Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a rapidly developing technology that has the potential to revolutionize emergency and critical care medicine. The use of POCUS can improve patient care by providing real-time clinical information. However, appropriate usage and proper training are crucial to ensure patient safety and reliability. This article discusses the various applications of POCUS in emergency and critical care medicine, the importance of training and education, and the future of POCUS in medicine.

Choi WJ, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2019 Dec;35(7):e54. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e54

Rationale: Esophageal point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has recently been reported as a useful, quick, safe, and simple technique to detect esophageal foreign bodies (FBs). However, case series to detect esophageal FB using POCUS have been rarely reported. Chicken bones and pills, especially, have not yet been reported as esophageal FBs. The objective of this case series was to describe the POCUS findings of 3 different materials—food, pill, and chicken bone. Patient concerns: Case 1, a 75-year-old woman with odynophagia and neck pain occurring 30 min after eating chicken porridge; Case 2, a 32-year-old woman with neck discomfort occurring 2 h after taking a pill; Case 3, a 29-year-old woman reporting FB sensation in the neck that occurred 1 h after eating sausage and rice soup. Diagnosis: Case 1. Cervical esophageal FB (chicken bone), Case 2. Cervical esophageal FB (oral pill), Case 3. Cervical esophageal FB (food). Interventions: Case 1. POCUS, urgent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with alligator forceps. POCUS findings; hyperechoic material (suspected FB) that did not disappear by swallowing and esophageal dilatation with pooling of secretions. Case 2. POCUS. POCUS findings; hypoechoic material (suspected FB) that did not disappear by swallowing, and esophageal bulging above the FB, especially observed in the longitudinal view. Case 3. POCUS. POCUS findings; hyperechoic material (suspected FB) with reverberation artifact that did not disappear with swallowing efforts. Prior FB esophageal bulging with persistent air-fluid level was especially observed in the longitudinal view. Outcomes: Case 1. FB was removed by EGD with alligator forceps. Case 2. Symptoms disappeared under observation without EGD. Follow-up POCUS revealed normalized bulging esophagus. Case 3. These symptoms improved after vomiting a large piece of food material. Three patients were discharged without complications. Lessons: In this case series, the impacted materials were chicken bone, pill, and food. However, POCUS findings were similar (esophageal dilation, hyperechoic or hypoechoic lesion with mixed echogenic contents in food or secretion, and no change with swallowing efforts). A longitudinal view was useful to assume the presence of cervical esophageal FB in all three cases. Thus, POCUS findings could be indirect signs of a FB in the esophagus.

Considerable evidence has been published since the 2020 Korean Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Guidelines were reported. The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) also publishes the Consensus on CPR and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations (CoSTR) summary annually. This review provides expert opinions by reviewing the recent evidence on CPR and ILCOR treatment recommendations. The authors reviewed the CoSTR summary published by ILCOR in 2021 and 2022. PICO (patient, intervention, comparison, outcome) questions for each topic were reviewed using a systemic or scoping review methodology. Two experts were appointed for each question and reviewed the topic independently. Topics suggested by the reviewers for revision or additional description of the guidelines were discussed at a consensus conference. Forty-three questions were reviewed, including 15 on basic life support, seven on advanced life support, two on pediatric life support, 11 on neonatal life support, six on education and teams, one on first aid, and one related to COVID-19. Finally, the current Korean CPR Guideline was maintained for 28 questions, and expert opinions were suggested for 15 questions.