Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-rxvq6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-16T01:37:18.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rapid Ultrasonography for Shock and Hypotension Protocol Performed using Handheld Ultrasound Devices by Paramedics in a Moving Ambulance: Evaluation of Image Accuracy and Time in Motion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2024

Burcu Azapoglu Kaymak Open the ORCID record for Burcu Azapoglu Kaymak [Opens in a new window]  and
Merve Eksioglu Open the ORCID record for Merve Eksioglu [Opens in a new window]
Burcu Azapoglu Kaymak*
Affiliation:
University of Health Sciences, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Education and Research Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
Merve Eksioglu
Affiliation:
University of Health Sciences, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Education and Research Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
*
Correspondence: Burcu Azapoglu Kaymak, MD University of Health Sciences Fatih Sultan Mehmet Education and Research Hospital Department of Emergency Medicine Atasehir-Istanbul TURKEY E-mail: burcuazapkaymak@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Handheld ultrasound (US) devices have become increasingly popular since the early 2000s due to their portability and affordability compared to conventional devices. The Rapid Ultrasonography for Shock and Hypotension (RUSH) protocol, introduced in 2009, has shown promising accuracy rates when performed with handheld devices. However, there are limited data on the accuracy of such examinations performed in a moving ambulance. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and accuracy of the RUSH protocol performed by paramedics using handheld US devices in a moving ambulance.

Objectives:

The study aimed to examine the performability of the RUSH protocol with handheld US devices in a moving ambulance and to evaluate the accuracy of diagnostic views obtained within an appropriate time frame.

Methods:

A prospective study was conducted with paramedics who underwent theoretical and practical training in the RUSH protocol. The participants performed the protocol using a handheld US device in both stationary and moving ambulances. Various cardiac and abdominal views were obtained and evaluated for accuracy. The duration of the protocol performance was recorded for each participant.

Results:

Nine paramedics completed the study, with 18 performances each in both stationary and moving ambulance groups. The accuracy of diagnostic views obtained during the RUSH protocol did not significantly differ between the stationary and moving groups. However, the duration of protocol performance was significantly shorter in the moving group compared to the stationary group.

Conclusion:

Paramedics demonstrated the ability to perform the RUSH protocol effectively using handheld US devices in both stationary and moving ambulances following standard theoretical and practical training. The findings suggest that ambulance movement does not significantly affect the accuracy of diagnostic views obtained during the protocol. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to validate these findings and explore the potential benefits of prehospital US in dynamic environments.

Keywords

handheld ultrasoundparamedicprehospital ultrasonographyRUSH protocol

Information

Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , February 2025 , pp. 53 - 58
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Stock, KF, Klein, B, Steubl, D, et al. Comparison of a pocket-size ultrasound device with a premium ultrasound machine: diagnostic value and time required in bedside ultrasound examination. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40(7):2861–2866.Google ScholarPubMed
Sforza, A, Mancusi, C, Carlino, MV, et al. Diagnostic performance of multi-organ ultrasound with pocket-sized device in the management of acute dyspnea. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2017;15(1):16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dewar, ZE, Wu, J, Hughes, H, et al. A comparison of handheld ultrasound versus traditional ultrasound for acquisition of RUSH views in healthy volunteers. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2020;1(6):1320–1325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perera, P, Mailhot, T, Riley, D, Mandavia, D. The RUSH exam: rapid ultrasound in SHock in the evaluation of the critically ill. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2010;28(1):29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varndell, W, Topacio, M, Hagness, C, Lemon, H, Tracy, D. Nurse-performed focused ultrasound in the emergency department: a systematic review. Australas Emerg Care. 2018;21(4):121–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Unlüer, EE, Yavaşi, O, Kara, PH, et al. Paramedic-performed focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) in the emergency department. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2011;17(2):113–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karakuş, B, Çevik, E, Doğan, H, Sam, M, Kutur, A. 112 emergency medical service in the metropolis. J Istanb Fac Med. 2014;77(3):37–44.Google Scholar
Maloney, LM, Williams, DW, Reardon, L, et al. Utility of different lung ultrasound simulation modalities used by paramedics during varied ambulance driving conditions. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2021;36(1):42–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kowalczyk, D, Turkowiak, M, Piotrowski, WJ, Rosiak, O, Białas, AJ. Ultrasound on the frontlines: empowering paramedics with lung ultrasound for dyspnea diagnosis in adults—a pilot study. Diagnostics. 2023;13(22):3412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chin, EJ, Chan, CH, Mortazavi, R, et al. A pilot study examining the viability of a prehospital assessment with ultrasound for emergencies (PAUSE) protocol. J Emerg Med. 2013;44(1):142–149.Google ScholarPubMed
Heegaard, W, Hildebrandt, D, Spear, D, Chason, K, Nelson, B, Ho, J. Prehospital ultrasound by paramedics: results of field trial. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17(6):624–630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schoeneck, JH, Coughlin, RF, Baloescu, C, et al. Paramedic-performed prehospital point-of-care ultrasound for patients with undifferentiated dyspnea: a pilot study. West J Emerg Med. 2021;22(3):750–755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mark, DG, Ku, BS, Carr, BG, et al. Directed bedside transthoracic echocardiography: preferred cardiac window for left ventricular ejection fraction estimation in critically ill patients. Am J Emerg Med. 2007;25(8):894–900.Google ScholarPubMed
Chisholm, CB, Dodge, WR, Balise, RR, Williams, SR, Gharahbaghian, L, Beraud, AS. Focused cardiac ultrasound training: how much is enough? J Emerg Med. 2013;44(4):818–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snaith, B, Hardy, M, Walker, A. Emergency ultrasound in the prehospital setting: the impact of environment on examination outcomes. Emerg Med J. 2011;28(12):1063–1065.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simmons, CJ, Mack, LD, Cronin, AJ, Monti, JD, Perreault, MD, Ahern, BJ. FAST performance in a stationary versus In-motion military ambulance utilizing handheld ultrasound: a randomized controlled study. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2020;35(6):632–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brun, PM, Bessereau, J, Chenaitia, H, et al. Stay and play eFAST or scoop and run eFAST? That is the question! Am J Emerg Med. 2014;32(2):166–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed