MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395046401 · doi:10.24908/pocus.v9i1.16668

Emergency Physician Performed Ultrasound-Guided Abdominal Paracentesis: A Retrospective Analysis

2024· article· en· W4395046401 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brandon M Wubben, Jad Dandashi, Omar Rizvi, Srikar Adhikari

Bibliographic record

VenuePOCUS Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthAmerican Institute of Ultrasound in MedicineU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsMedicineUltrasoundEmergency ultrasoundEmergency departmentPoint of care ultrasoundRadiologyFocused assessment with sonography for traumaEmergency medicineEmergency physicianAbdominal traumaNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Emergency physicians commonly perform ultrasound-assisted abdominal paracentesis, using point of care ultrasound (POCUS) to identify ascites and select a site for needle insertion. However, ultrasound-guided paracentesis has the benefit of real-time needle visualization during the entire procedure. Our objective was to characterize the performance of emergency physician-performed ultrasound-guided paracentesis using POCUS, their ability to achieve good in-plane needle visualization, and factors associated with procedural success. METHODS: A POCUS database was retrospectively reviewed for examinations where abdominal paracentesis was performed by an emergency physician at two academic urban emergency departments over a six-year period. Medical records were reviewed for demographics, presenting history, complications, and hospital course. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. RESULTS: 131 patients were included in the final analysis. The success rate for ultrasound-guided paracentesis was 97.7% (84/86 [95% CI: 92-100%]) compared to 95.6% (43/45 [95% CI: 85-99%]) for ultrasound-assisted paracentesis (p=0.503). 58% (50/86) demonstrated good in-plane needle visualization; 17% (15/86) had partial or out-of-plane visualization; and 24% (21/86) did not demonstrate needle visibility on their saved POCUS images. All four procedural failures were performed by first- or second-year residents using a curvilinear transducer, while all procedures using a linear transducer were successful. The most common complications were ascites leak, infection at the site, and minor bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency physicians with training in real-time needle guidance with ultrasound were able to use POCUS to perform ultrasound-guided paracentesis in the emergency department with a high success rate and no fatal complications. Based on our experience, we recommend performing ultrasound-guided paracentesis using a linear transducer, with attention to identifying vessels near the procedure site and maintaining sterile technique.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePOCUS JournalSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207