4.5 Article

Stay and play eFAST or scoop and run eFAST? That is the question!

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 32, 期 2, 页码 166-170

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2013.11.008

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The concept that ultrasonography could be interesting in the prehospital setting and during the transfer of traumatized patients is not new. Paradoxically, there is a lack of description of routine use of ultrasonography in emergency ambulances. The aim of this study was to compare the feasibility and efficiency of an extended focused assessment sonography for trauma (eFAST) examination performed on-site, during the patient's transfer, or both. Materials and methods: From February 2010 to June 2012, 30 prehospital emergency physicians were divided randomly into 3 groups. Group 1 performed an ultrasound examination on-site; group 2, during patient transfer; and group 3, in both settings. The eFAST examination was systematically performed in all severe traumas. Results: Ninety-eight patients were included. Forty-four eFAST examinations were performed on-site only; 33, only during transport; and 21, in both settings. The feasibility was 95.4%, 93.9%, and 95.2%, respectively, and efficiency, 95%, 97%, and 100%, respectively. There was no significant difference in performance or duration whether the examination was performed on-site, during the transfer, or both (w = 0.68). Last but not least, in 2 cases in group 3, the second examination carried out during transfer showed new results with the occurrence of intraperitoneal effusion in one case and a pleural effusion in the other. Conclusions: The eFAST examination can provide reliable and important information in the initial evaluation of traumatized patients. It can be completed either on-site or during patient transfer. Its feasibility and efficiency are similar to that done in intensive units, especially if the examination is repeated. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据