• Zachary E Dewar, Joseph Wu, Hunter Hughes, Anis Adnani, Gregory Christiansen, Lon Ovedovitz, and Jon C Rittenberger.
• Guthrie Robert Packer Hospital-Department of Emergency Medicine Emergency Medicine Residency Sayre Pennsylvania USA.
• J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2020 Dec 1; 1 (6): 1320-1325.

AbstractFew studies evaluate the use of handheld ultrasound devices for point-of-care ultrasonography in the emergency department. We hypothesized that image acquisition time and image quality are similar between a handheld device and a traditional device. We compared these 2 types of devices in healthy, non-pregnant adults with using a crossover non-inferiority design while acquiring Rapid Ultrasound for Shock and Hypotension (RUSH) view. We excluded those with a history of surgical intervention or known abnormality to the lungs, abdomen, or pelvis. Images were compiled into a de-identified video clip reviewed for image quality by 2 blinded reviewers. Cohen's Kappa was used to determine interrater agreement. Disagreements were adjudicated by an independent physician. Imaging time was compared using a paired Student's t test. Of 59 screened participants, 9 were excluded. Most subjects (N = 30, 60%) were female with a mean age of 39 (Range: 19-67) years. The median time to complete the RUSH exam did not differ (handheld 249.4, interquartile range 33.5 seconds); traditional 251.4, interquartile range 66.3 seconds); [P = 0.81]). Agreement between ultrasound reviewers was good (agreement 83%; k = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.88). Images were determined to be of adequate quality for interpretation in 41/50 (82%) and 43/50 (86%) in the handheld and traditional devices, respectively (P = 0.786). Neither time to image acquisition nor image quality differed between the handheld and traditional devices. The handheld device may be an alternative for use in RUSH exams.© 2020 The Authors. JACEP Open published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

5 keywords...

hide…