Dataset Information

The Utility of Real-Time Remote Auscultation Using a Bluetooth-Connected Electronic Stethoscope: Open-Label Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The urgent need for telemedicine has become clear in the COVID-19 pandemic. To facilitate telemedicine, the development and improvement of remote examination systems are required. A system combining an electronic stethoscope and Bluetooth connectivity is a promising option for remote auscultation in clinics and hospitals. However, the utility of such systems remains unknown.

Objective

This study was conducted to assess the utility of real-time auscultation using a Bluetooth-connected electronic stethoscope compared to that of classical auscultation, using lung and cardiology patient simulators.

Methods

This was an open-label, randomized controlled trial including senior residents and faculty in the department of general internal medicine of a university hospital. The only exclusion criterion was a refusal to participate. This study consisted of 2 parts: lung auscultation and cardiac auscultation. Each part contained a tutorial session and a test session. All participants attended a tutorial session, in which they listened to 15 sounds on the simulator using a classic stethoscope and were told the correct classification. Thereafter, participants were randomly assigned to either the real-time remote auscultation group (intervention group) or the classical auscultation group (control group) for test sessions. In the test sessions, participants had to classify a series of 10 lung sounds and 10 cardiac sounds, depending on the study part. The intervention group listened to the sounds remotely using the electronic stethoscope, a Bluetooth transmitter, and a wireless, noise-canceling, stereo headset. The control group listened to the sounds directly using a traditional stethoscope. The primary outcome was the test score, and the secondary outcomes were the rates of correct answers for each sound.

Results

In total, 20 participants were included. There were no differences in age, sex, and years from graduation between the 2 groups in each part. The overall test score of lung auscultation in the intervention group (80/110, 72.7%) was not different from that in the control group (71/90, 78.9%; P=.32). The only lung sound for which the correct answer rate differed between groups was that of pleural friction rubs (P=.03); it was lower in the intervention group (3/11, 27%) than in the control group (7/9, 78%). The overall test score for cardiac auscultation in the intervention group (50/60, 83.3%) was not different from that in the control group (119/140, 85.0%; P=.77). There was no cardiac sound for which the correct answer rate differed between groups.

Conclusions

The utility of a real-time remote auscultation system using a Bluetooth-connected electronic stethoscope was comparable to that of direct auscultation using a classic stethoscope, except for classification of pleural friction rubs. This means that most of the real world's essential cardiopulmonary sounds could be classified by a real-time remote auscultation system using a Bluetooth-connected electronic stethoscope.

Trial registration

UMIN-CTR UMIN000040828; https://tinyurl.com/r24j2p6s and UMIN-CTR UMIN000041601; https://tinyurl.com/bsax3j5f.

SUBMITTER: Hirosawa T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8367161 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChest examination by auscultation is essential in patients with COVID-19, especially those with poor respiratory conditions, such as severe pneumonia and respiratory dysfunction, and intensive cases who are intubated and whose breathing is assisted with a ventilator. However, proper auscultation of these patients is difficult when medical workers wear personal protective equipment and when it is necessary to minimize contact with patients.ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to design and develop a low-cost electronic stethoscope enabling ear-contactless auscultation and digital storage of data for further analysis. The clinical feasibility of our device was assessed in comparison to a standard electronic stethoscope.MethodsWe developed a prototype of the ear-contactless electronic stethoscope, called Auscul Pi, powered by Raspberry Pi and Python. Our device enables real-time capture of auscultation sounds with a microspeaker instead of an earpiece, and it can store data files for later analysis. We assessed the feasibility of using this stethoscope by detecting abnormal heart and respiratory sounds from 8 patients with heart failure or structural heart diseases and from 2 healthy volunteers and by comparing the results with those from a 3M Littmann electronic stethoscope.ResultsWe were able to conveniently operate Auscul Pi and precisely record the patients' auscultation sounds. Auscul Pi showed similar real-time recording and playback performance to the Littmann stethoscope. The phonocardiograms of data obtained with the two stethoscopes were consistent and could be aligned with the cardiac cycles of the corresponding electrocardiograms. Pearson correlation analysis of amplitude data from the two types of phonocardiograms showed that Auscul Pi was correlated with the Littmann stethoscope with coefficients of 0.3245-0.5570 for healthy participants (P<.001) and of 0.3449-0.5138 among 4 patients (P<.001).ConclusionsAuscul Pi can be used for auscultation in clinical practice by applying real-time ear-contactless playback followed by quantitative analysis. Auscul Pi may allow accurate auscultation when medical workers are wearing protective suits and have difficulties in examining patients with COVID-19.Trial registrationChiCTR.org.cn ChiCTR2000033830; http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=54971.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In critically ill patients, auscultation might be challenging as dorsal lung fields are difficult to reach in supine-positioned patients, and the environment is often noisy. In recent years, clinicians have started to consider lung ultrasound as a useful diagnostic tool for a variety of pulmonary pathologies, including pulmonary edema. The aim of this study was to compare lung ultrasound and pulmonary auscultation for detecting pulmonary edema in critically ill patients. METHODS:This study was a planned sub-study of the Simple Intensive Care Studies-I, a single-center, prospective observational study. All acutely admitted patients who were 18?years and older with an expected ICU stay of at least 24?h were eligible for inclusion. All patients underwent clinical examination combined with lung ultrasound, conducted by researchers not involved in patient care. Clinical examination included auscultation of the bilateral regions for crepitations and rhonchi. Lung ultrasound was conducted according to the Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Emergency protocol. Pulmonary edema was defined as three or more B lines in at least two (bilateral) scan sites. An agreement was described by using the Cohen ? coefficient, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and overall accuracy. Subgroup analysis were performed in patients who were not mechanically ventilated. RESULTS:The Simple Intensive Care Studies-I cohort included 1075 patients, of whom 926 (86%) were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Three hundred seven of the 926 patients (33%) fulfilled the criteria for pulmonary edema on lung ultrasound. In 156 (51%) of these patients, auscultation was normal. A total of 302 patients (32%) had audible crepitations or rhonchi upon auscultation. From 130 patients with crepitations, 86 patients (66%) had pulmonary edema on lung ultrasound, and from 209 patients with rhonchi, 96 patients (46%) had pulmonary edema on lung ultrasound. The agreement between auscultation findings and lung ultrasound diagnosis was poor (? statistic 0.25). Subgroup analysis showed that the diagnostic accuracy of auscultation was better in non-ventilated than in ventilated patients. CONCLUSION:The agreement between lung ultrasound and auscultation is poor. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT02912624. Registered on September 23, 2016.

Project description:BackgroundIn the treatment of depression, primary care teams have an essential role, but they are most effective when inserted into a collaborative care model for disease management. In rural areas, the shortage of specialized mental health resources may hamper management of depressed patients.ObjectiveThe aim was to test the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of a remote collaborative care program for patients with depression living in rural areas.MethodsIn a nonrandomized, open-label (blinded outcome assessor), two-arm clinical trial, physicians from 15 rural community hospitals recruited 250 patients aged 18 to 70 years with a major depressive episode (DSM-IV criteria). Patients were assigned to the remote collaborative care program (n=111) or to usual care (n=139). The remote collaborative care program used Web-based shared clinical records between rural primary care teams and a specialized/centralized mental health team, telephone monitoring of patients, and remote supervision by psychiatrists through the Web-based shared clinical records and/or telephone. Depressive symptoms, health-related quality of life, service use, and patient satisfaction were measured 3 and 6 months after baseline assessment.ResultsSix-month follow-up assessments were completed by 84.4% (221/250) of patients. The remote collaborative care program achieved higher user satisfaction (odds ratio [OR] 1.94, 95% CI 1.25-3.00) and better treatment adherence rates (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.02-3.19) at 6 months compared to usual care. There were no statically significant differences in depressive symptoms between the remote collaborative care program and usual care. Significant differences between groups in favor of remote collaborative care program were observed at 3 months for mental health-related quality of life (beta 3.11, 95% CI 0.19-6.02).ConclusionsHigher rates of treatment adherence in the remote collaborative care program suggest that technology-assisted interventions may help rural primary care teams in the management of depressive patients. Future cost-effectiveness studies are needed.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02200367; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02200367 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6xtZ7OijZ).

Project description:Background: A recent randomized controlled study showed that 66.7% (66/99) and 37.4% (37/99) of people undergoing remote electrical neuromodulation (REN), a novel non-pharmacological migraine treatment, achieve pain relief and pain freedom, respectively, at 2 h post-treatment. The participants who completed the 6-weeks double-blind phase of this study were offered to participate in an open-label extension (OLE) with an active REN device. Objective: This study investigated the clinical use of REN, focusing on its potential in reducing the use of acute migraine medications. Methods: The parent study for this open-label extension (OLE) was a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study of acute treatment conducted on 296 participants enrolled at 12 sites in the USA and Israel. This study included a run-in phase, in which migraine attacks were treated with usual care, and an 8-weeks double-blind treatment phase. One hundred sixty participants continued in an 8-weeks OLE phase in which they could incorporate a REN device into their usual care. Medication use rate (percentage of participants who treated their attacks only with REN and avoided medications in all their attacks) and pain outcomes at 2 h post-treatment were compared between the OLE and the run-in phase in a within-subject design. Results: The analyses were performed on 117 participants with episodic migraine. During the OLE, 89.7% of the participants treated their attacks only with REN and avoided medications in all their attacks compared with 15.4% in the run-in phase (p < 0.0001). The rates of pain relief and pain-free in at least 50% of the treatments at 2 h post-treatment were comparable (pain relief: 58.1% in the run-in phase and 57.3% in the OLE, p = 0.999; pain-free: 23.1% in the run-in vs. 30.8% in the OLE, p = 0.175). Conclusions: REN may reduce the use of acute migraine medications. Thus, incorporating REN into usual care may reduce the risk for medication overuse headache (MOH). Future studies should evaluate whether REN reduces the use of acute migraine medications in a population at risk for MOH.