Search

Background: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has emerged as an essential bedside tool for clinicians, but lack of access to ultrasound equipment has been a top barrier to POCUS use. Recently, several handheld ultrasound devices ("handhelds") have become available, and clinicians are seeking data to guide purchasing decisions. Few comparative studies of different handhelds have been done. We conducted a cross-sectional study comparing 6 handhelds readily available in the United States (Butterfly iQ +  ™ by Butterfly Network Inc.; Clarius ™ by Clarius Mobile Health; Kosmos ™ by EchoNous; TE Air ™ by Mindray; Vscan Air ™ SL and CL by General Electric; and Lumify ™ by Philips Healthcare). A multi-specialty group of physician POCUS experts (n = 35) acquired three standard ultrasound views (abdominal right upper quadrant, cardiac apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung views) in random order on the same standardized patients and rated the image quality. Afterward, a final survey of the overall ease of use, image quality, and satisfaction of each handheld was completed., Results: Thirty-five POCUS experts specializing in internal medicine/hospital medicine, critical care, emergency medicine, and nephrology acquired and rated right upper quadrant, apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung views with 6 different handhelds. For image quality, the highest-rated handhelds were Vscan Air ™ for the right upper quadrant view, Mindray TE Air ™ for the cardiac apical 4-chamber view, and Lumify ™ for superficial views of the neck and lung. Overall satisfaction with image quality was highest with Vscan Air ™ , Lumify ™ , and Mindray, while overall satisfaction with ease of use was highest with Vscan Air ™ . The 5 most desirable characteristics of handhelds were image quality, ease of use, portability, probe size, and battery life. Ultimately, all 6 handhelds had notable advantages and disadvantages, with no single device having all desired qualities or features., Conclusions: The overall satisfaction with image quality was rated highest with Vscan Air ™ , Lumify ™ , and Mindray TE Air ™ when acquiring right upper quadrant, apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung views. No single handheld was perceived to be superior in image quality for all views. Vscan Air ™ was rated highest for overall ease of use and was the most preferred handheld for purchase by POCUS experts., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: POCUS training courses are effective at improving knowledge and skills, but few studies have followed learners longitudinally post-course to understand facilitators, barriers, and changes in POCUS use in clinical practice. We conducted a prospective observational study of physicians who attended 11 standardized POCUS training courses between 2017 and 2019 in Japan. Physicians who attended a standardized POCUS course were surveyed about their current frequency of POCUS use of the heart, lung, abdomen, and lower extremity veins, and perceived barriers and facilitators to POCUS use in clinical practice., Results: Data were analyzed from 112 completed surveys (response rate = 20%). A majority of responding physicians were faculty (77%) in internal medicine (69%) affiliated with community hospitals (55%). The mean delay between course attendance and survey response was 50.3 months. A significant increase in POCUS use from < 1 to ≥ 1 time per week was seen for all organ systems after 50 months post-course (p < 0.01). Approximately half of course participants reported an increase in the frequency of cardiac (61%), lung (53%), vascular (44%), and abdominal (50%) ultrasound use. General facilitators of POCUS use were easy access to ultrasound machines (63%), having a colleague with whom to learn POCUS (47%), and adequate departmental support (46%). General barriers included lack of opportunities for POCUS training (47%), poor access to ultrasound machines (38%), and limited time for POCUS training (33%). In the group with increased POCUS usage, specific facilitators reported were enhanced POCUS knowledge, improved image acquisition skills, and greater self-confidence in performing POCUS. Conversely, the group without increased POCUS usage reported lack of supervising physicians, low confidence, and insufficient training opportunities as specific barriers., Conclusions: Approximately half of physicians reported an increase in cardiac, lung, vascular, and abdominal POCUS use > 4 years after attending a POCUS training course. In addition to improving access to ultrasound machines and training opportunities, a supportive local clinical environment, including colleagues to share experiences in learning POCUS and local experts to supervise scanning, is important to foster ongoing POCUS practice and implementation into clinical practice., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Point-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., Results: Data 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., Conclusions: In 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., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Many institutions are training clinicians in point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), but few POCUS skills checklists have been developed and validated. We developed a consensus-based multispecialty POCUS skills checklist with anchoring references for basic cardiac, lung, abdominal, and vascular ultrasound, and peripheral intravenous line (PIV) insertion., Methods: A POCUS expert panel of 14 physicians specializing in emergency, critical care, and internal/hospital medicine participated in a modified-Delphi approach to develop a basic POCUS skills checklist by group consensus. Three rounds of voting were conducted, and consensus was defined by ≥ 80% agreement. Items achieving < 80% consensus were discussed and considered for up to two additional rounds of voting., Results: Thirteen POCUS experts (93%) completed all three rounds of voting. Cardiac, lung, abdominal, and vascular ultrasound checklists included probe location and control, basic machine setup, image quality and optimization, and identification of anatomical structures. PIV insertion included additional items for needle tip tracking. During the first round of voting, 136 (82%) items achieved consensus, and after revision and revoting, an additional 21 items achieved consensus. A total of 153 (92%) items were included in the final checklist., Conclusions: We have developed a consensus-based, multispecialty POCUS checklist to evaluate skills in image acquisition and anatomy identification for basic cardiac, lung, abdominal, and vascular ultrasound, and PIV insertion., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Lack of training is currently the most common barrier to implementation of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) use in clinical practice, and in-person POCUS continuing medical education (CME) courses have been paramount in improving this training gap. Due to travel restrictions and physical distancing requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic, most in-person POCUS training courses were cancelled. Though tele-ultrasound technology has existed for several years, use of tele-ultrasound technology to deliver hands-on training during a POCUS CME course has not been previously described., Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study comparing educational outcomes, course evaluations, and learner and faculty feedback from in-person versus tele-ultrasound POCUS courses. The same POCUS educational curriculum was delivered to learners by the two course formats. Data from the most recent pre-pandemic in-person course were compared to tele-ultrasound courses during the COVID-19 pandemic., Results: Pre- and post-course knowledge test scores of learners from the in-person (n = 88) and tele-ultrasound course (n = 52) were compared. Though mean pre-course knowledge test scores were higher among learners of the tele-ultrasound versus in-person course (78% vs. 71%; p = 0.001), there was no significant difference in the post-course test scores between learners of the two course formats (89% vs. 87%; p = 0.069). Both learners and faculty rated the tele-ultrasound course highly (4.6-5.0 on a 5-point scale) for effectiveness of virtual lectures, tele-ultrasound hands-on scanning sessions, and course administration. Faculty generally expressed less satisfaction with their ability to engage with learners, troubleshoot image acquisition, and provide feedback during the tele-ultrasound course but felt learners completed the tele-ultrasound course with a better basic POCUS skillset., Conclusions: Compared to a traditional in-person course, tele-ultrasound POCUS CME courses appeared to be as effective for improving POCUS knowledge post-course and fulfilling learning objectives. Our findings can serve as a roadmap for educators seeking guidance on development of a tele-ultrasound POCUS training course whose demand will likely persist beyond the COVID-19 pandemic., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Although pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) have been the reference standard for calculating cardiac output, echocardiographic estimation of cardiac output (CO) by cardiologists has shown high accuracy compared to PAC measurements. A few studies have assessed the accuracy of echocardiographic estimation of CO in critically ill patients by intensivists with basic training. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of CO measurements by intensivists with basic training using pulsed-wave Doppler ultrasound vs. PACs in critically ill patients., Methods: Critically ill patients who required hemodynamic monitoring with a PAC were eligible for the study. Three different intensivists with basic critical care echocardiography training obtained three measurements of CO on each patient. The maximum of three separate left-ventricular outflow tract diameter measurements and the mean of three LVOT velocity time integral measurements were used. The inter-observer reliability and correlation of CO measured by PACs vs. critical care echocardiography were assessed., Results: A total of 20 patients were included. Data were analyzed comparing the measurements of CO by PAC vs. echocardiography. The inter-observer reliability for measuring CO by echocardiography was good based on a coefficient of intraclass correlation of 0.6 (95% CI 0.48-0.86, p < 0.001). Bias and limits of agreement between the two techniques were acceptable (0.64 ± 1.18 L/min, 95% limits of agreement of - 1.73 to 3.01 L/min). In patients with CO < 6.5 L/min, the agreement between CO measured by PAC vs. echocardiography improved (0.13 ± 0.89 L/min; 95% limits of agreement of - 1.64 to 2.22 L/min). The mean percentage of error between the two methods was 17%., Conclusions: Critical care echocardiography performed at the bedside by intensivists with basic critical care echocardiography training is an accurate and reproducible technique to measure cardiac output in critically ill patients.