Use of Handheld Ultrasound Device with Artificial Intelligence for Evaluation of Cardiorespiratory System in COVID-19

Critical Care in the Austere Environment

Practice of critical care in austere settings involves navigating rapidly evolving environments, where physical resources, provider availability, and healthcare capacity are constrained. Austere Critical Care focuses on maintaining the highest standard of care possible for patients while also identifying resource limitations, responding to patient surges, and adhering to proper triage practices at the austere site. This includes transferring the patient when able and necessary. This article describes the current practice of critical care medicine in the austere environment, using recent natural disasters, pandemics, and conflicts as case studies.

Artificial Intelligence in the Intensive Care Unit: Current Evidence on an Inevitable Future Tool

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a technique that attempts to replicate human intelligence, analytical behavior, and decision-making ability. This includes machine learning, which involves the use of algorithms and statistical techniques to enhance the computer's ability to make decisions more accurately. Due to AI's ability to analyze, comprehend, and interpret considerable volumes of data, it has been increasingly used in the field of healthcare. In critical care medicine, where most of the patient load requires timely interventions due to the perilous nature of the condition, AI's ability to monitor, analyze, and predict unfavorable outcomes is an invaluable asset. It can significantly improve timely interventions and prevent unfavorable outcomes, which, otherwise, is not always achievable owing to the constrained human ability to multitask with optimum efficiency. AI has been implicated in intensive care units over the past many years. In addition to its advantageous applications, this article discusses its disadvantages, prospects, and the changes needed to train future critical care professionals. A comprehensive search of electronic databases was performed using relevant keywords. Data from articles pertinent to the topic was assimilated into this review article.

Point-of-care ultrasound use in COVID-19: a narrative review

Background and Objective

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic that began in early 2020 resulted in significant mortality from respiratory tract infections. Existing imaging modalities such as chest X-ray (CXR) lacks sensitivity in its diagnosis while computed tomography (CT) scan carries risks of radiation and contamination. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has the advantage of bedside testing with higher diagnostic accuracy. We aim to describe the various applications of POCUS for patients with suspected severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods

We performed literature search on the use of POCUS in the diagnosis and management of COVID-19 in MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus databases using the following search terms: "ultrasonography", "ultrasound", "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2", "SARS-CoV-2 variants", "emergency services", "emergency department" and "intensive care units". Search was performed independently by two reviewers with any discrepancy adjudicated by a third member.

Key Content and Findings

Lung POCUS in patients with COVID-19 shows different ultrasonographic features from pulmonary oedema, bacterial pneumonia, and other viral pneumonia, thus useful in differentiating between these conditions. It is more sensitive than CXR, and more accessible and widely available than CT scan. POCUS can be used to diagnose COVID-19 pneumonia, screen for COVID-19-related pulmonary and extrapulmonary complications, and guide management of ICU patients, such as timing of ventilator weaning based on lung POCUS findings.

Conclusions

POCUS is a useful and rapid point-of-care modality that can be used to aid in diagnosis, management, and risk stratification of COVID-19 patients in different healthcare settings.

Inter-System Variability of Eight Different Handheld Ultrasound (HHUS) Devices-A Prospective Comparison of B-Scan Quality and Clinical Significance in Intensive Care

BACKGROUND

the use of handheld ultrasonography (HHUS) devices is well established in prehospital emergency diagnostics, as well as in intensive care settings. This is based on several studies in which HHUS devices were compared to conventional high-end ultrasonography (HEUS) devices. Nonetheless, there is limited evidence regarding potential variations in B-scan quality among HHUS devices from various manufacturers, and regarding whether any such differences hold clinical significance in intensive care medicine settings.

METHODS

this study included the evaluation of eight HHUS devices sourced from diverse manufacturers. Ultrasound videos of five previously defined sonographic questions (volume status/inferior vena cava, pleural effusion, pulmonary B-lines, gallbladder, and needle tracking in situ) were recorded with all devices. The analogue recording of the same pathologies with a HEUS device served as gold standard. The corresponding findings (HHUS and HEUS) were then played side by side and evaluated by sixteen intensive care physicians experienced in sonography. The B-scan quality and the clinical significance of the HHUS were assessed using a five-point Likert scale (5 points = very good; 1 point = insufficient).

RESULTS

both in assessing the quality of B-scans and in their ability to answer clinical questions, the HHUS achieved convincing results-regardless of the manufacturer. For example, only 8.6% (B-scan quality) and 9.8% (clinical question) of all submitted assessments received an "insufficient" rating. One HHUS device showed a significantly higher (p < 0.01) average points score in the assessment of B-scan quality (3.9 ± 0.65 points) and in the evaluation of clinical significance (4.03 ± 0.73 points), compared to the other devices.

CONCLUSIONS

HHUS systems are able to reliably answer various clinical intensive care questions and are-while bearing their limitations in mind-an acceptable alternative to conventional HEUS devices. Irrespective of this, the present study was able to demonstrate relevant differences in the B-scan quality of HHUS devices from different manufacturers.

Prospective Comparison of Handheld Ultrasound Devices from Different Manufacturers with Respect to B-Scan Quality and Clinical Significance for Various Abdominal Sonography Questions

BACKGROUND

Handheld ultrasound (HHUS) devices have chiefly been deployed in emergency medicine, where they are considered a valid tool. The data situation is less clear in the case of internal questions in abdominal sonography. In our study, we investigate whether HHUS devices from different manufacturers differ in their B-scan quality, and whether any differences are relevant for the significance of an internal ultrasound examination.

METHOD

The study incorporated eight HHUS devices from different manufacturers. Ultrasound videos of seven defined sonographic questions were recorded with all of the devices. The analogue recording of the same findings with a conventional high-end ultrasound (HEUS) device served as an evaluation criterion. Then, the corresponding findings were played side by side and evaluated by fourteen ultrasound experts using a point scale (5 points = very good; 1 point = insufficient).

RESULTS

The HHUS devices achieved relatively good results in terms of both the B-scan quality assessment and the ability to answer the clinical question, regardless of the manufacturer. One of the tested HHUS devices even achieved a significantly (p < 0.05) higher average points score in both the evaluation of B-scan quality and in the evaluation of clinical significance than the other devices. Regardless of the manufacturer, the HHUS devices performed best when determining the status/inferior vena cava volume and in the representation of ascites/free fluid.

CONCLUSION

In various clinical abdominal sonography questions, HHUS systems can reliably reproduce findings, and are-while bearing their limitations in mind-an acceptable alternative to conventional HEUS systems. Irrespective of this, the present study demonstrated relevant differences in the B-scan quality of HHUS devices from different manufacturers.

Artificial Intelligence-Powered Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Analysis Using the LVivoEF Tool for COVID-19 Patients

We sought to prospectively investigate the accuracy of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool for left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessment using a hand-held ultrasound device (HUD) in COVID-19 patients and to examine whether reduced LVEF predicts the composite endpoint of in-hospital death, advanced ventilatory support, shock, myocardial injury, and acute decompensated heart failure. COVID-19 patients were evaluated with a real-time LVEF assessment using an HUD equipped with an AI-based tool vs. assessment by a blinded fellowship-trained echocardiographer. Among 42 patients, those with LVEF < 50% were older with more comorbidities and unfavorable exam characteristics. An excellent correlation was demonstrated between the AI and the echocardiographer LVEF assessment (0.774, p < 0.001). Substantial agreement was demonstrated between the two assessments (kappa = 0.797, p < 0.001). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the HUD for this threshold were 72.7% 100%, 100%, and 91.2%, respectively. AI-based LVEF < 50% was associated with worse composite endpoints; unadjusted OR = 11.11 (95% CI 2.25-54.94), p = 0.003; adjusted OR = 6.40 (95% CI 1.07-38.09, p = 0.041). An AI-based algorithm incorporated into an HUD can be utilized reliably as a decision support tool for automatic real-time LVEF assessment among COVID-19 patients and may identify patients at risk for unfavorable outcomes. Future larger cohorts should verify the association with outcomes.

The measurement of the left ventricle ejection fraction by a bedside FoCUS examination

The use of point-of-care ultrasound is rapidly increasing in medical practice. This study aims to evaluate the left ventricle systolic function by the bedside focus cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS). We consecutively enrolled n.59 patients of the Emergency Medicine Unit of S. Andrea Hospital. Every patient received a bedside FoCUS examination to estimate the left ventricle (LV) ejection fraction (EF); the LV EF measurements were compared with those obtained by standard echocardiography (as gold standard). The LV EF obtained by the bedside FoCUS examination and the standard echocardiography, resulted, respectively: 50.2 ± 15.1% (by the Quinones equation), 39.5 + 12.0% (by the Lvivo app) and 53.7 + 11.1% (by the standard echocardiography). The correlations between the bedside FoCUS EF measurements versus standard echocardiography were statistically significant: r =  + 0.694 p < 1.9 × 10-6 (Quinones equation, Bland-Altman analysis mean = - 2.3%) and r =  + 0.571 p < 0.01 (Lvivo app, Bland-Altman analysis mean = - 13.3%). In conclusion, the present study showed a high accuracy of the bedside FoCUS EF evaluations, which may support the diagnosis of the heart failure in an emergency setting without delaying. The EF measurements by the operational method are more precise than those obtained by the unselected images of the software application.

A Cadaveric Study Examining the Accuracy of Wireless Hand-Held Guided Ultrasound Injections Versus Blind Injections in the Flexor Tendon Sheath

Purpose

Hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) is gaining popularity among clinicians. Although its use for procedural guidance could have several advantages in hand surgery, other surgeons may wonder about its added benefits. This cadaveric study aimed to examine the hypothesis of increased accuracy of wireless HHUS-guided injections versus that of blind injections into the flexor sheath.

Methods

Our series included 20 fresh cadaveric hands with 80 fingers randomly assigned to 2 groups. In group A, 10 hands were randomly assigned to receive a landmark injection and then received a blinded injection to the flexor tendon sheath (FTS). In group B, 10 hands were blinded in the same manner and received an ultrasound-guided injection with HHUS. Methylene blue was injected, and anatomic dissection was performed to evaluate the injection accuracy based on the dye's filling pattern in the FTS as stage I (no filling), stage II (<50% filling), and stage III (>50% filling). Statistical analysis was performed, and P <.05 indicated a significant difference.

Results

One finger was excluded because of severe Dupuytren contracture. In group A, 39 blind injections of the FTS were performed, with 82% (32/39) fingers achieving stage III filling. In group B, 40 ultrasound-guided FTS injections were performed, with 90% (36/40) of fingers achieving stage III filing. Our study did not reveal any superiority in accuracy when ultrasound guidance was used (P = .35).

Conclusions

Hand-held ultrasound-guided FTS injections were not more accurate than blind injections performed by an experienced hand surgeon. These findings suggest that blind injections can be used as routine practice when performed by experienced operators to treat trigger finger. However, the use of HHUS may offer other advantages in hand surgery practice.

Clinical relevance

Ultimately, choosing to perform HHUS-guided injection versus blind injection to treat trigger finger depends on the surgeon's experience and preference for a particular technique.

The Role of Hand-Held Cardiac Ultrasound in Patients with COVID-19

The role of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in patient management has been established in recent years as an important tool. It is increasingly used by multiple medical disciplines in numerous clinical settings, for different applications and diagnostic purposes and in the guidance of procedures. The introduction of small-sized and inexpensive hand-held ultrasound devices (HUDs) has addressed some of the POCUS-related challenges and has thus extended POCUS' applicability. HUD utilization is even more relevant in the COVID-19 setting given the operators' infection risk, excessive workload concerns and general equipment contamination. This review focuses on the available technology, usefulness, feasibility and clinical applications of HUD for echocardiogram assessment in patients with COVID-19.

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

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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13089-022-00274-6.

The Possible Impact of COVID-19 on Respiratory Muscles Structure and Functions: A Literature Review

The impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on respiratory muscle functions is an important area of recent enquiry. COVID-19 has effects on the respiratory muscles. The diaphragm muscle is perturbed indirectly due to the mechanical-ventilation-induced-disuse, but also by direct mechanisms linked with SARS-CoV-2 viral infection. In this sense, a deeper understanding of the possible links between COVID-19 and alterations in structure and functions of the respiratory muscles may increase the success rate of preventive and supportive strategies. Ultrasound imaging alongside respiratory muscle strength tests and pulmonary function assessment are valid approaches to the screening and monitoring of disease, for mild to severe patients. The aim of the present review is to highlight the current literature regarding the links between COVID-19 and respiratory muscle functions. We examine from the pathophysiological aspects of disease, up to approaches taken to monitor and rehabilitate diseased muscle. We hope this work will add to a greater understanding of the pathophysiology and disease management of respiratory muscle pathology subsequent to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

There is No Substitute for Human Intelligence

How to cite this article: Kumar V. There is No Substitute for Human Intelligence. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(5):486-488.