Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique


#406 Scan, See, Decide: POCUS in the Evaluation of Dyspnea


CLINICAL QUESTION
QUESTION CLINIQUE
Is point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) helpful for the evaluation of undifferentiated dyspnea?


BOTTOM LINE
RÉSULTAT FINAL
For patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with dyspnea, adding POCUS to conventional work-up improves the diagnostic accuracy of decompensated heart failure from ~87% to ~93%, and may improve diagnostic accuracy of other conditions. Length of ED stay is not different.



CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session



EVIDENCE
DONNÉES PROBANTES
  • Results statistically significant unless indicated.
  • Two systematic reviews past 5 years, 5-7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1483-1535 patients.1,2 Focus on three largest RCTs due to different protocols/outcomes. Diagnostic accuracy determined by masked chart audit.
  • 518 patients randomized after clinical evaluation to POCUS or chest X-ray/N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide.3 ED physicians, accredited training and >40 scans. Focus: B-line artifact (for decompensated heart failure diagnosis, present in ~43%).
    • Diagnostic accuracy: 95% (POCUS) versus 87%.
    • Sensitivity: 94% (POCUS) versus 85% (no statistics available).
    • Specificity: 96% (POCUS) versus 89% (no statistics).
    • Time to diagnosis: 5 minutes (POCUS) versus 105 minutes.
  • 442 patients randomized to conventional work-up alone (clinical evaluation, ECG, blood tests, most received CXR, with optional CT scans and formal echocardiography) or conventional workup plus POCUS.4 ED physicians, 4 hours of training and 10 practice scans. Focus: B-line artifact (decompensated heart failure, present in ~30%).
    • Diagnostic accuracy: 93% (POCUS) versus 87%.
    • Sensitivity: 88% (POCUS) versus 83% (no statistics).
    • Specificity: 95% (POCUS) versus 88% (no statistics).
    • Length of ED stay: Not different.
  • 315 patients randomized to conventional workup alone or conventional workup plus single expert physician-performed POCUS.5 Multiple views of cardiac/lung/deep veins for identifying any relevant diagnosis (most common: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia or heart failure).
    • Diagnostic accuracy: 88% (POCUS) versus 64%.
    • Appropriate treatment at 4 hours: 78% (POCUS) versus 57%.
  • Limitations: Various POCUS expertise and “diagnostic accuracy” definitions, CXR results in chart audit could bias final diagnosis determination.

CONTEXT
CONTEXTE
  • POCUS: Typically 8-view anterior and anterior/lateral lung, screening for increased tissue density (“B line artifact”), pleural effusion.3,4
  • POCUS: Positive likelihood ratio~20 (very good at ruling in heart failure), negative likelihood ratio ~0.1 (very good at ruling out heart failure).3,4
  • Training options examples: https://cpocus.ca; https://emergdoc.com.


Huda Alzubaidi February 3, 2026

Good to know

Rami Ibrahim February 3, 2026

Checking IVC with POCUS has been valuable in my experience: collapsed IVC in intra-vascular depletion and plethoric in volume overload states. This can guide management decisions: do I give fluids or administer diuretics?


Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#409 Less than 140, 130, or 120? Counting down to the optimal systolic blood pressure target.

What are the benefits and harms of lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) targets?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#408 Testosterone for Women: Desire, data and downsides

Can testosterone improve sexual function in pre or post-menopausal women?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#407 Back on the stand: Colchicine for secondary cardiovascular prevention update

Is colchicine effective for secondary cardiovascular prevention?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session


Author(s)
Auteur(s)
  • Émélie Braschi MD PhD CCFP
  • Jennifer Young MD CCFP-EM

1. Szabó GV, Szigetváry C, Szabó L, et al. Intern Emerg Med. 2023; 18:639–653.

2. Gartlehner G, Wagner G, Affengruber L, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2021 Jul; 174(7):967-976.

3. Pivetta E, Goffi A, Nazerian P, et al. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019; Jun; 21(6):754-766.

4. Baker K, Brierley S, Kinnear F, et al. Emerg Med Australas. 2020; Feb; 32(1):45-53.

5. Laursen CB, Sloth E, Lassen AT, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2014 Aug; 2(8):638-46.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.