Comparison of four handheld point-of-care ultrasound devices by expert users.

IF 3.4 Q2 Medicine Ultrasound Journal Pub Date : 2022-07-07 DOI:10.1186/s13089-022-00274-6
Minh-Phuong T Le, Lara Voigt, Robert Nathanson, Anna M Maw, Gordon Johnson, Ria Dancel, Benji Mathews, Alvaro Moreira, Harald Sauthoff, Christopher Gelabert, Linda M Kurian, Jenna Dumovich, Kevin C Proud, Jessica Solis-McCarthy, Carolina Candotti, Christopher Dayton, Alexander Arena, Brandon Boesch, Saul Flores, Mark T Foster, Nicholas Villalobos, Tanping Wong, Gabriel Ortiz-Jaimes, Michael Mader, Craig Sisson, Nilam J Soni
{"title":"Comparison of four handheld point-of-care ultrasound devices by expert users.","authors":"Minh-Phuong T Le,&nbsp;Lara Voigt,&nbsp;Robert Nathanson,&nbsp;Anna M Maw,&nbsp;Gordon Johnson,&nbsp;Ria Dancel,&nbsp;Benji Mathews,&nbsp;Alvaro Moreira,&nbsp;Harald Sauthoff,&nbsp;Christopher Gelabert,&nbsp;Linda M Kurian,&nbsp;Jenna Dumovich,&nbsp;Kevin C Proud,&nbsp;Jessica Solis-McCarthy,&nbsp;Carolina Candotti,&nbsp;Christopher Dayton,&nbsp;Alexander Arena,&nbsp;Brandon Boesch,&nbsp;Saul Flores,&nbsp;Mark T Foster,&nbsp;Nicholas Villalobos,&nbsp;Tanping Wong,&nbsp;Gabriel Ortiz-Jaimes,&nbsp;Michael Mader,&nbsp;Craig Sisson,&nbsp;Nilam J Soni","doi":"10.1186/s13089-022-00274-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":36911,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound Journal","volume":" ","pages":"27"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9263020/pdf/","citationCount":"27","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasound Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-022-00274-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
专家用户使用的四种手持点护理超声设备的比较。
背景:即时超声(POCUS)在医疗保健专业中迅速普及。这是由于几个因素,包括它的便携性,指导临床决策的即时性结果,以及对患者的辐射暴露不足。最近手持式超声设备的增长已经改善了许多临床医生获得超声的机会。很少有研究直接比较不同的手持式超声设备之间或基于小车的超声设备。我们进行了一项前瞻性观察研究,比较了四种常见的手持式超声设备的易用性、图像质量和总体满意度。24位POCUS专家使用四种手持设备(Butterfly Network Inc.的Butterfly iQ+™,EchoNous的Kosmos™,General Electric的Vscan Air™和Philips Healthcare的Lumify™),对同一标准化患者使用高频和低频探头获得三种超声视图。结果:24名POCUS专家使用4种手持设备进行数据采集。没有一种超声设备在所有类别中都具有优势。在整体易用性方面,Vscan Air™被评为最高,其次是Lumify™。就整体图像质量而言,Lumify™被评为最高,其次是Kosmos™。Lumify™设备被评为整体满意度最高,而Vscan Air™被评为最可能亲自购买并随身携带的设备。手持式超声设备被评为“非常重要”的前5个特征是图像质量、易用性、便携性、总成本和不同探头的可用性。结论:在美国四种常见的手持式超声设备的比较中,没有一种手持式超声设备被认为具有所有所需的特性。POCUS专家认为Lumify™的图像质量最高,Vscan Air™的易用性最高。Lumify™设备的总体满意度最高,而最有可能作为口袋设备购买的是Vscan Air™。图像质量被认为是评估手持式超声设备最重要的特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ultrasound Journal
Ultrasound Journal Health Professions-Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
2.90%
发文量
45
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
VExUS: common misconceptions, clinical use and future directions. Decoding VExUS: a practical guide for excelling in point-of-care ultrasound assessment of venous congestion. Quantitative lung ultrasound findings correlate with radial alveolar count in experimental bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Tele-education in point-of-care ultrasound training. Comparison of 6 handheld ultrasound devices by point-of-care ultrasound experts: a cross-sectional study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1