and inter-observer agreement of abdominal US when reviewed by senior physicians. Furthermore, we compared the accuracy of a “2 scan-fast exam” (epigastrium and right hypochondrium) vs the full US examination and the accuracy of physicians expert in US vs nonexpert ones. Finally, accuracy of US was compared with abdominal radiography in patients with available images.ResultsConsidering senior revision, accuracy of abdominal US was 88.6 % (95 % CI 79.4-92.4 %) with a sensitivity of 95.5 % (95 % CI 86.3–99.2 %) and a specificity of 81.8 % (95 % CI 72.6–85.5 %). Inter- and intra-observer agreement (k) were 0.64 and 0.95, respectively. Accuracy of a “2 scan-fast exam” (87.5 %, 95 % CI 77.9–92.4 %) was similar to global exam. Sensitivity of abdominal radiography (72.2 %, 95 % CI 54.8–85.7 %) was lower than that of abdominal US, while specificity (92.5 %, 95 % CI 79.5–98.3 %) was higher. Accuracy (68.2 %, 95 % CI 51.4–80.9 %) of junior reviewers evaluating US was lower than senior reviewers.ConclusionsSenior physicians can recognize US signs of pneumoperitoneum with a good accuracy and reliability; sensitivity of US could be superior to abdominal radiography and a 2 fast-scan exam seems as accurate as full abdominal examination. US could be a useful bedside screening test for pneumoperitoneum.Trial registry ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02004925; URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.govElectronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13089-015-0032-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.