A comparison of handheld ultrasound versus traditional ultrasound for acquisition of RUSH views in healthy volunteers
Zachary E. Dewar, Joseph C. Wu, Hunter Hughes, Anis Adnani, Gregory Christiansen, Lon Ovedovitz, Jon C. Rittenberger
Abstract
Few 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.