BACKGROUND: We sought to demonstrate the superiority of a targeted therapy strategy involving high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNCO₂) therapy and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) using lung ultrasound score (LUS) in comparison with standard care among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) who undergo successful weaning to decrease the incidence of extubation failure at both 48 hours and seven days.
METHODS: During the study period, 98 patients were enrolled in the study, including 49 in the control group and 49 in the treatment group. Patients in the control group and patients with an LUS score <14 points (at low risk of extubation failure) in the treatment group were extubated and received standard preventive care without NIV or HFNCO₂. Patients with an LUS score ≥14 points (at high risk of extubation failure) in the treatment group were extubated with a second review of the therapeutic optimization to identify and address any persisting risk factors for postextubation respiratory distress; patients received HFNCO₂ therapy combined with sessions of preventive NIV (4-8 hours per day for 4-8 sessions total) for the first 48 hours after extubation.
RESULTS: In the control group, 13 patients had the LUS scores ≥14 points, while 36 patients had scores <14 points. In the treatment group, 16 patients had the LUS scores ≥14 points, while 33 patients had scores <14 points. Among patients with the LUS score ≥14 points, the extubation failure rate within 48 hours was 30.8% in the control group and 12.5% in the treatment group, constituting a statistically significant difference (P<0.05). Conversely, among patients with an LUS score <14 points, 13.9% in the control group and 9.1% in the treatment group experienced extubation failure (P=0.61). The length of ICU stay (9.4±3.1 days vs. 7.2±2.4 days) was significantly different and the re-intubation rate (at 48 hours: 18.4% vs. 10.2%; seven days: 22.4% vs. 12.2%) significantly varied between the two groups (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the 28-day mortality rate (6.1% vs. 8.2%) between the control and treatment groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk adults being weaned from mechanical ventilation and assessed by LUS, the NIV+HFNCO₂ protocol does not lessen the mortality rate but reduce the length of ICU stay, the rate of extubation failure at both 48 hours and seven days.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally performed using a subxiphoid approach, the increasing use of point-of-care ultrasound in the emergency department has made other approaches (parasternal and apical) for pericardiocentesis viable. The aim of this study is to identify the ideal approach for emergency-physician-performed ultrasound-guided pericardiocentesis as determined by ultrasound image quality, distance from surface to pericardial fluid, and likely obstructions or complications.

METHODS: A retrospective review of point-of-care cardiac ultrasound examinations was performed in two urban academic emergency departments for the presence of pericardial effusions. The images were reviewed for technical quality, distance of effusion from skin surface, and predicted complications.

RESULTS: A total of 166 pericardial effusions were identified during the study period. The mean skin-to-pericardial fluid distance was 5.6 cm (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 5.2-6.0 cm) for the subxiphoid views, which was significantly greater than that for the parasternal (2.7 cm [95% CI 2.5-2.8 cm], P<0.001) and apical (2.5 cm [95% CI 2.3-2.7 cm], P<0.001) views. The subxiphoid view had the highest predicted complication rate at 79.7% (95% CI 71.5%-86.4%), which was significantly greater than the apical (31.9%; 95% CI 21.4%-44.0%, P<0.001) and parasternal (20.2%; 95% CI 12.8%-29.5%, P<0.001) views.

CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that complication rates with pericardiocentesis will be lower via the parasternal or apical approach compared to the subxiphoid approach. The distance from skin to fluid collection is the least in both of these views.

BACKGROUND: The use of ultrasound (US) within healthcare has inspired the development of new US technology. There have been few studies comparing the use of handheld US to standard US for medical education. This research aims to determine whether a handheld US device can provide a comparable primary learning experience to that of a standard US machine.
METHODS: Over two days of instruction, participants were taught and evaluated on core US fundamentals. The standard group received instruction on standard US machines, while the handheld group received instruction on handheld US devices. Participants completed a qualitative survey regarding their experience. Six hundred and four images were obtained and graded by two emergency medicine physicians.
RESULTS: A total of 119 Swiss medical students were enrolled in our study. There was no statistically significant difference in the US assessment measurements, except for faster endpoint septal separation (EPSS) vascular setup time in the handheld group (P=0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in participants’ perceived difficulty of US learning (P=0.198), comfort level (P=0.188), or self-estimated capability to perform US in the future (P=0.442). There was no statistically significant difference in the percentage of correctly obtained images (P=0.211) or images that were clinically useful (P=0.256). The median quality score of images obtained by the standard group was eight compared to seven in handheld group (P<0.01).
CONCLUSION: Our data suggest a handheld US machine can perform as well as a standard US machine as an educational tool despite sacrifices in image quality.