Weimer, Johannes Matthias;
Beer, Diana;
Schneider, Christoph;
Yousefzada, Masuod;
Gottwald, Michael;
Züllich, Tim Felix;
Weimer, Andreas;
Jonck, Christopher;
Buggenhagen, Holger;
Kloeckner, Roman;
Merkel, Daniel
Inter-System Variability of Eight Different Handheld Ultrasound (HHUS) Devices—A Prospective Comparison of B-Scan Quality and Clinical Significance in Intensive Care
You can manage bookmarks using lists, please log in to your user account for this.
Media type:
E-Article
Title:
Inter-System Variability of Eight Different Handheld Ultrasound (HHUS) Devices—A Prospective Comparison of B-Scan Quality and Clinical Significance in Intensive Care
Contributor:
Weimer, Johannes Matthias;
Beer, Diana;
Schneider, Christoph;
Yousefzada, Masuod;
Gottwald, Michael;
Züllich, Tim Felix;
Weimer, Andreas;
Jonck, Christopher;
Buggenhagen, Holger;
Kloeckner, Roman;
Merkel, Daniel
Description:
Background: the use of handheld ultrasonography (HHUS) devices is well established in prehospital emergency diagnostics, as well as in intensive care settings. This is based on several studies in which HHUS devices were compared to conventional high-end ultrasonography (HEUS) devices. Nonetheless, there is limited evidence regarding potential variations in B-scan quality among HHUS devices from various manufacturers, and regarding whether any such differences hold clinical significance in intensive care medicine settings. Methods: this study included the evaluation of eight HHUS devices sourced from diverse manufacturers. Ultrasound videos of five previously defined sonographic questions (volume status/inferior vena cava, pleural effusion, pulmonary B-lines, gallbladder, and needle tracking in situ) were recorded with all devices. The analogue recording of the same pathologies with a HEUS device served as gold standard. The corresponding findings (HHUS and HEUS) were then played side by side and evaluated by sixteen intensive care physicians experienced in sonography. The B-scan quality and the clinical significance of the HHUS were assessed using a five-point Likert scale (5 points = very good; 1 point = insufficient). Results: both in assessing the quality of B-scans and in their ability to answer clinical questions, the HHUS achieved convincing results—regardless of the manufacturer. For example, only 8.6% (B-scan quality) and 9.8% (clinical question) of all submitted assessments received an “insufficient” rating. One HHUS device showed a significantly higher (p < 0.01) average points score in the assessment of B-scan quality (3.9 ± 0.65 points) and in the evaluation of clinical significance (4.03 ± 0.73 points), compared to the other devices. Conclusions: HHUS systems are able to reliably answer various clinical intensive care questions and are—while bearing their limitations in mind—an acceptable alternative to conventional HEUS devices. Irrespective of this, the present study was able to demonstrate relevant differences in the B-scan quality of HHUS devices from different manufacturers.