Acquisition and retention of lung ultrasound skills by respiratory therapists: A curriculum for respiratory therapists

Purpose: Lung point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a versatile bedside tool. The utility of POCUS has grown during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, as it allows clinicians to obtain real-time images without requiring transport of the patient outside the intensive care unit. As respiratory therapists (RTs) are involved in caring for those with respiratory failure, there is a good rationale for their adoption of lung ultrasound. However, no training standards have been defined. Our objective was to develop and implement a training programme for RTs to achieve and sustain competence in lung ultrasound. Methods: This was a single-centre, prospective, single-cohort observational study. A total of 10 RTs completed our curriculum and were tasked with independently completing and interpreting 10 initial lung ultrasound exams and 3 subsequent exams after a 6-week interim period. All exams were blindly overread by a local expert in lung ultrasound. Results: After completing the curriculum, RTs were able to acquire and accurately interpret their images over 85% of the time. They were more successful in the upper lung zone image acquisition and interpretation compared with the lower lung zones. After 6 weeks, the RTs’ lung POCUS skills remained stable, and their lower lung zone image interpretation improved. The RTs reported that their confidence improved throughout the study. Conclusion: The RTs in our study have demonstrated competence in acquisition and interpretation of upper lung zone images. They have also reported confidence in acquiring and interpreting upper lung zone images. More experience appears to be required to gain competence and confidence in lower lung zone ultrasound. Next steps would be to repeat the present study with a higher number of RTs completing at least 20 lung POCUS studies

Point-of-care ultrasonography for the diagnosis of testicular torsion: A practical resident curriculum

Background: Prompt Doppler ultrasonography to aid in diagnosis is often key to managing testicular torsion, but there may be delays in access; a faster, more widely available alternative is point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS). The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate a scrotal POCUS curriculum for urology and emergency medicine residents. Methods: Content experts in urology, emergency medicine and diagnostic imaging collaborated in a modified Delphi method to design a practical didactic curriculum for scrotal POCUS for the identification of testicular torsion. Training included 3 online video teaching modules and a 1-hour hands-on teaching session with standardized adult patients. We evaluated participants\u27 competency in scrotal POCUS using a validated scale. We assessed participants\u27 knowledge, comfort and confidence in performing scrotal POCUS before and after the intervention and at 3 months. Results: Twenty-four urology (n = 12) and emergency medicine (n = 12) residents participated in the curriculum. After hands-on practice, 23 participants (96%) were deemed competent at scrotal POCUS. Pre-post testing showed significant improvement in knowledge (mean score 63% v. 80%, p \u3c 0.001), comfort (mean Likert score 0.6 v. 3.6, p \u3c 0.001) and confidence (mean Likert score 1.0 v. 2.1, p \u3c 0.001) after the intervention. These effects were maintained at the 3-month assessment. Conclusion: The scrotal POCUS curriculum was effective and acceptable to both urology and emergency medicine residents. The findings suggest that scrotal POCUS can be learned effectively through a short hands-on session and didactic instruction

Long-term results of protocol kidney biopsy directing steroid withdrawal in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant patients

Introduction: We sought to determine whether protocol biopsies could be used to guide treatment and improve outcomes in simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) patients. Methods: Between 2004 and 2013, protocol biopsies were performed on SPK patients at 3–6 months and one year post-transplant. Maintenance immunosuppression consisted of a calcineurin inhibitor, anti-proliferative agent, and corticosteroid. Corticosteroid was withdrawn in negative early biopsies, maintained in subclinical/ borderline biopsies, and increased if Banff IB or greater rejection was identified. Endpoints included presence of interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy on biopsy at one year (IF/TA), rejection episodes, and renal and pancreas function at five years’ followup. Results: Forty-one SPK transplant patients were reviewed and a total of 75 protocol biopsies were identified. On early biopsy, 51% had negative biopsies, 44% had borderline rejection, and 5% had subclinical rejection. Renal and pancreas function were not significantly different at one, two, and five years post-transplant between negative vs. borderline early biopsy patients. No difference in the degree of IF/TA was found between these two groups. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate protocol biopsies as an investigative tool prior to steroid withdrawal in SPK patients. Our study suggests that there are no detrimental functional or histological effects at five years post-transplant, despite weaning steroids in the negative biopsy group

T2K neutrino flux prediction

cited By 15 art_number: 012001 affiliation: Centre for Particle Physics, Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics, Laboratory for High Energy Physics (LHEP), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Department of Physics, Boston University, Boston, MA, United States; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States; IRFU, CEA Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France; Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, South Korea; Department of Physics, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, United States; Department of Physics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States; Department of Physics, Dongshin University, Naju, South Korea; Department of Physics, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States; IN2P3-CNRS, Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France; Institute for Particle Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Section de Physique, DPNC, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics PAN, Cracow, Poland; High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan; Institut de Fisica d’Altes Energies (IFAE), Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain; IFIC (CSIC and University of Valencia), Valencia, Spain; Department of Physics, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom; INFN Sezione di Bari, Dipartimento Interuniversitario di Fisica, Università e Politecnico di Bari, Bari, Italy; INFN Sezione di Napoli and Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Napoli, Napoli, Italy; INFN Sezione di Padova, Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Padova, Padova, Italy; INFN Sezione di Roma, Università di Roma la Sapienza, Roma, Italy; Institute for Nuclear Research, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation; Kobe University, Kobe, Japan; Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan; Physics Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom; Department of Physics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom; Department of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, United States; Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, IPN Lyon (IN2P3), Villeurbanne, France; Department of Physics, Miyagi University of Education, Sendai, Japan; National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland; State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, United States; Department of Physics and Astronomy, Osaka City University, Department of Physics, Osaka, Japan; Department of Physics, Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom; UPMC, Université Paris Diderot, Laboratoire de Physique Nucléaire et de Hautes Energies (LPNHE), Paris, France; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; School of Physics, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Physics, University of Regina, Regina, SK, Canada; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States; III. Physikalisches Institut, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany; Department of Physics and Astronomy, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom; University of Silesia, Institute of Physics, Katowice, Poland; STFC, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Oxford, Warrington, United Kingdom; Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan; Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, Kamioka Observatory, University of Tokyo, Kamioka, Japan; Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, Research Center for Cosmic Neutrinos, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Japan; Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; TRIUMF, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada; Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland; Institute of Radioelectronics, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland; Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom; Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States; Department of Physics, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, MB, Canada; Faculty of Physics and Astronomy, Wroclaw University, Wroclaw, Poland; Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada references: Astier, P., (2003) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 515, p. 800. , (NOMAD Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2003.07.054; Ahn, M., (2006) Phys. Rev. D, 74, p. 072003. , (K2K Collaboration), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.072003; Adamson, P., (2008) Phys. Rev. D, 77, p. 072002. , (MINOS Collaboration), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.072002; Aguilar-Arevalo, A., (2009) Phys. Rev. D, 79, p. 072002. , (MiniBooNE Collaboration), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.072002; (2003) Letter of Intent: Neutrino Oscillation Experiment at JHF, , http://neutrino.kek.jp/jhfnu/loi/loi_JHFcor.pdf, T2K Collaboration; Abe, K., (2011) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 659, p. 106. , (T2K Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2011.06.067; Abe, K., (2011) Phys. Rev. Lett., 107, p. 041801. , (T2K Collaboration), PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.041801; Abe, K., (2012) Phys. Rev. D, 85, p. 031103. , (T2K Collaboration), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.031103; Fukuda, Y., (2003) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 501, p. 418. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)00425-X; Beavis, D., Carroll, A., Chiang, I., (1995), Physics Design Report, BNL 52459Abgrall, N., (2011) Phys. Rev. C, 84, p. 034604. , (NA61/SHINE Collaboration), PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.034604; Abgrall, N., (2012) Phys. Rev. C, 85, p. 035210. , (NA61/SHINE Collaboration), PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.035210; Bhadra, S., (2013) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 703, p. 45. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.11.044; Van Der Meer, S., Report No. CERN-61-07Palmer, R., Report No. CERN-65-32, 141Ichikawa, A., (2012) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 690, p. 27. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.06.045; Matsuoka, K., (2010) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 624, p. 591. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2010.09.074; Abe, K., (2012) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 694, p. 211. , (T2K Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.03.023; Abgrall, N., (2011) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 637, p. 25. , (T2K ND280 TPC Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2011.02. 036; Amaudruz, P.-A., (2012) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 696, p. 1. , (T2K ND280 FGD Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.08. 020; Battistoni, G., Cerutti, F., Fasso, A., Ferrari, A., Muraro, S., Ranft, J., Roesler, S., Sala, P.R., (2007) AIP Conf. Proc., 896, p. 31. , APCPCS 0094-243X 10.1063/1.2720455; A. Ferrari, P. R. Sala, A. Fasso, and J. Ranft, Report No. CERN-2005-010A. Ferrari P. R. Sala A. Fasso J. Ranft Report No. SLAC-R-773A. Ferrari P. R. Sala A. Fasso J. Ranft Report No. INFN-TC-05-11R. Brun, F. Carminati, and S. Giani, Report No. CERN-W5013Zeitnitz, C., Gabriel, T.A., (1993) Proceedings of International Conference on Calorimetry in High Energy Physics, , in Elsevier Science B.V., Tallahassee, FL; Fasso, A., Ferrari, A., Ranft, J., Sala, P.R., Proceedings of the International Conference on Calorimetry in High Energy Physics, 1994, , in; Beringer, J., (2012) Phys. Rev. D, 86, p. 010001. , (Particle Data Group), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.010001; Eichten, T., (1972) Nucl. Phys. B, 44, p. 333. , NUPBBO 0550-3213 10.1016/0550-3213(72)90120-4; Allaby, J.V., Tech. Rep. 70-12 (CERN, 1970)Chemakin, I., (2008) Phys. Rev. C, 77, p. 015209. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.77.015209; Abrams, R.J., Cool, R., Giacomelli, G., Kycia, T., Leontic, B., Li, K., Michael, D., (1970) Phys. Rev. D, 1, p. 1917. , PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.1.1917; Allaby, J.V., (1970) Yad. Fiz., 12, p. 538. , IDFZA7 0044-0027; Allaby, J.V., (1969) Phys. Lett. B, 30, p. 500. , PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/0370-2693(69)90184-1; Allardyce, B.W., (1973) Nucl. Phys. A, 209, p. 1. , NUPABL 0375-9474 10.1016/0375-9474(73)90049-3; Bellettini, G., Cocconi, G., Diddens, A.N., Lillethun, E., Matthiae, G., Scanlon, J.P., Wetherell, A.M., (1966) Nucl. Phys., 79, p. 609. , NUPHA7 0029-5582 10.1016/0029-5582(66)90267-7; Bobchenko, B.M., (1979) Sov. J. Nucl. Phys., 30, p. 805. , SJNCAS 0038-5506; Carroll, A.S., (1979) Phys. Lett. B, 80, p. 319. , PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/0370-2693(79)90226-0; Cronin, J.W., Cool, R., Abashian, A., (1957) Phys. Rev., 107, p. 1121. , PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.107.1121; Chen, F.F., Leavitt, C., Shapiro, A., (1955) Phys. Rev., 99, p. 857. , PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.99.857; Denisov, S.P., Donskov, S.V., Gorin, Yu.P., Krasnokutsky, R.N., Petrukhin, A.I., Prokoshkin, Yu.D., Stoyanova, D.A., (1973) Nucl. Phys. B, 61, p. 62. , NUPBBO 0550-3213 10.1016/0550-3213(73)90351-9; Longo, M.J., Moyer, B.J., (1962) Phys. Rev., 125, p. 701. , PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.125.701; Vlasov, A.V., (1978) Sov. J. Nucl. Phys., 27, p. 222. , SJNCAS 0038-5506; Feynman, R., (1969) Phys. Rev. Lett., 23, p. 1415. , PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.1415; Bonesini, M., Marchionni, A., Pietropaolo, F., Tabarelli De Fatis, T., (2001) Eur. Phys. J. C, 20, p. 13. , EPCFFB 1434-6044 10.1007/s100520100656; Barton, D.S., (1983) Phys. Rev. D, 27, p. 2580. , PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.27.2580; Skubic, P., (1978) Phys. Rev. D, 18, p. 3115. , PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.18.3115; Feynman, R.P., (1972) Photon-Hadron Interactions, , Benjamin, New York; Bjorken, J.D., Paschos, E.A., (1969) Phys. Rev., 185, p. 1975. , PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.185.1975; Taylor, F.E., Carey, D., Johnson, J., Kammerud, R., Ritchie, D., Roberts, A., Sauer, J., Walker, J., (1976) Phys. Rev. D, 14, p. 1217. , PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.14.1217; Abgrall, N., (2013) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 701, p. 99. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.10.079; Hayato, Y., (2002) Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl., 112, p. 171. , NPBSE7 0920-5632 10.1016/S0920-5632(02)01759-0 correspondence_address1: Abe, K.; Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, Kamioka Observatory, University of Tokyo, Kamioka, Japan coden: PRVDA abbrev_source_title: Phys Rev D Part Fields Gravit Cosmol document_type: Article source: Scopu

First muon-neutrino disappearance study with an off-axis beam

We report a measurement of muon-neutrino disappearance in the T2K experiment. The 295-km muon-neutrino beam from Tokai to Kamioka is the first implementation of the off-axis technique in a long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment

Optimizing Care for High-Risk Multiple Pregnancy with POCUS – A Case of Quadruplet Pregnancy Early Diagnosis

Managing multiple pregnancies is challenging and requires careful evaluation. Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) has emerged as a potentially crucial tool in assessing suspected first-trimester pregnancies. However, its role in evaluating multiple pregnancies remains uncertain. We present the case of a 36-year-old Ghanaian female who presented with acute vaginal bleeding after undergoing in vitro fertilization. A bedside transabdominal POCUS identified four intrauterine gestations with fetal poles and cardiac activity, suggesting a quadruplet viable pregnancy. A subsequent transvaginal ultrasound confirmed the findings. The patient was discharged with a follow-up appointment with an Obstetrician-Gynecologist. This case highlights the significance of POCUS in early pregnancy diagnosis, facilitating accurate identification and appropriate referral for further management. It also demonstrates the utility of POCUS in determining gestational age and viability. To our knowledge, no published case reports specifically address the diagnosis of a quadruplet pregnancy, emphasizing the role of POCUS in optimizing care for high-risk multiple pregnancies

Self-administered at-home lung ultrasound with remote guidance in patients without clinical training

Abstract Background Access to timely and accurate diagnostic imaging is essential for high-quality healthcare. Point-of-care ultrasound has been shown to be accessible and effective in many aspects of healthcare, including assessing changes in lung pathology. However, few studies have examined self-administered at-home lung ultrasound (SAAH-LUS), in particular performed by non-clinical patients (NCPs). Research question Are NCPs able to perform SAAH-LUS using remote teleguidance and produce interpretable images? Study design Patients were enrolled to the study in a mix of in-person and virtual recruitment, and shipped a smartphone as well as a point of care ultrasound device. Tele-guidance was provided by a remote physician using software integrated with the point of care ultrasound device, allowing real-time remote visualization and guidance of a patient scanning their own chest. A post-intervention survey was conducted to assess patient satisfaction, feasibility, and acceptability of SAAH-LUS. Two POCUS expert reviewers reviewed the scans for interpretability, and inter-rater agreement between the two reviewers was also computed. Results Eighteen patients successfully underwent 7–14 days of daily telemedicine in parallel to daily SAAH-LUS. Across 1339 scans obtained from ten different lung zones, the average proportion of interpretability was 96% with a chance-corrected agreement, or Cohen’s kappa, reported as κ = 0.67 (significant agreement). 100% of NCPs surveyed found SAAH-LUS to be a positive experience, particularly for its ease of operation and ability to increase access to healthcare services. Interpretation This study demonstrates that NCPs can obtain interpretable LUS images at home, highlighting the potential for SAAH-LUS to increase diagnostic capacity, particularly for rural and remote regions where complex imaging and healthcare providers are difficult to obtain. Trial registration The clinical trials has been registered (clinicaltrials.gov). Registration number: NCT0496772

Point of care biliary ultrasound in the emergency department (BUSED) predicts final surgical management decisions

Objectives Gallstone disease is a common reason for emergency department (ED) presentation. Surgeons often prefer radiology department ultrasound (RUS) over point of care ultrasound (POCUS) because of perceived of unreliability. Our study was designed to test the hypothesis that POCUS is sufficient to guide the management of surgeons treating select cases of biliary disease as compared to RUS.Methods This was a prospective cohort study. Patients who presented to the ED with abdominal pain and findings of biliary disease on POCUS were included. The surgeon was then presented the case with POCUS only and recorded their management decision. Patients then proceeded to RUS, were followed through their stay, and analysis was performed to analyze the proportion of patients where the introduction of the RUS changed the management plan.Results 100 patients were included in this study, and all received both POCUS and RUS. Depending on the surgeons’ POCUS based management decisions, the patients were divided into three groups: (1) surgery, (2) duct clearance, (3) no surgery. Total bilirubin was 34±22 mmol/L in the duct clearance group vs 8.4±6.5 mmol/L and 16±12 mmol/L in the surgery and no surgery groups, respectively (p<0.05). POCUS results showed 68 patients would have been offered surgery, 21 offered duct clearance, and 11 no surgery. In 90% of cases, the introduction of RUS did not change management. The acute care surgeons elected to operate on patients more frequently than other surgical subspecialties (p<0.05).Conclusions This study showed that fewer than 10% of patients with biliary disease seen on POCUS had a change in surgical decision-making based on the addition of RUS imaging. In uncomplicated cases of biliary disease, relying on POCUS imaging for surgical decision-making has the potential to improve patient flow.Level of evidence II Prospective Cohort Study

Measurement of neutrino oscillation parameters from muon neutrino disappearance with an off-axis beam

The T2K Collaboration reports a precision measurement of muon neutrino disappearance with an off-axis neutrino beam with a peak energy of 0.6 GeV. Near detector measurements are used to constrain the neutrino flux and cross section parameters. The Super-Kamiokande far detector, which is 295 km downstream of the neutrino production target, collected data corresponding to 3.01×1020 protons on target. In the absence of neutrino oscillations, 205±17 (syst) events are expected to be detected while only 58 muon neutrino event candidates are observed. A fit to the neutrino rate and energy spectrum, assuming three neutrino flavors and normal mass hierarchy yields a best-fit mixing angle sin⁡2(θ23)=0.514±0.082 and mass splitting |Δm322|=2.44-0.15+0.17×10-3  eV2/c4. Our result corresponds to the maximal oscillation disappearance probability

Evidence of electron neutrino appearance in a muon neutrino beam

The T2K collaboration reports evidence for electron neutrino appearance at the atmospheric mass splitting, |\Delta m_{32}^2|=2.4x10^{-3} eV^2. An excess of electron neutrino interactions over background is observed from a muon neutrino beam with a peak energy of 0.6 GeV at the Super-Kamiokande (SK) detector 295 km from the beam's origin. Signal and background predictions are constrained by data from near detectors located 280 m from the neutrino production target. We observe 11 electron neutrino candidate events at the SK detector when a background of 3.3\pm0.4(syst.) events is expected. The background-only hypothesis is rejected with a p-value of 0.0009 (3.1\sigma), and a fit assuming \nu_{\mu}->\nu_e oscillations with sin^2(2\theta_{23})=1, \delta_{CP}=0 and |\Delta m_{32}^2|=2.4x10^{-3} eV^2 yields sin^2(2\theta_{13})=0.088^{+0.049}_{-0.039}(stat.+syst.)