ArticleCJEM2026
Point-of-care ultrasound for left ventricular function in patients with atrial fibrillation in the emergency department.
Article in CJEM, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThere is a knowledge gap regarding reliability of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) assessing left ventricular function for patients in acute rapid atrial fibrillation (AF) or flutter (AFL) in the emergency department (ED). We sought to evaluate interrater agreement of POCUS severely reduced left ventricular function in this ED population.
methodsWe conducted a health records review of adult patients who presented with rapid AF/AFL, heart rate above 110, to a tertiary care hospital ED. POCUS scans archived by ED physicians were interpreted by two cardiologists and one ED POCUS expert. Left ventricular function was categorized as either 'normal or non-severely reduced' and 'severely reduced' function. Interrater agreement analysis was performed using Cohen's kappa with 95% confidence interval (CI).
resultsWe identified 332 ED patients with acute rapid AF/AFL during our study period, of which 128(38%) had POCUS assessing left ventricular function. All archived POCUS scans (100/128) were used for agreement analysis. We found a moderate level of agreement between cardiologists and ED POCUS expert (k = 0.63 CI 95% 0.43-0.82) with an 88% raw agreement (74% normal or non-severe, 14% severely reduced). Fair agreement was found between cardiologists and ED physicians (k = 0.34 CI 95% 0.10-0.58) 85% raw agreement (80% normal or non-severe, 5% severely reduced).
conclusionAmong patients with rapid AF/AFL evaluated in the ED, one-third had POCUS left ventricular function assessments. ED physicians and ED POCUS expert agreement with cardiologists ranged from fair to moderate when distinguishing severely reduced left ventricular function from normal or non-severely reduced function in patients with rapid AF/AFL. These findings are a first step in demonstrating the reliability of POCUS left ventricular function assessment in patients presenting with rapid AF/AFL to the ED.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42804127What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.