Category Archives: Point of Care

Sudden Cardiac Death in Young Athletes

Posted on by
Reply

Sudden cardiac death is very rare in young athletes (<35 years of age), however, it is the most common medical cause of death in the athletes. There are tests, commonly performed as a preparticipation screening, to detect the abnormal heart rhythms that lead to SCD, however, the tests can also have false-positive results and can miss some heart abnormalities.

There are no current standards for what needs to be included in athlete preparticipation screening but personal and family histories, physical examination (PE), and 12-lead electrocardiography (ECG) are most commonly used. Would ultrasound help to increase the efficacy of the screening?

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) provides real-time bedside images that can assist in clinical decision making by potentially identifying dilated cardiomyopathy, aortic root dilatation, and coronary artery anomalies, which history, PE, or ECG frequently miss.

In a recent study to determine whether POCUS would be a beneficial adjunct to the preparticipation screening, the researchers found that although POCUS would have resulted in a 4-fold decrease in referrals, that was based on older studies using now outdated ECG guidelines. The 2017 guidelines greatly reduced the number of false-positives results, so adding POCUS as an adjunct would not create such a large decrease anymore.

POCUS did identify one primary diagnosis, left ventricular noncompaction, which was not identified by any other part of the screening. So, although the value of a POCUS adjunct may not be in reducing false-positives, it’s value may be in identifying anatomic anomalies.

Read the full article on the study by Cassels M, Moulson N, Reganin J, et al, in “Point-of-Care Ultrasound as a Component of Preparticipation Screening of Athletes: A Systematic Review” in the Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine (J Ultrasound Med 2019; 38:3123–3130. doi: 10.1002/jum.15021).

Interested in learning more about ultrasound for athletes? Check out the following resources from the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM):

Impact of Ultrasound on Medical Imaging: 1967–2021

Posted on by
Reply

In 1967, a weekly feature for medical school seniors was the ‘bullpen’ in the Charity Hospital amphitheater. Students were assigned a patient and given 30 minutes to do a history and physical exam and then present their differential diagnosis and recommendations to an attending. Diagnosis was almost exclusively based on the history and physical examination. Laboratory studies were generally confined to basic electrolytes, a CBC, urinalysis, sputum stains, and a chest x-ray.

This prepared me well for internship and residency on the Osler Medical Service at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Interns were on call 24 hours a day for 6 days a week and usually spent 16 to 18 hours a day attending patients at the bedside.

On Osler, there were no computers and handwritten or typed paper records hung on a chart rack. The wards were not air-conditioned, and yellow curtains separated each of the 28 beds. There were no patient monitors, IV pumps, or respirators, and interns performed all of the basic lab work on their patients. Nursing care was excellent; the house staff and nurses worked as a team caring for the patients. Lack of technology was compensated for by close and direct interaction with the patients and their families, and the practice of medicine was extremely satisfying and filled with empathy and compassion.

The patient was the object of all of our attention. In the late 1960s, imaging was limited and played a relatively minor role in diagnosis and management. Defensive medicine was not a concern.

Following my internal medicine residency at Hopkins, I spent the next 3 years in the immunology branch of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda. The research centered on the new field of bone marrow transplantation and treatment of graft vs. host disease.1 Whole-body radiation prepared candidates for transplantation and my experience in dealing with near-lethal doses of radiation led me to pursue a career in radiation oncology.

After completing a residency in general and therapeutic radiology in 1975, I joined the staff of the Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans, practicing a combination of radiation therapy and general radiography and fluoroscopy. Imaging was film-based, with studies hung on multipanel viewboxes for interpretation and a hot light for image processing. Cases were dictated directly to a transcriptionist in a cubicle next to the reading room and were typed and signed in real time. The daily workload included 40 to 50 barium studies along with numerous oral cholecystograms, intravenous urograms, and chest and bone radiographs. Specialized imaging consisted of polytomography, penumoencephalography, lymphangiography, and angiography. Evaluation of the aorta, runoff vessels, and carotid vessels was performed by direct puncture. Women’s imaging consisted of xeromammograms, hysterosalpingography, and pelvimetry. Image-guided intervention was nonexistent.

That year, ultrasound was in its early clinical development and I acquired a machine and placed it in the radiation therapy department and began scanning patients from the nearby emergency department. At that time there were no other sectional imaging modalities (CT was not yet available for clinical use.).

A large part of the challenge of ultrasound was learning anatomy in a completely new way. As a result, my groundwork in understanding sectional anatomy came from ultrasound. Ultrasound, unlike CT and MR, permitted imaging not only in standardized axial planes but allowed scan planes in virtually any orientation, requiring a very detailed knowledge of anatomy.

In 1976, upon the retirement of Dr. Seymour Ochsner, I became Chair of the department at Ochsner. This provided me with an opportunity to re-equip the department at a time that the entire field of imaging was undergoing immense change. With ultrasound, new findings were being reported regularly2, and the overall quality of ultrasound images often exceeded those of early body CT scans.

The development of Doppler ultrasound in the late 1970s further expanded the applications of ultrasound, although prior to the introduction of color Doppler, this was mainly of interest to vascular surgeons, and diagnosis was based on waveform analysis rather than imaging.

An important technological development at the end of the 1970s was real-time ultrasound, leading to the rapid development of new applications in obstetrical, abdominal, pediatric, and intraoperative imaging3,4.

Developments in computers in the early 1980s led me to an opportunity to participate in the development of exciting new technologies, including a breakthrough involving ultrasound and providing a method to image Doppler information. Working with a small company in Seattle and a large prototype device, we generated the first images of blood flow in the abdomen and peripheral vessels using color Doppler5,6. Color Doppler, by allowing Doppler information to be shown in an image rather than as a waveform, was important in getting radiologists interested in Doppler. Today, color Doppler is an integral part of the ultrasound examination.

A less successful application of ultrasound in the 1980s was in the evaluation of the breast. Early breast scanners produced quality images by scanning the breast, as the patient lay prone in a water tank. Unfortunately, breast ultrasound was promoted aggressively by many manufacturers and by the mid-1980s was discredited as a useful addition to mammography. By the mid-1990s, however, advances in breast ultrasound demonstrated an important role in the evaluation of breast masses, making ultrasound an indispensable part of breast imaging and leading to the BI-RADS breast imaging and reporting system for ultrasound7–9.

Ultrasound also has had a major impact in providing guidance for minimally invasive diagnostic procedures. Fine-needle biopsy of lesions of the liver, kidney, retroperitoneum, as well as peripheral lymph nodes and the thyroid, have become a standard part of the diagnostic workup.

A radiologist of 50 years ago would not recognize the field if he or she were to return today. In fewer than 50 years, the computer has changed the practice of medicine. More precise and early diagnosis are clear benefits of the technology of the 21st century, but are accompanied by the perils of over utilization prompted by defensive medicine with interests of the physician potentially overshadowing those of the patient.

Although the contribution of these advances has benefited countless patients, many of the rewards of the practice of medicine have been diminished. In looking back at my 50 years of practicing medicine, recalling my final grand rounds at Charity Hospital, I appreciate the diagnostic skills acquired through history and physical examination, as well as the relationship I had with my patients during my clinical years. To me, this represents the real definition of being a physician. In many cases, these simple tools were often as effective, and certainly more satisfying, than today’s tendency to view the patient as the result of an imaging test rather than a person.

Christopher R. B. Merritt, MD, is a Past President (1986–1988) of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM) where he led the development of the AIUM/NEMA/FDA Output Display Standard, and served as a founder of the Intersocietal Commission for the Accreditation of Vascular Laboratories (ICAVL).

References

  1. Merritt CB, Mann DL, Rogentine GN Jr. Cytotoxic antibody for epithelial cells in human graft versus host disease. Nature 1971; 232:638.
  2. Merritt CRB. Ultrasound demonstration of portal vein thrombosis. Radiology 1979; 133:425–427.
  3. Merritt CRB, Coulon R, Connolly E. Intraoperative neurosurgical ultrasound: transdural and tranfontanelle applications. Radiology 1983; 148:513–517.
  4. Merritt CRB, Goldsmith JP, Sharp MJ. Sonographic detection of portal venous gas in infants with necrotizing enterocolitis. AJR 1984; 143:1059–1062.
  5. Merritt CRB. Doppler colour flow imaging. Nature 1987; Aug 20; 328:743–744.
  6. Merritt CRB. Doppler color flow imaging. J Clin Ultrasound 1987; 15:591–597.
  7. Mendelson EB, Berg WA, Merritt CRB. Towards a standardized breast ultrasound lexicon, BI-RADS: ultrasound. Semin Roentgenol 2001; 36:217–225.
  8. Taylor KWJ, Merritt C, Piccoli C, et al. Ultrasound as a complement to mammography and breast examination to characterize breast masses. Ultrasound Med Biol 2002; 28:19–26.
  9. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008; 299(18):2151–2163.

Ultrasound in Annual Medicare Wellness Visits?

Posted on by
Reply

Medicare Part B covers many preventive services, such as screenings, shots or vaccines, and yearly Wellness visits, in which a patient’s heart rate, blood pressure, and temperature are evaluated. But, would it be beneficial to add an ultrasound examination?

A team that performs these Wellness visits in a clinic sought to determine whether adding a screening ultrasound examination to the visits would be beneficial for the patients. Six primary care providers, all with advanced ultrasound training, and one ultrasound examiner began a study to find out.

After screening potential patients for the study, each eligible patient gave their consent to be in the study. Note, because their pool of eligible Medicare patients had the following characteristics, they did not represent the nation-wide average:

  • Were at least 65 years old, but not over 85 years;
  • Tended to live independently in an affluent area;
  • Had relatively healthy lifestyles;
  • Had prior access to healthcare;
  • Did not have a documented CT scan of the abdomen or formal echocardiogram in the previous 2 years; and
  • Did not have greater than stage 1 obesity.

Each of the 108 participants underwent an ultrasound examination of the carotid arteries, the heart, and the abdomen, targeting important abnormalities of elderly patients. The patients were not charged for the ultrasound examination.

After the examination, the ultrasound examiner and the primary care provider reviewed the results, discussed them with the patient, and coordinated any needed follow-up care, including 30 follow-up diagnostic items. The patient then completed a 5-question survey about their experience with the ultrasound examination.

Six months later, after the patient’s next Wellness visit, the primary care provider reviewed the patient’s medical record for any follow-up based on the results of the ultrasound examination and assigned each of the 283 abnormalities detected via ultrasound a “benefit score” ranging from –4 (no short-term or potential long-term benefit but serious negative impact occurred because of subsequent care) to 4 (critical clinical benefit, worth all subsequent care). The primary care provider determined the score based on the Medicare reimbursement value of all care received as a result of the ultrasound examination.

Combining the survey results and the abnormality scores, the primary care provider then determined each patient’s net benefit score.

Of all of the abnormalities found, the majority would not have been detected by a traditional physical examination. And although none of them were considered life-threatening, they were frequently markers of chronic conditions, so the primary care provider considered their discovery to be mild to moderately positive.

In conclusion, the study found abnormalities in 94% of the participants. However, only about half of all of the Wellness patients (not just those who participated in the study) would meet the criteria for a screening ultrasound examination, so the examination could not be added to all Wellness visits. For those who qualified, however, in a setting with primary care providers who are experts in ultrasound, the benefit of the examination was rarely negative and often mild to moderately positive, including identifying some new chronic conditions.

To read more about this study, download the Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine article, “An Ultrasound Screening Exam During Medicare Wellness Visits May Be Beneficial” by Terry K. Rosborough, MD, et al. Members of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine can access it for free. Join today!

Interested in learning more about ultrasound? Check out the following posts from the Scan:

Do More With Less: Ultrasound

Posted on by
Reply

Life is not always easy, sometimes you just have to manage with what you have. To work with limited resources is one of the skills you acquire once you are a primary care physician and particularly in Africa.

This is also true concerning point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS); it is possible to do more with less. If you really understand how it works, you can find new ways to use your tools to get the correct diagnosis.

Now, I want to share with you the case of a 53-year-old male patient whose major complaint was joint pains, particularly in the left wrist and knee. Upon physical examination, the joints were warm, swollen, and painful. I hypothesized that the diagnosis was a primary gout episode but in my health facility I don’t have a uric acid test that I would ordinarily use for confirmation of the diagnosis. I then performed a POCUS examination to confirm the diagnosis by looking for the double contour cartilage line, which is a sign of gout in joints due to uric acid deposit at the surface of bone cartilage. I didn’t have a linear high-frequency probe, so I used an endocavitary probe just as you can see in the pictures.

Ultrasound images of the knee showing the double contour sign indicative of gout.

POCUS can greatly increase healthcare in low-income countries. Usually, the healthcare gap between upper-income and low-income countries is huge but, with POCUS, the same technics can be applied to both, with the same results, if ultrasound devices are available.

However, the problem remains that there is a lack of healthcare professionals who are skilled enough to use it and teach others. The problem is no longer an absence of devices but is now due to an absence of knowledge of how to use them.

Fortunately, due to COVID-19 lockdowns, we know almost everything that can be taught online. Therefore, it is time for us to think about establishing a new way to teach, learn, and practice ultrasound. Many ultrasound societies, such as the AIUM, ISUOG, and EDE, have started to share free POCUS education on their websites. Free online courses should be encouraged since they will lead us to the democratization of ultrasound, particularly in low-resource settings.

Yannick Ndefo, MD, is a general practitioner at St Thomas hospital in Douala, Cameroon.

Interested in learning more? Check out the following posts from the Scan:

POCUS in Primary Care: Advice for Incorporating Ultrasound into the Clinic

Posted on by
Reply

The utility of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is readily apparent in a busy Emergency Department (ED) or Intensive Care Unit. Now, as healthcare in the U.S. changes and decentralizes, widespread POCUS in primary care is poised to show its value to medical systems in a way that will eclipse its impressive origins in hospitals. However, there are many reasons primary care ultrasound hasn’t taken off…yet. Among them is that effectively incorporating POCUS into a clinic can be hard work with many upfront challenges. The following is some advice on overcoming these challenges, focusing on 3 areas.

  1. Determine your desired scope of practice and manage expectations
  2. Get really good at POCUS
  3. Optimize your clinic POCUS workflow

1. Determine your desired scope of practice and manage expectations

Learning to use ultrasound is very similar to learning a musical instrument—you don’t jump in with Chopin, you start off by playing Chopsticks or practicing chords. When determining their intended POCUS scope of practice, outpatient clinicians need to consider that the things they are most interested in doing right away might be some of the more technically demanding or challenging things to learn. Here are some good examples of common outpatient POCUS goals and more appropriate starting points for beginners:

Body RegionAspirational POCUS ApplicationAppropriate POCUS Starting Point
AbdominalGallstones, Cirrhosis, AppendicitisAscites
CardiacLVH, Pulmonary HypertensionPericardial Effusion
PulmonaryPneumoniaPleural Effusions and Pulmonary Edema
MusculoskeletalRotator Cuff TearsKnee Effusion

Furthermore, even if you appropriately start small and easy, chances are you will at some point perceive that you are terrible. This is normal and experienced by many POCUS experts when they first started. Keep at it, and ensure you have a marathoner’s mindset; remember it’s no quick sprint and requires a stepwise approach. You can learn more about a specific approach to teaching and a framework for growing a POCUS skillset for generalists (PEARLS) by watching the AIUM webinar, “PEARLS: A Physical Exam with Pocket Sized Ultrasound for Routine Use,” here: https://youtu.be/ywuIeoEfG1I

2. Get really good at POCUS

Easy as that, right? Unfortunately, learning POCUS in the clinic is HARDER than learning POCUS in the hospital setting. The time constraints are just as bad as in the ED and, generally, the pathology is much less frequent and more subtle when present. Obtaining cardiac windows in the patient who can’t get out of their wheelchair or rollator let alone climb up to the exam table is not an uncommon circumstance. So how do you get really good under these circumstances? Three key interconnected principles dominate the philosophy we try to instill in our learners as part of our training:

  • Scan Routinely
  • Practice Deliberately
  • Track Your Experience (Build Your Portfolio)

Scan Routinely is probably the most controversial of these, and for me, also the most important. The routine performance of “educational” scans during residency, fellowship, or other training period is the bedrock for successful training and is generally accepted in the POCUS community. This allows one to practice deliberately and pursue a path towards mastery.

The number 1 biggest mistake I see in the early plateaued POCUS learner is they are only performing scans if they feel it is clinically indicated or they have a specific clinical question they expect POCUS to help them answer. If you are not routinely using POCUS you will likely not achieve or maintain the experience where your POCUS skillset will be clinically useful to you.

My threshold for incorporating ultrasound into my evaluation of patients is probably much lower than other POCUS users, and my experience has been that this has helped me tremendously. This experience has supported the perspective that POCUS should be viewed as a vital clinical skill to be perpetually maintained and improved upon, not a separate and distinct diagnostic test to be brought out only when patients fit into narrow predefined boxes.

Finally, even if you do not incorporate images into the EMR or bill for your exams (and there are many reasons why you should not do this early on), you should routinely save your images and build a portfolio. Committing your interpretations to a log, on paper or electronically, allows you to attain vital feedback through your longitudinal experience and patient follow-up. It also allows you to more easily seek expert mentorship, teach others, and can serve as inspiration if your motivation or progress seems to drop off.

3. Optimize your clinic POCUS workflow

Like many aspects of clinic, part of optimizing your POCUS workflow involves training your staff. In many ways, it helps to treat the POCUS device like the clinic EKG machine. If you know you will likely include POCUS because of the chief complaint (eg, dyspnea, flank pain, or lower extremity swelling) have staff put the patient in the most suitable room and ensure they are properly undressed/draped in advance. Train staff to be comfortable handling the device, cleaning it, and setting it up in the room with patient information entered in (if applicable). If you unexpectedly determine POCUS is needed during an encounter but setup is suboptimal, see another patient while the patient and room are prepared. Also, consider restructuring how you examine patients. Often time constraints do not permit the traditional order of history -> traditional examination -> ultrasound examination, and you will be more efficient by incorporating ultrasound sooner and blending history and pertinent traditional exam maneuvers along the way.

Finally, when first starting off, when incorporating routine scanning into your workflow, keep a narrow focus and a set time limit (<5 minutes). Don’t be shy about using an alarm on your phone to keep yourself honest. You may need to focus on obtaining a single high-quality view, and then add additional views as you’re able while still staying under time. Taking 20 minutes to perform POCUS in the middle of a packed clinic is another common mistake that can torpedo a workday and create negative associations that increase reluctance to practice and utilize POCUS.

Once you obtain some basic skills at POCUS and have a good clinic workflow, you’ll quickly get a few early saves and successes that enhance your dedication and propel you forward. Before long, you will wonder how you ever did without it!

Mike Wagner is looking to the camera while semi recumbent on a patient bed. He is holding an ultrasound transducer in his right hand and his pants leg has been pulled up to bare his knee.
Mike Wagner, MD, FACP, FAIUM, during a remote/virtual teaching session.

Mike Wagner, MD, FACP, FAIUM, is an Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine in Greenville.

Want to learn more from Mike Wagner? Check out these resources from the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine:

Ultrasound Education in the Post-COVID Era

Posted on by
Reply

In his book, The Innovator’s Dilemma, Clayton Christensen discusses the idea of disruptive technology. This market force that challenges industry norms can create new opportunities but also requires traditional market fixtures to adapt in order to maintain effectiveness.

Point-of-care Ultrasound (POCUS) has emerged as a disruptive technology in medical imaging. It relies heavily on education, both for new learners and also for those continuing to advance their knowledge base as skilled sonologists. As ultrasound technology improves and the scope of POCUS expands, two important facets of ultrasound education are collaboration and innovation. 

Ultrasound has traditionally been confined to specific rooms within the house of medicine. However, POCUS has grown to include a variety of specialties. Emergency medicine, critical care, hospital medicine, outpatient clinics, and even surgical specialties have all benefitted from “Ultrasound First” and the diagnostic specificity of ultrasound. But just as every disruptive technology creates challenges for traditional users, the democratization of ultrasound has required new users and traditional imaging specialties to rethink the imaging paradigm. 

Since each specialty (traditional or new adopter) comes to the table with a unique skillset and expertise, we benefit from collaboration. In the same way that a rising tide lifts all boats, cross-departmental collaboration allows for a broader understanding of the interplay between a patient’s anatomy, physiology, and ultrasound findings. 

In our institution, we have sought to use ultrasound as a tool to build bridges between departments. We have brought sonologists from various specialties together to teach anatomy with ultrasound. We have brought our ED residents to the MICU to scan patients with known pathology and MICU fellows to the ED. We have conducted cross-departmental ED/Radiology case conferences discussing the use of bedside ultrasound and traditional imaging. In each of these examples, we have sought ways to build collaborative relationships with other departments and benefit from each other’s particular perspective and experience. 

Ultrasound proficiency requires a firm foundation of both didactic knowledge and psychomotor skill. There is a significant interdependency between the classroom and the bedside. By restricting access to both spheres, COVID-19 has interrupted our normal way of living and educating and created a number of challenges to continuing ultrasound education. But, like a silver lining behind every dark cloud, the distance that COVID has created physically has drawn us together in unique ways. Distancing, occupancy limits, and virtual interactions have required us to reimagine ways of reaching learners. 

A large part of our continuing ultrasound education is a regular ultrasound lecture series. Virtual education has allowed for more flexibility with attendance. Individuals who traditionally could not attend an in-person lecture due to time or geographical constraints can now participate. We previously included learners from various departments within our institution. However, with virtual lectures, we have included students, residents, fellows, and faculty from other institutions throughout our greater region.

In addition to increasing the participant base, virtual education has allowed us to tap into a broader faculty base. The traditional model of medical education relies on in-person lectures and didactic education. Virtual education opens opportunities to include regional, national, and international experts. Prior to COVID, a visiting lecturer would have to take time away from their personal practice and travel to a particular place. Now, a speaker can attend via Zoom or other platforms. This has allowed us to invite outside experts to our educational forum. And for faculty looking to build an educational portfolio and progress through the academic ranks, virtual education allows for junior faculty to gain experience as visiting lecturers. 

As we emerge from the COVID era, I personally look forward to losing the masks, gathering together again, and seeing the word “virtual” used less ubiquitously in the English lexicon. But our imperative as ultrasound educators is to learn from the ways that COVID has changed our existing models for education and has caused us to adapt to new teaching methods. We should embrace the disruptive technologies of the past year and find ways to blend the advantages of cross-departmental, in-person learning with cross-institutional virtual education. To the extent that we are successful in this endeavor, we will find increased cohesion as a community, improved educational opportunities for our learners, and, ultimately, improved outcomes for our patients. 

Matthew Tabbut, MD, FACEP, is Director of Emergency Ultrasound at MetroHealth Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio.

Interested in learning more about POCUS? Check out the following posts from the Scan:

Sink or Swim? Modifying POCUS Medical Education Curriculum During the Coronavirus Pandemic

Posted on by
2

Modifying a point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) medical education curriculum initially designed for 4-year matriculation into a 3-year experience is undoubtedly challenging. This 1-year shortening, combined with the added constraints of mandated social distancing guidelines of the coronavirus pandemic, caused us to search for concrete answers to these new directives that would lead us to either sink or swim in this new ocean of learning.

Claude Bernard, a 19th-century French physiologist, remarked that “it is what we think we know already that often prevents us from learning.” This educational concept was true with our efforts to modify a successful ultrasound in medical education curriculum and transform it into a case-based learning approach for a condensed 18-month pre-clerkship ultrasound curriculum.

How we had conducted ultrasound labs previously would have to be revisited, revised, and revamped to transform the curriculum successfully.

Planning began to modify the ultrasound curriculum for the 18-month pre-clerkship experience approximately 2 years before the pandemic was even on the horizon. In-person meetings were held with fellow faculty to discuss and debate the patient-centered learning course’s mission and goals and where the ultrasound curriculum would be housed. Our discussions took place with ease, and ideas for collaboration easily flowed. Plans were made for in-person, hands-on scanning where students scanned each other, volunteers, or standardized patients, without giving any thought to the physical contact.

There was no thought to the exam rooms’ square footage or how students would enter and exit the ultrasound center. Live introductory lectures at the onset of each lab were planned for 25–30 students to introduce the case and review the scanning techniques and logistics for each lab session. The planning included no discussion of online learning or simulated scanning for students from a remote location. Ultrasound instruction would proceed into the new curriculum with a slight modification to how ultrasound content had been previously delivered.

Then, while finalizing our plans for a start date of August 2020, all in-person instruction was suspended for our institution. It was mid-March, and we had a nearly solidified sketch of the ultrasound lab logistics and learning methods for the inaugural class of the 3-year medical school and the 18-month pre-clerkship curriculum.

Nevertheless, that suddenly changed, and the uncertainty of instructing anyone in-person to do any part of the curriculum was up for discussion. The faculty was mandated to work from home away from the ultrasound center with its hand-held systems, full-size ultrasound machines, and simulation capabilities. Student interactions were reduced to phone calls, emails, and video interactions within online course offerings as each student cohort was scattered throughout the 159 counties of our state.

Learning to conduct curriculum meetings through online platforms filled our days. Trying to accomplish fully online ultrasound electives with a plethora of students and revamp the new ultrasound curriculum within the changing coronavirus guidelines stayed on our minds as we struggled through the spring and early summer.

Nevertheless, we made it!

When the inaugural class of the new pre-clerkship curriculum began, we laid out a plan to keep students, staff, and faculty safe through the 3W’s: wearing a mask, watching physical distance, and hand washing.

Facilities management personnel had surveyed our ultrasound exam rooms and learning spaces and posted how many students could be in each room. Hand sanitation stations and masks were made available for students as they entered the ultrasound center. Signage and arrows were erected to direct students in and out of the ultrasound center in a one-way fashion. An online meeting platform was set up in each exam room for students to hear live instruction before beginning the lab. Instructors utilized a laser point at each room’s door to direct student scanning and maintain social distancing. Students used hand-held ultrasound equipment with image transfer capabilities to obtain images needed to complete their online case-based ultrasound assignments. Although these safety measures were not visualized in our early curriculum planning meetings, the ultrasound curriculum was successfully delivered!

While we did not meet the goal of remote hands-on ultrasound instruction for all ultrasound labs during the pandemic, we learned to conduct in-person ultrasound scanning labs safely and effectively within a new accelerated medical school curriculum. The constraints and trials of a global pandemic did not preclude us from putting aside what we already knew and navigating a new course into the future!

Headshot photograph of the post author, Rebecca J. Etheridge. She is shown in front of a gray background wearing a blue suit jacket and has shoulder-length red-brown hair.

Rebecca J. Etheridge, EdD, RDMS, is an assistant professor at the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University.

Interested in learning more about ultrasound education? Check out the following posts from the Scan:

POCUS in COVID-19—Clutch or Not So Much?

Posted on by
2

Health care workers see patients with undifferentiated symptoms day and night in emergency departments, hospitals, and outpatient clinics, so we are hard-pressed to identify symptoms that are NOT part of the constellation of symptoms seen with COVID-19. Practically speaking, any patient we encounter is likely to have one or more of the symptoms, which include incredibly common findings such as fever, chills, cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, headache, myalgias, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and rash!

A Critical Question Exists: How Might Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) Be Best Utilized in This Pandemic?

While data is still being collected and definite answers may not be attainable, we seek to outline a few scenarios where POCUS may greatly aid every-day patient care.

No Test or Slow Test Scenario

While COVID-19 testing is more available than early in the pandemic, there are still communities in the U.S. and worldwide that lack access to testing or expeditious results. A prior post on AIUM’s The Scan, “My Sonography Experience With COVID-19”, (https://aiumthescan.blog/2020/04/21/my-sonography-experience-with-covid-19/) by Yale Tung Chen, MD, PhD, details common POCUS findings that may aid in diagnosing COVID-19 when tests or test results are not available.1

POCUS offers greater sensitivity for COVID-19 pneumonia than CXR and is safer (no ionizing radiation) and more cost-effective in comparison to CT imaging of the chest.2

Is This Patient’s Shortness of Breath Due to COVID-19 Pneumonia?

The differential diagnosis of a patient with undifferentiated shortness of breath can be broad. It includes not just COVID-19 pneumonia, but also pulmonary embolism, heart failure, pericarditis, pericardial effusion/tamponade, pneumothorax, and many more.

POCUS can reliably exclude decreased left ventricular ejection fraction, pericardial effusion, and pneumothorax, often rapidly shortening the differential. And POCUS findings of right heart strain may help direct clinicians toward further testing for pulmonary embolism (PE) or the use of thrombolytics in patients in extremis. Detection of a deep venous thrombosis (DVT) may serve as a proxy for diagnosing PE in a patient with shortness of breath or chest pain with a high probability of PE.

As has long been recognized but is reinforced in the COVID-19 pandemic, the ability to detect these pathologies at the bedside makes POCUS an invaluable tool for patients who are too critically ill to be transported for further diagnostic studies.

POCUS Takes One for the Team, Limiting Healthcare Worker Exposure

Limiting the number of people involved in the hands-on care of a patient with COVID-19 is an important principle in reducing healthcare worker (HCW) exposure.

In another previous post on The Scan, “How the COVID-19 Pandemic Has Changed Your Practice”, Margarita V. Revzin, MD, MS, detailed the time-intensive protocols that are in place to protect both the patients receiving and the HCWs performing ultrasound exams in the radiology department (https://aiumthescan.blog/2020/12/15/how-the-covid-19-pandemic-has-changed-your-practice/).

The ability of POCUS to answer binary clinical questions may help limit the exposure of HCWs who are not part of the primary team for the infected patients. In POCUS, the ultrasound exam is performed by a provider responsible for the comprehensive care of the patient—in essence, one of the HCWs who is primarily caring for the patient. When POCUS is able to definitively answer the clinical question at the bedside, additional imaging studies may be unnecessary, thus reducing the number of consulting providers exposed to a patient with COVID-19.

POCUS as the Great Prognosticator

The lung ultrasound findings of COVID-19 pneumonia precede findings on physical exam and x-ray imaging. Therefore, ultrasound could be used as a screening tool and additional data point in triaging patients and determining if they can be treated as an outpatient or admitted to the hospital.

Studies have suggested that infero-posterior lung POCUS findings are most sensitive for the diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia but that anterior lung findings best predict the need for non-invasive ventilation support while hospitalized.3

In addition, calculation of a lung ultrasound score (LUS) may help quantify severity of disease, with higher LUS predicting invasive ventilatory support need, ARDS, and death.4

The Future

POCUS is unique. It is the imaging modality that most easily incorporates into telehealth via remote guidance. As the role of POCUS in diagnosis, monitoring, and prognostication in pulmonary disease is better defined, it may play a role in determining care plans for patients seeking care via telehealth while minimizing COVID-19 exposure for both HCWs and patients.5,6

Furthermore, combining handheld ultrasound devices with novel artificial intelligence algorithms may allow for the automation of diagnosis and monitoring as described in a prior blog post by Alper Yilmaz, PhD, “Using AI and Ultrasound to Diagnose COVID-19 Faster” (https://aiumthescan.blog/2020/08/11/using-ai-and-ultrasound-to-diagnose-covid-19-faster/).

References

  1. Soldati G, Smargiassi A, Inchingolo R, et al. Proposal for international standardization of the use of lung ultrasound for patients with COVID-19: a simple, quantitative, reproducible method. J Ultrasound Med. 2020 Jul;39(7):1413-1419. doi: 10.1002/jum.15285. Epub 2020 Apr 13. PMID: 32227492; PMCID: PMC7228287.
  2. Peng QY, Wang XT, Zhang LN; Chinese Critical Care Ultrasound Study Group (CCUSG). Findings of lung ultrasonography of novel corona virus pneumonia during the 2019-2020 epidemic. Intensive Care Med. 2020 May;46(5):849-850. doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-05996-6. Epub 2020 Mar 12. PMID: 32166346; PMCID: PMC7080149.
  3. Castelao J, Graziani D, Soriano JB, Izquierdo JL. Findings and prognostic value of lung ultrasound in COVID-19 pneumonia. J Ultrasound Med. 2020 Sep 16. doi: 10.1002/jum.15508. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 32936491.
  4. Ji L, Cao C, Gao Y, et al. Prognostic value of bedside lung ultrasound score in patients with COVID-19. Crit Care. 2020 Dec 22;24(1):700. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03416-1. PMID: 33353548; PMCID: PMC7754180.
  5. Kirkpatrick AW, McKee JL, Volpicelli G, Ma IWY. The potential for remotely mentored patient-performed home self-monitoring for new onset alveolar-interstitial lung disease. Telemed J E Health. 2020 Oct;26(10):1304-1307. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2020.0078. Epub 2020 Jul 10. PMID: 32654656.
  6. Kirkpatrick AW, McKee JL. Re: “Proposal for International Standardization of the Use of Lung Ultrasound for Patients With COVID-19: A Simple, Quantitative, Reproducible Method”-Could Telementoring of Lung Ultrasound Reduce Health Care Provider Risks, Especially for Paucisymptomatic Home-Isolating Patients? J Ultrasound Med. 2021 Jan;40(1):211-212. doi: 10.1002/jum.15390. Epub 2020 Jul 8. PMID: 32639037; PMCID: PMC7362148.

Jennifer Carnell, Tobias Kummer, and Arun Nagdev are the leaders (2020–2022) of the AIUM Point-of-Care Ultrasound Community. Jennifer Carnell is the Secretary, Tobias Kummer is the Vice-Chair, and Arun Nagdev Arun is the Chair.

Interested in learning more about POCUS? Check out the following posts from the Scan:

The Role of Musculoskeletal Ultrasound in Sports Injuries

Posted on by
2

Approximately 20% of the U.S. population engaged in sports or exercise on a daily basis from 2010–2019.1 As expected, exercise and sports-related injuries are common, not only in the elite athlete but also in the general population. These injuries frequently lead to sport participation absence (SPA) and often, contact with the health care system. Although history and physical examination are the primary tools of diagnosis, musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSK US) has become the “stethoscope” for evaluation of sports medicine patients.

Even though MSK US has been widely used in Canada and Europe for years, the dramatic utilization increase in the United States has only occurred over the last two decades.2, 3 Between 2003 and 2015, there was a 347% increase in total MSK US volume within the Medicare population.3 The growth in subspecialties such as physical medicine and rehabilitation, rheumatology, and sports medicine has outpaced the growth in radiology. This Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) by clinicians may help facilitate diagnosis, expedite treatment planning, and reduce patient wait time and number of visits by offering one-stop clinics. 

Cristy Nicole French, MD
Cristy Nicole French, MD

POCUS can be quite useful to evaluate sports injuries. Propelled by advances in technology, the advent of compact, portable, and more affordable ultrasound machines may facilitate prompt diagnosis of sports injuries on the field and in the training room. The real-time nature of ultrasound provides the opportunity to interact with the athlete and correlate symptoms with sonographic findings. Patients enjoy this opportunity to “share their story” and often provide critical information to the diagnostic puzzle. They also appreciate the immediate findings the physician may be able to provide at the time of imaging. In fact, most patients actually prefer ultrasound to MRI.4 Other unique advantages of MSK US for sports imaging are the ability to easily assess the contralateral side as a control and the capability for dynamic imaging. Ultrasound guidance can also improve accuracy in targeted percutaneous injection therapies.4 Sports clinicians often encounter a treatment gap for a substantial percentage of young, active patients with a strong desire to return to activity, yet for whom conservative measures have failed and surgery is not indicated. Fueled by media coverage of the treatment of high-profile professional athletes, the field of orthobiologics has exploded in recent years. Ultrasound can provide target localization during administration of a wide array of injectable agents (prolotherapy, autologous whole blood, and platelet-rich plasma) in addition to image-guided peritendinous corticosteroid injections, tendon needling or fenestration, and even percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy (Tenex).

With the development of high-frequency transducers, MSK US has equal diagnostic accuracy to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for evaluation of many superficial tendon and ligament abnormalities. In the current era of cost containment, the utilization of MSK US as an alternative to other more expensive imaging modalities may represent an effective way to save healthcare dollars.5, 6 However, many issues related to accuracy, observer variability, and high-quality training need to be considered, aside from pure economics, to ensure that MSK US is ethically and adequately performed in the best interest of patient care.

As any of us who have picked up a transducer know, some of the most significant disadvantages of ultrasound are the relatively long learning curve and inherent operator dependence. These challenges are compounded in MSK US by the complex anatomy, pathology, and terminology not often included in general ultrasound education programs. Dedicated training and standardized technique can minimize these limitations. Many subspecialty residency and fellowship programs have recognized the necessity of standardized, high-quality training and have strategically designed curricula to become proficient in the core competencies of MSK US.

In recent years, quantitative ultrasound methods, such as shear-wave elastography (SWE) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound, have emerged as an adjunct tool to standard B-mode imaging in the evaluation of various structures throughout the body. In particular, SWE has seen an exponential increase in the number of musculoskeletal applications. Shear-wave elastography can assess tissue stiffness by applying a mechanical stress that generates shear waves, which then travel through the tissue at a speed proportional to its stiffness. By quantifying mechanical and elastic tissue properties, SWE may provide important information about pre-clinical injuries in musculoskeletal tissues as well as tissue healing after injury. Although SWE is FDA-approved on most ultrasound platforms, its use for clinical imaging in musculoskeletal ultrasound has lagged behind research due to lack of standardization in study protocols, techniques, and outcomes measures. Nonetheless, SWE has a promising role in the future of ultrasonography in sports medicine and may help practitioners to better estimate injury severity and individualize the retraining plan for the injured athlete.

References

  1. Hauret KG, Bedno S, Loringer K, Kao TC, Mallon T, Jones BH. Epidemiology of Exercise- and Sports-Related Injuries in a Population of Young, Physically Active Adults: A Survey of Military Servicemembers. Am J Sports Med. Nov 2015;43(11):2645-53. doi:10.1177/0363546515601990
  2. Sharpe RE, Nazarian LN, Parker L, Rao VM, Levin DC. Dramatically increased musculoskeletal ultrasound utilization from 2000 to 2009, especially by podiatrists in private offices. J Am Coll Radiol. Feb 2012;9(2):141-6. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2011.09.008
  3. Kanesa-Thasan RM, Nazarian LN, Parker L, Rao VM, Levin DC. Comparative Trends in Utilization of MRI and Ultrasound to Evaluate Nonspine Joint Disease 2003 to 2015. J Am Coll Radiol. Mar 2018;15(3 Pt A):402-407. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2017.10.015
  4. Nazarian LN. The top 10 reasons musculoskeletal sonography is an important complementary or alternative technique to MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Jun 2008;190(6):1621-6. doi:10.2214/ajr.07.3385
  5. Parker L, Nazarian LN, Carrino JA, et al. Musculoskeletal imaging: medicare use, costs, and potential for cost substitution. J Am Coll Radiol. Mar 2008;5(3):182-8. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2007.07.016
  6. Bureau NJ, Ziegler D. Economics of Musculoskeletal Ultrasound. Curr Radiol Rep. 2016;4:44. doi:10.1007/s40134-016-0169-5

Dr. Cristy French (Twitter: @cristy_french) is an Associate Professor in the Division of Musculoskeletal Radiology at Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. She is the Director of Musculoskeletal Ultrasound as well as the Musculoskeletal Fellowship Director.

Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Pregnant Patients?

Posted on by
1

Point-of-care ultrasound, or POCUS, has become fully incorporated into almost every aspect of clinical care over the past 5 years. COVID-19 has further solidified the use of POCUS for the evaluation of dyspnea and cough given its portability. But what about the use of POCUS for a woman during pregnancy?

Ultrasound has been consistently employed to evaluate the fetus in all 3 trimesters. There is another patient, though; the mother! Rising maternal morbidity and mortality secondary to cardiovascular disease requires the obstetrical care provider to employ point-of-care clinical assessment that targets the maternal cardiovascular system.  This is the problem and the solution may be “getting a CLUE” by implementing cardiac limited ultrasound evaluation (CLUE) at the bedside as suggested by Kimura et al.

In contrast to fetal imaging, which utilizes higher frequency transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound probes, penetration of the chest wall requires a lower frequency probe (2–4 mHz). Ideally, a low frequency probe that is compatible with most commonly used obstetrical equipment would facilitate ease of utilization. The CLUE protocol employs the following views: parasternal long axis view, lung anteroapex view, lung posterolateral base view, subcostal view, and right sub-xyphoid view. These views allow the clinician to evaluate the patient for pathophysiologic findings including the presence of pleural or pericardial effusion; abnormal contractility, chamber enlargement, and valvular dysfunction. Assessment of the size and collapsibility of the inferior vena cava can be a noninvasive marker of right-sided filling pressures to evaluate volume status in an oliguric patient with preeclampsia.

I propose that CLUE be extrapolated from the non-pregnant patient population for applicability in the pregnant patient population. This may be particularly relevant in certain scenarios including: triage of pregnant women with cardiac symptoms in an outpatient or in-patient setting as an adjunct to the physical exam; and labor and delivery units with lack, or limited immediate availability, of formal echocardiography. While anecdotal case experience suggest utility, formal studies designed to compare CLUE in pregnancy to the gold standard of transthoracic echocardiography will confirm the feasibility of CLUE in this unique population. Even though obstetricians are trained to perform obstetrical and gynecologic ultrasound, and are well versed with the existing ultrasound equipment on their units, additional training may be required. In addition to obstetrical care providers, other clinicians, such as emergency room and internal medicine providers, may also perform CLUE to assess the maternal cardiopulmonary system.

Limitations of point-of-care cardiac examination of the heart include both patient characteristics and technique. Large body mass size and enlarged breast tissue common in pregnancy can lead to imaging acquisition challenges. Off-axis imaging technique can lead to false positive or false negative diagnoses. Patient positioning should be optimized and shifted to left lateral tilt to accommodate aortocaval compression.

CLUE demonstrates potential as an innovative diagnostic point-of-care technique that can be adapted to maternal use. Timely future clinical studies that compare CLUE with formal echocardiography during pregnancy will further clarify its feasibility and full utility in the clinical arena as a tool to combat rising maternal morbidity in the new millennium.

  1. Kimura BJ, Shaw DJ, Amundson SA, Phan JN, Blanchard DG, DeMaria AN. Cardiac Limited Ultrasound Examination Techniques to Augment the Bedside Cardiac Physical Examination. J Ultrasound Med. 2015;34:1683–1690.

Carolyn M. Zelop, MD, is a Director of Perinatal Ultrasound and Research at The Valley Hospital, Ridgewood, New Jersey; a Clinical Professor of Ob/ Gyn at NYU School of Medicine; and she is a senior member of the AIUM and the ACOG rep to women’s imaging for ACR.

Interested in learning more about ultrasound and pregnancy? Check out the following posts from the Scan: