Artificial Intelligence (AI) versus POCUS Expert: A Validation Study of Three Automatic AI-Based, Real-Time, Hemodynamic Echocardiographic Assessment Tools.
Artificial Intelligence
Ben Gurion University of the Negev
Echocardiography
Ejection Fraction (EF)
IVC collapsibility index (IVC CI)
Inferior Vena Cava measurement
Intensive Care Unit (ICU)
Point Of Care UltraSound (POCUS)
Real Time US tool
Soroka University Medical Center
Velocity Time Integral (VTI)
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Feb 2023
08 Feb 2023
Historique:
received:
20
12
2022
revised:
23
01
2023
accepted:
03
02
2023
entrez:
25
2
2023
pubmed:
26
2
2023
medline:
26
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Point Of Care Ultra-Sound (POCUS) is an operator dependent modality. POCUS examinations usually include 'Eyeballing' the inspected anatomical structure without conducting accurate measurements due to complexity and insufficient time. Automatic real time measuring tools can make accurate measurements fast and simple and dramatically increase examination reliability while saving the operator much time and effort. In this study we aim to assess three automatic tools which are integrated into the Venue™ device by GE: the automatic ejection fraction, velocity time integral, and inferior vena cava tools in comparison to the gold standard-an examination by a POCUS expert. A separate study was conducted for each of the three automatic tools. In each study, cardiac views were acquired by a POCUS expert. Relevant measurements were taken by both an auto tool and a POCUS expert who was blinded to the auto tool's measurement. The agreement between the POCUS expert and the auto tool was measured for both the measurements and the image quality using a Cohen's Kappa test. All three tools have shown good agreement with the POCUS expert for high quality views: auto LVEF (0.498; The Venue™ show a high agreement with a POCUS expert for high quality views. This shows that auto tools can provide reliable real time assistance in performing accurate measurements, but do not reduce the need of a good image acquisition technique.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Point Of Care Ultra-Sound (POCUS) is an operator dependent modality. POCUS examinations usually include 'Eyeballing' the inspected anatomical structure without conducting accurate measurements due to complexity and insufficient time. Automatic real time measuring tools can make accurate measurements fast and simple and dramatically increase examination reliability while saving the operator much time and effort. In this study we aim to assess three automatic tools which are integrated into the Venue™ device by GE: the automatic ejection fraction, velocity time integral, and inferior vena cava tools in comparison to the gold standard-an examination by a POCUS expert.
METHODS
METHODS
A separate study was conducted for each of the three automatic tools. In each study, cardiac views were acquired by a POCUS expert. Relevant measurements were taken by both an auto tool and a POCUS expert who was blinded to the auto tool's measurement. The agreement between the POCUS expert and the auto tool was measured for both the measurements and the image quality using a Cohen's Kappa test.
RESULTS
RESULTS
All three tools have shown good agreement with the POCUS expert for high quality views: auto LVEF (0.498;
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The Venue™ show a high agreement with a POCUS expert for high quality views. This shows that auto tools can provide reliable real time assistance in performing accurate measurements, but do not reduce the need of a good image acquisition technique.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36835888
pii: jcm12041352
doi: 10.3390/jcm12041352
pmc: PMC9959768
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Ann Emerg Med. 2010 Mar;55(3):290-5
pubmed: 19556029
J Hosp Med. 2020 Jun;15(6):353-355
pubmed: 32490807
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2020 Aug;46(8):1908-1915
pubmed: 32430108
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2015;47 Spec No:s89-104
pubmed: 26588484
Eur J Gen Pract. 2016 Dec;22(4):274-277
pubmed: 27487159
Eur Heart J Digit Health. 2022 Jan 20;3(1):29-37
pubmed: 36713988
Heart. 2002 Dec;88(6):559-60
pubmed: 12433875
Intensive Care Med. 2013 Jul;39(7):1290-8
pubmed: 23584471
Cureus. 2017 Feb 12;9(2):e1025
pubmed: 28348943
Int J Gen Med. 2021 Dec 15;14:9789-9806
pubmed: 34938102
West J Emerg Med. 2014 Mar;15(2):221-6
pubmed: 24672616
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2022 Aug;23(8):e13724
pubmed: 35816461
Ital J Pediatr. 2020 Apr 16;46(1):47
pubmed: 32299455
J Intensive Care Med. 2017 Mar;32(3):197-203
pubmed: 26423745
Crit Care. 2022 Dec 14;26(1):386
pubmed: 36517906
Am Fam Physician. 2020 Mar 1;101(5):275-285
pubmed: 32109031
Clin Cardiol. 2018 Apr;41(4):510-517
pubmed: 29664116
J Intensive Care. 2016 Aug 15;4:51
pubmed: 27529027
J Emerg Med. 2022 Sep;63(3):382-388
pubmed: 36224055
J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2020 Jul 31;1(5):857-864
pubmed: 33145532
Mayo Clin Proc. 2016 Dec;91(12):1811-1827
pubmed: 27825617
Acad Emerg Med. 2016 Mar;23(3):223-42
pubmed: 26910112
J Crit Care. 2019 Feb;49:187-192
pubmed: 30482613
CJEM. 2019 May;21(3):406-417
pubmed: 30696496
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2021 Apr 26;23(1):47
pubmed: 33896419
Radiol Case Rep. 2022 Feb 04;17(4):1211-1214
pubmed: 35169430