Focal cardiac ultrasound learning with pocked ultrasound device: A bicentric prospective blinded randomized study.
echocardiography
emergency medicine
point-of-care testing
teaching
ultrasonography
Journal
Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU
ISSN: 1097-0096
Titre abrégé: J Clin Ultrasound
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0401663
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2021
Oct 2021
Historique:
revised:
30
06
2021
received:
01
03
2021
accepted:
10
07
2021
pubmed:
30
7
2021
medline:
21
9
2021
entrez:
29
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Point-of-care ultrasound using a pocket-ultrasound-device (PUD) is increasing in clinical medicine but the optimal way to teach focused cardiac ultrasound is not clear. We evaluated whether teaching using a PUD or a conventional-ultrasound-device (CUD) is different when the final exam was conducted on a PUD. The primary aim was to compare the weighted total quality scale (WTQS, out of 100) obtained by participants in the two groups (CUD and PUD) on a live volunteer 2-4 weeks after their initial training. The secondary aims were to compare examination time and students' confidence levels (out of 50). This bicentric, prospective single-blind randomized trial included undergraduate medical students. After watching a 15 min video about echocardiography views, students had a 45 min hands-on training session with a live volunteer using a PUD or a CUD. The final examination was conducted with a PUD on a live volunteer. Eighty-six comparable students were included, with 4 ± 1 years of medical training. In the PUD group, the mean WTQS was 65 ± 16 versus 60 ± 15 in the CUD group [p = 0.22; in multivariate analysis, OR 0.8 95% CI (0.1;1.6), p = 0.34]. The examination time was 10.0 [6.2-12.4] min in the PUD group versus 11.4 [7.3-13.2] in the CUD group (p = 0.39), while the confidence level was 27.9 ± 7.7 in the PUD group versus 27.4 ± 7.2 in the CUD group (p = 0.76). There was no difference between teaching echocardiographic views using a PUD as compared to a CUD on the PUD image quality, exam time, or confidence level of students.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
784-790Informations de copyright
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Via G, Hussain A, Wells M, et al. International evidence-based recommendations for focused cardiac ultrasound. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2014;27:683.
Ultrasound guidelines: emergency, point-of-care and clinical ultrasound guidelines in medicine. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;69:27.
Breitkreutz R, Price S, Steiger HV, et al. Focused echocardiographic evaluation in life support and peri-resuscitation of emergency patients: a prospective trial. Resuscitation. 2010;81:1527-1533.
Moore CL, Copel JA. Point-of-care ultrasonography. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:749-757.
Kimura BJ. Point-of-care cardiac ultrasound techniques in the physical examination: better at the bedside. Heart. 2017;103:987-994.
Biais M, Carrie C, Delaunay F, et al. Evaluation of a new pocket echoscopic device for focused cardiac ultrasonography in an emergency setting. Crit Care. 2012;16:R82.
Charron C, Templier F, Goddet NS, et al. Difficulties encountered by physicians in interpreting focused echocardiography using a pocket ultrasound machine in prehospital emergencies. Eur J Emerg Med. 2015;22:17.
Bobbia X, Pradeilles C, Claret PG, et al. Does physician experience influence the interpretability of focused echocardiography images performed by a pocket device? Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2015;23:52.
Zieleskiewicz L, Lopez A, Hraiech S, et al. Bedside POCUS during ward emergencies is associated with improved diagnosis and outcome: an observational, prospective, controlled study. Crit Care. 2021;25:34.
Cardim N, Dalen H, Voigt JU, et al. The use of handheld ultrasound devices: a position statement of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (2018 update). Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019;20:245-252.
Solomon SD, Saldana F. Point-of-care ultrasound in medical education-stop listening and look. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1083-1085.
LaDage LD, Tornello SL, Vallejera JM, et al. Variation in behavioral engagement during an active learning activity leads to differential knowledge gains in college students. Adv Physiol Educ. 2018;42:99-103.
Chaptal M, Tendron L, Claret PG, et al. Focused cardiac ultrasound: a prospective randomized study of simulator-based training. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2020;33:404-406.
Ruddox V, Stokke TM, Edvardsen T, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of pocket-size cardiac ultrasound performed by unselected residents with minimal training. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;29:1749-1757.
Prinz C, Voigt JU. Diagnostic accuracy of a hand-held ultrasound scanner in routine patients referred for echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2011;24:111-116.
Aldaas OM, Igata S, Raisinghani A, Kraushaar M, DeMaria AN. Accuracy of left ventricular ejection fraction determined by automated analysis of handheld echocardiograms: a comparison of experienced and novice examiners. Echocardiography. 2019;36:2145-2151.