Pocket ultrasound device as a complement to physical examination for ascites evaluation and guided paracentesis | Internal and Emergency Medicine Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Pocket ultrasound device as a complement to physical examination for ascites evaluation and guided paracentesis

  • HTA-ORIGINAL
  • Published:
Internal and Emergency Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The pocket ultrasound device (PUD) is a new tool that may be of use in the early detection of ascites. Abdominal ultrasound-guided paracentesis has been reported to decrease the rate of complications due to the procedure, but must be performed in a healthcare setting; this new tool may be a useful on an ambulatory basis. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic usefulness of the PUD in the diagnosis of ascites and the safety of guided paracentesis. We conducted a retrospective study that included adult patients suspected of having ascites and in whom an evaluation was performed with the PUD to identify it. Concordance with abdominal ultrasound (AUS) was determined with the Kappa coefficient. Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp) and likelihood ratios (LR) were determined and compared with physical examination, AUS, computed tomography and procurement of fluid by paracentesis. Complications resulting from the guided paracentesis were analyzed. 89 participants were included and 40 underwent a paracentesis. The PUD for ascites detection had 95.8 % Se, 81.8 % Sp, 5.27 +LR and 0.05 −LR. It had a concordance with AUS of 0.781 (p < 0.001). Technical problems during the guided paracentesis were present in only two participants (5 %) and three patients (7.5 %) developed minor complications that required no further intervention. There were no severe complications or deaths. This study suggests that the PUD is a reliable tool for ascites detection as a complement to physical examination and appears to be a safe method to perform guided paracentesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ginès P, Angeli P, Lenz K, Møller S, Moore K, Moreau R et al (2010) EASL clinical practice guidelines on the management of ascities, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and hepatorenal síndrome in cirrosis. J Hepatol 53:397–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Goldberg BB, Clearfield HR, Goodman GA, Morales JO (1973) Ultrasonic determination of ascites. Arch Intern Med 131(2):217–220

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cattau EL Jr, Benjamin SB, Knuff TE, Castell DO (1982) The accuracy of the physical exam in the diagnosis of suspected ascites. JAMA 247:1164–1166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chongtham DS, Singh MM, Kalantri SP, Pathak S, Jain AP (1998) Accuracy of clinical manoeuvres in detection of minimal ascites. Indian J Med Sci 52(11):514–520

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Branney SW, Wolfe RE, Moore EE, Albert NP, Heinig M, Mestek M et al (1995) Quantitative sensitivity of ultrasound in detecting free intraperitoneal fluid. J Trauma 39(2):375–380

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sakai H, Sheer TA, Mendler MH, Runyon BA (2005) Choosing the location for non-image guided abdominal paracentesis. Liver Int 25:984–986

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Williams JW, Simel DL (2009) Chapter 6. Does this patient have ascities? How to divine fluid in the abdomen. In: Simel DL, Rennie D, Keitz SA (eds) The rational clinical examination: evidence-based clinical diagnosis. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 65–73

    Google Scholar 

  8. Goldberg BB, Goodman GA, Clearfield HR (1970) Evaluation of ascites by ultrasound. Radiology 96(1):15–22

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Runyon BA (1986) Paracentesis of ascitic fluid: a safe procedure. Arch Intern Med 146:2259–2261

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nazeer SR, Dewbre H, Miller AH (2005) Ultrasound-assisted paracentesis performed by emergency physicians vs the traditional technique. Am J Emerg Med 23(3):363–367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lin CH, Shih FY, Ma MH, Chiang WC, Yang CW, Ko PC (2005) Should bleeding tendency deter abdominal paracentesis? Dig Liver Dis 37:946–951

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ross GJ, Kessler HB, Clair MR, Gatenby RA, Hartz WH, Ross LV (1989) Sonographically guided paracentesis for palliation of symptomatic malignant ascites. Am J Roentgenol 153:1309–1311

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bard C, Lafortune M, Breton G (1986) Ascites: ultrasound guidance or blind paracentesis? Can Med Assoc J 135:209–210

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. McGahan JP, Anderson MW, Walter JP (1986) Portable real-time sonographic and needle guidance systems for aspiration and drainage. Am J Roentgenol 147:1241–1246

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Alcaraz FA, Juhl-Olsen P, Sloth E (2012) Advances in imaging: ultrasound in every physician´s pocket. Expert Opin Med Diagn 6(3):167–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lisi M, Cameli M, Mondillo S, Luzzi L, Zacà V, Cameli P et al (2012) Incremental value of pocket-sized imaging device for bedside diagnosis of unilateral pleural effusions and ultrasound guided thoracocentesis. Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg 15:596–602

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Mjolstad OC, Dalen H, Graven T, Kleinau JO, Salvesen O, Haugen BO (2012) Routinely adding ultrasound examinations by pocket-sized ultrasound devices improves inpatient diagnostics in a medical department. Eur J Intern Med 23:185–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Biais M, Carrie C, Delaunay F, Morel N, Revel P, Janvier G (2012) Evaluation of a new pocket echoscopic device for focused cardiac utlrasonography in an emergency setting. Crit Care 16:R82

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Galderisi M, Santoro A, Versiero M, Lomoriello VS, Esposito R, Raia R et al (2010) Improved cardiovascular diagnostic accuracy by pocket size imaging device in non-cardiologic outpatients: the NaUSiCa (Naples Ultrasound Stethoscope in Cardiology) study. Cardiovasc Ultrasound 8:51

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Sayasneh A, Preisler J, Smith A, Saso S, Naji O, Abdallah Y et al (2012) Do pocket-sized ultrasound machines have the potential to be used as a tool to triage patients in obstetrics an gynecology? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 40:145–150

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Barreiros AP, Cui XW, Ignee A, De Molo C, Pirri C, Dietrich CF (2014) EchoSchopy in scanning abdominal disease: initial clinical experience. Z Gastroentrol 52:269–275

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Colli A, Prati D, Fraquelli M, Segato S, Vescovi PP, Colombo F et al (2015) The use of a pocket sized ultrasound device improves physical examination: results of an in- and outpatient cohort study. PLoS One 10(3):e0122181. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0122181

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Stock KF, Klein B, Steubl D, Lersch C, Heemann U, Wagenpfeil S et al (2015) Comparison of a pocket-size ultrasound device with a premium ultrasound machine: diagnostic value and time required in bedside ultrasound examination. Abdom Imaging 40:2861–2866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. De Gottardi A, Thévenot T, Spahr L, Morard I, Bresson-Hadni S, Torres F et al (2009) Risk of complications after abdominal paracentesis in cirrhotic patients: a prospective study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 7:906–909

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology, National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition Salvador Zubirán, Vasco de Quiroga 15, Sección XVI, Tlalpan, 14000, Mexico City, Mexico

    Daniel Keil-Ríos, Juan Francisco Sánchez-Ávila & Ignacio García-Juárez

  2. Department of Internal Medicine, National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico

    Hiram Terrazas-Solís

  3. Department of Research Methodology, National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico

    Alejandro González-Garay

Authors
  1. Daniel Keil-Ríos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hiram Terrazas-Solís
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alejandro González-Garay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Juan Francisco Sánchez-Ávila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ignacio García-Juárez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ignacio García-Juárez.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Statement of human and animal rights

This paper is based upon a retrospective analysis. No impact or alteration in patient management was involved. Internal Review Board reviewed and approved this study as a retrospective analysis.

Informed consent

Patients signed informed consent for the procedure.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Keil-Ríos, D., Terrazas-Solís, H., González-Garay, A. et al. Pocket ultrasound device as a complement to physical examination for ascites evaluation and guided paracentesis. Intern Emerg Med 11, 461–466 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-016-1406-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-016-1406-x

Keywords