The use of focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) in a prehospital setting is recommended. Pocket ultrasound devices (PUDs) appear to be well suited to prehospital FoCUS. The main aim of our study was to evaluate the interpretability of echocardiography performed in a prehospital setting using a PUD based on the experience of the emergency physician (EP). This was a monocentric prospective observational study. We defined experienced emergency physicians (EEPs) and novice emergency physicians (NEPs) as echocardiographers if they had performed 50 echocardiographies since their initial university training (theoretical training and at least 25 echocardiographies performed with a mentor). Each patient undergoing prehospital echocardiography with a PUD was included. Four diagnostic items based on FoCUS were analyzed: pericardial effusions (PE), right ventricular dilation (RVD), qualitative left ventricular function assessment (LVEF), and inferior vena cava compliance (IVCC). Two independent experts blindly evaluated the interpretability of each item by examining recorded video loops. If their opinions were divided, then a third expert concluded. Fourteen EPs participated: eight (57 %) EEPs and six (43 %) NEPs. Eighty-five patients were included: 34 (40 %) had an echocardiography by an NEP and 51 (60 %) by an EEP. The mean number of interpretable items by echocardiography was three [1; 4]; one [0; 2.25] in the NEP group, four [3; 4] in EEP (p < .01). The patient position was also associated with interpretable items: supine three [2; 4], “45°” three [1; 4], sitting two [1; 4] (p = .02). In multivariate analysis, only EP experience was associated with the number of interpretable items (p = .02). Interpretability by NEPs and EEPs was: 56 % vs. 96 % for LVF, 29 % vs. 98 % for PE, 26 % vs. 92 % for RVD, and 21 % vs. 67 % for IVCC (p < .01 for all). FoCUS with PUD in prehospital conditions was possible for EEPs, It is difficult and the diagnostic yield is poor for NEPs.

Acute heart failure (AHF) management is challenging, with high morbidity and readmission rates. There is little evidence of the benefit of HF monitoring during hospitalization. The aim of the study was to assess whether daily bedside echocardiographic monitoring (JetEcho) improved outcomes in AHF. In this prospective, open, two parallel-arm study (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02892227), participants from two university hospitals were randomized to either standard of care (SC) or daily treatment adjustment including diuretics guided by JetEcho evaluating left ventricular filling pressure and volemia. The primary outcome was 30-day readmission rate. Key secondary outcomes were six-month cumulative incidence death, worsening HF during hospitalization and increasing of myocardial and renal biomarkers. From 250 included patients, 115 were finally analyzed in JetEcho group and 112 in SC group. Twenty-two (19%) patients were readmitted within 30 days in JetEcho group and 17 (15%) in SC group (relative risk [RR] 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70–2.24; p = 0.4). Worsening HF occurred in 17 (14%) patients in the JetEcho group and 24 (20%) in the SC group (RR 0.7; 95% [CI] 0.39 to 1.2; p = 0.2). No significant difference was found between the two groups concerning natriuretic peptides and renal function (p > 0.05 for all). The cumulative incidence rate of death from any cause at six months from discharge was 8.7% in the JetEcho group and 11.6% in the SC group (HR 0.63, 95% [CI] 0.3–1.4, p = 0.3). In AHF patients, a systematic daily bedside echocardiographic monitoring did not reduce 30-day readmission rate for HF and short-term clinical outcomes.

A 56-year-old woman was admitted to our institution for an ischaemic stroke. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) was performed and revealed a mass developed at the expense of the anterior wall of the left ventricle (Figure 1A). Endocardial border and intracardiac mass delimitation was appreciated by contrast-enhanced echocardiography (SonoVue) (Figure 1B). Transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) confirmed a mass with irregular outlines and a mobile and filiform intra-ventricular element (Figure 1C). Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) confirmed the nodular mass (Figure 1D). This lesion was hyperintense on T1-weighted dark blood images and did not enhance significatively after gadolinium injection. Patient physical examination revealed tumour of the right breast. Breast biopsies confirmed the malignant diagnosis of invasive ductal carcinoma. 18F-FDG PET/CT...