Prehospital portable ultrasound for safe and accurate prehospital needle thoracostomy: a pilot educational study

Zachary E Dewar; Stephanie Ko; Cameron Rogers; Alexis Oropallo; Andrew Augustine; Ankitha Pamula; Christopher L Berry

doi:10.1186/s13089-022-00270-w

Prehospital portable ultrasound for safe and accurate prehospital needle thoracostomy: a pilot educational study

Ultrasound J. 2022 Jun 13;14(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s13089-022-00270-w.

Authors

Zachary E Dewar¹, Stephanie Ko^{2

3}, Cameron Rogers⁴, Alexis Oropallo², Andrew Augustine², Ankitha Pamula², Christopher L Berry²

Affiliations

¹ Department of Emergency Medicine, Guthrie Robert Packer Hospital, One Guthrie Square, Sayre, PA, 18840, USA. zachary.dewar@guthrie.org.
² Department of Emergency Medicine, Guthrie Robert Packer Hospital, One Guthrie Square, Sayre, PA, 18840, USA.
³ Wilkes University, 84 West South Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 18766, USA.
⁴ Greater Valley EMS, 904 North Lehigh Ave, Sayre, PA, 18840, USA.

Abstract

Background: Simulated needle thoracostomy (NT) using ultrasound may reduce potential injury, increase accuracy, and be as rapid to perform as the traditional landmark technique following a brief educational session. Our objective was to determine if the use of an educational session demonstrating the use of handheld ultrasound to Emergency Medical Services (EMS) staff to facilitate NT was both feasible, and an effective way of increasing the safety and efficacy of this procedure for rural EMS providers.

Methods: A pre/post-educational intervention on a convenience sample of rural North American EMS paramedics and nurses. Measurement of location and estimated depth of placement of needle thoracostomy with traditional landmark technique was completed and then repeated using handheld ultrasound following a training session on thoracic ultrasound and correct placement of NT.

Results: A total of 30 EMS practitioners participated. Seven were female (23.3%). There was a higher frequency of dangerous structures underlying the chosen location with the landmark technique 9/60 (15%) compared to the ultrasound technique 1/60 (1.7%) (p = 0.08). Mean time-to-site-selection for the landmark technique was shorter than the ultrasound technique at 10.7 s (range 3.35-45 s) vs. 19.9 s (range 7.8-50 s), respectively (p < 0.001). There was a lower proportion of correct location selection for the landmark technique 40/60 (66.7%) when compared to the ultrasound technique 51/60 (85%) (p = 0.019). With ultrasound, there was less variance between the estimated and measured depth of the pleural space with a mean difference of 0.033 cm (range 0-0.5 cm) when ultrasound was used as compared to a mean difference of 1.0375 cm (range 0-6 cm) for the landmark technique (95% CI for the difference 0.73-1.27 cm; p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Teaching ultrasound NT was feasible in our cohort. While time-to-site-selection for ultrasound-guided NT took longer than the landmark technique, it increased safe and accurate simulated NT placement with fewer identified potential iatrogenic injuries.

Keywords: Emergency medical services; Needle decompression; Needle thoracostomy; POCUS; Pneumothorax; Point-of-care ultrasound; Tension pneumothorax; Trauma.