» Articles » PMID: 38201326

The Performance Characteristics of Handheld, Non-Piezoelectric Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) in the Emergency Department

Overview
Specialty Radiology
Date 2024 Jan 11
PMID 38201326
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The use of handheld point-of-care ultrasound (HH-POCUS) platforms is rapidly increasing, but the diagnostic performance of HH-POCUS in the emergency department (ED) has not been well-studied. For a period of one year, only a HH-POCUS system that uses a non-piezoelectric array (Butterfly iQ+™) was available for clinical POCUS examinations in our ED. We performed a retrospective observational study of patients who underwent cardiac, thoracic, renal, biliary, or lower extremity venous (DVT) examinations from November 2021-November 2022 and calculated performance characteristics of HH-POCUS relative to radiology imaging. A total of 381 HH-POCUS studies were evaluated. Cardiac image quality was significantly lower than lung ( = 0.002). Over half of the studies (213/381) had imaging available for comparison, and HH-POCUS identified 86.5% (32/37, (95%CI) 70.4-94.9) of prespecified emergent diagnoses, including acute cholecystitis, severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pericardial effusion or tamponade, moderate or larger pleural effusion, pneumothorax, moderate or larger hydronephrosis, and DVT. For less emergent diagnoses, 84.3% (43/51, (95%CI) 70.9-92.5) were identified. Overall, HH-POCUS using a non-piezoelectric array showed modest real-world performance in the ED for cardiac, thoracic, renal, biliary, and DVT examinations. HH-POCUS may be inadequate to rule out some common ED diagnoses, but had good specificity for certain conditions such as pericardial effusion.

References
1.
Harris P, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde J . Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2008; 42(2):377-81. PMC: 2700030. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010. View

2.
Le M, Voigt L, Nathanson R, Maw A, Johnson G, Dancel R . Comparison of four handheld point-of-care ultrasound devices by expert users. Ultrasound J. 2022; 14(1):27. PMC: 9263020. DOI: 10.1186/s13089-022-00274-6. View

3.
Graven T, Wahba A, Hammer A, Sagen O, Olsen O, Skjetne K . Focused ultrasound of the pleural cavities and the pericardium by nurses after cardiac surgery. Scand Cardiovasc J. 2015; 49(1):56-63. PMC: 4389761. DOI: 10.3109/14017431.2015.1009383. View

4.
Lisi M, Cameli M, Mondillo S, Luzzi L, Zaca V, Cameli P . Incremental value of pocket-sized imaging device for bedside diagnosis of unilateral pleural effusions and ultrasound-guided thoracentesis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2012; 15(4):596-601. PMC: 3445353. DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivs223. View

5.
Kjesbu I, Laursen C, Graven T, Holden H, Romo B, Andersen G . Feasibility and Diagnostic Accuracy of Point-of-Care Abdominal Sonography by Pocket-Sized Imaging Devices, Performed by Medical Residents. J Ultrasound Med. 2017; 36(6):1195-1202. DOI: 10.7863/ultra.16.05077. View