Dataset Information

A comparison of handheld ultrasound versus traditional ultrasound for acquisition of RUSH views in healthy volunteers.

ABSTRACT: Few studies evaluate the use of handheld ultrasound devices for point-of-care ultrasonography in the emergency department. We hypothesized that image acquisition time and image quality are similar between a handheld device and a traditional device. We compared these 2 types of devices in healthy, non-pregnant adults with using a crossover non-inferiority design while acquiring Rapid Ultrasound for Shock and Hypotension (RUSH) view. We excluded those with a history of surgical intervention or known abnormality to the lungs, abdomen, or pelvis. Images were compiled into a de-identified video clip reviewed for image quality by 2 blinded reviewers. Cohen's Kappa was used to determine interrater agreement. Disagreements were adjudicated by an independent physician. Imaging time was compared using a paired Student's t test. Of 59 screened participants, 9 were excluded. Most subjects (N = 30, 60%) were female with a mean age of 39 (Range: 19-67) years. The median time to complete the RUSH exam did not differ (handheld 249.4, interquartile range 33.5 seconds); traditional 251.4, interquartile range 66.3 seconds); [P = 0.81]). Agreement between ultrasound reviewers was good (agreement 83%; k = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.88). Images were determined to be of adequate quality for interpretation in 41/50 (82%) and 43/50 (86%) in the handheld and traditional devices, respectively (P = 0.786). Neither time to image acquisition nor image quality differed between the handheld and traditional devices. The handheld device may be an alternative for use in RUSH exams.

SUBMITTER: Dewar ZE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7771775 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparison of handheld ultrasound versus traditional ultrasound for acquisition of RUSH views in healthy volunteers.

Dewar Zachary E ZE Wu Joseph J Hughes Hunter H Adnani Anis A Christiansen Gregory G Ovedovitz Lon L Rittenberger Jon C JC

Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open 20201121 6

Few studies evaluate the use of handheld ultrasound devices for point-of-care ultrasonography in the emergency department. We hypothesized that image acquisition time and image quality are similar between a handheld device and a traditional device. We compared these 2 types of devices in healthy, non-pregnant adults with using a crossover non-inferiority design while acquiring Rapid Ultrasound for Shock and Hypotension (RUSH) view. We excluded those with a history of surgical intervention or kno ...[more]

PMID: 33392539

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPoint-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is rapidly becoming ubiquitous across healthcare specialties. This is due to several factors including its portability, immediacy of results to guide clinical decision-making, and lack of radiation exposure to patients. The recent growth of handheld ultrasound devices has improved access to ultrasound for many clinicians. Few studies have directly compared different handheld ultrasound devices among themselves or to cart-based ultrasound machines. We conducted a prospective observational study comparing four common handheld ultrasound devices for ease of use, image quality, and overall satisfaction. Twenty-four POCUS experts utilized four handheld devices (Butterfly iQ+™ by Butterfly Network Inc., Kosmos™ by EchoNous, Vscan Air™ by General Electric, and Lumify™ by Philips Healthcare) to obtain three ultrasound views on the same standardized patients using high- and low-frequency probes.ResultsData were collected from 24 POCUS experts using all 4 handheld devices. No single ultrasound device was superior in all categories. For overall ease of use, the Vscan Air™ was rated highest, followed by the Lumify™. For overall image quality, Lumify™ was rated highest, followed by Kosmos™. The Lumify™ device was rated highest for overall satisfaction, while the Vscan Air™ was rated as the most likely to be purchased personally and carried in one's coat pocket. The top 5 characteristics of handheld ultrasound devices rated as being "very important" were image quality, ease of use, portability, total costs, and availability of different probes.ConclusionsIn a comparison of four common handheld ultrasound devices in the United States, no single handheld ultrasound device was perceived to have all desired characteristics. POCUS experts rated the Lumify™ highest for image quality and Vscan Air™ highest for ease of use. Overall satisfaction was highest with the Lumify™ device, while the most likely to be purchased as a pocket device was the Vscan Air™. Image quality was felt to be the most important characteristic in evaluating handheld ultrasound devices.

Project description:ObjectiveAutomated breast ultrasound (ABUS) is a relevant imaging technique for early breast cancer diagnosis and is increasingly being used as a supplementary tool for mammography. This study compared the performance of ABUS and handheld ultrasound (HHUS) in detecting and characterizing the axillary lymph nodes (LNs) in patients with breast cancer.Materials and methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of women with recently diagnosed early breast cancer (≤ T2) who underwent both ABUS and HHUS examinations for axilla (September 2017-May 2018). ABUS and HHUS findings were compared using pathological outcomes as reference standards. Diagnostic performance in predicting any axillary LN metastasis and heavy nodal-burden metastases (i.e., ≥ 3 LNs) was evaluated. The ABUS-HHUS agreement for visibility and US findings was calculated.ResultsThe study included 377 women (53.1 ± 11.1 years). Among 385 breast cancers in 377 patients, 101 had axillary LN metastases and 30 had heavy nodal burden metastases. ABUS identified benign-looking or suspicious axillary LNs (average, 1.4 ± 0.8) in 246 axillae (63.9%, 246/385). According to the per-breast analysis, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of ABUS in predicting axillary LN metastases were 43.6% (44/101), 95.1% (270/284), 75.9% (44/58), 82.6% (270/327), and 81.6% (314/385), respectively. The corresponding results for HHUS were 41.6% (42/101), 95.1% (270/284), 75.0% (42/56), 82.1% (270/329), and 81.0% (312/385), respectively, which were not significantly different from those of ABUS (P ≥ 0.53). The performance results for heavy nodal-burden metastases were 70.0% (21/30), 89.6% (318/355), 36.2% (21/58), 97.3% (318/327), and 88.1% (339/385), respectively, for ABUS and 66.7% (20/30), 89.9% (319/355), 35.7% (20/56), 97.0% (319/329), and 88.1% (339/385), respectively, for HHUS, also not showing significant difference (P ≥ 0.57). The ABUS-HHUS agreement was 95.9% (236/246; Cohen's kappa = 0.883).ConclusionAlthough ABUS showed limited sensitivity in diagnosing axillary LN metastasis in early breast cancer, it was still useful as the performance was comparable to that of HHUS.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral countries have used pegylation technology to improve the pharmacokinetic properties of essential drugs. Recently, a novel interferon alfa-2b protein conjugated to four-branched 12 kDa polyethylene glycol molecules was developed jointly between Cuba and Brazil. The aim of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetic properties of BIP48 (pegylated interferon alfa-2b from Bio-Manguinhos/Fiocruz, Brazil) to those of PEGASYS® (commercially available pegylated interferon alfa-2a from Roche Pharmaceutical).MethodsThis phase I, single-centre, randomized, double-blind crossover trial enrolled 31 healthy male volunteers aged 19 to 35 who were allocated to two stages, either side of a 5-week wash-out period, with each arm lasting 14 consecutive days after subcutaneous administration of 180 μg of one formulation or the other (study or comparator). The main outcome variable was serum pegylated interferon concentrations in 15 samples collected during the course of the study and tested using an enzyme immunoassay.ResultsThere were no differences between formulations in terms of magnitude or absorption parameters. Analysis of time parameters revealed that BIP48 remained in the body significantly longer than PEGASYS® (Tmax: 73 vs. 54 h [p = 0.0010]; MRT: 133 vs. 115 h [p = 0.0324]; ke: 0.011 vs. 0.013 h(-1) [p = 0.0153]; t1/2: 192 vs. 108 h [p = 0.0218]).ConclusionBIP48 showed the expected pharmacokinetic profile for a pegylated product with a branched molecular structure. Compared to PEGASYS®, the magnitude absorption was similar, but time parameters were consistent with slower elimination. Further studies should be conducted to evaluate the clinical implications of these findings. A phase II-III repeated-dose clinical trial is ongoing to study these findings in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection.Trial registrationThis study is registered on the ClinicalTrials.gov platform (accession number NCT01889849 ). This trial was retrospectively registered in June 2013.

Dataset Information

A comparison of handheld ultrasound versus traditional ultrasound for acquisition of RUSH views in healthy volunteers.

Publications

A comparison of handheld ultrasound versus traditional ultrasound for acquisition of RUSH views in healthy volunteers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets