Why the study?
Point-of-care ultrasound machines may utilize artificial intelligence to enhance image interpretation and acquisition, but whether AI-enabled devices improve competency among novice users was unclear.
Does a POCUS device with AI-functionality reduce the time to acquire an apical 4-chamber image in internal medicine trainees with limited POCUS experience?
RCT (n=43)
Open-label
1:1
No
Does a POCUS device with AI-functionality reduce the time to acquire an apical 4-chamber image in internal medicine trainees with limited POCUS experience?
Absolute Event Rate: 57% vs 85%
p-value: p=0.01
The use of AI-enabled POCUS devices by novices significantly improves echocardiographic image acquisition time, image quality, and diagnostic accuracy.
Background Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) machines may utilize artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance image interpretation and acquisition. This study investigates whether AI-enabled devices improve competency among POCUS novices. Methods We conducted a randomized controlled trial at a single academic institution from 2021-2022. Internal medicine trainees (N=43) with limited POCUS experience were randomized to receive a POCUS device with (Echonous, N=22) or without (Butterfly, N=21) AI-functionality for two weeks while on an inpatient rotation. The AI-device provided automatic labeling of cardiac structures, guidance for optimal probe placement to acquire cardiac views, and ejection fraction estimations. Participants were allowed to use the devices at their discretion for patient-related care. The primary outcome was the time to acquire an apical 4-chamber (A4C) image. Secondary outcomes included A4C image quality using the modified Rapid Assessment for Competency in Echocardiography (RACE) scale, correct identification of pathology, and participant attitudes. Measurements were performed at the time of randomization and at two-week follow-up. All scanning assessments were performed on the same standardized patient. Results Both AI and non-AI groups had similar scan times and image quality scores at baseline. At follow-up, the AI group had faster scan times (72 seconds [IQR 38-85] vs. 85 seconds [IQR 54-166]; p=0.01), higher image quality scores (4.5 [IQR 2-5.5] vs. 2 [IQR 1-3]; p<0.01) and correctly identified reduced systolic function more often (85% vs 50%; p=0.02) compared to the non-AI group. Trust in the AI features did not differ between the groups pre- or post-intervention. The AI group did not report increased confidence in their abilities to obtain or interpret cardiac images. Conclusions POCUS devices with AI features may improve image acquisition and interpretation by novices. Future studies are needed to determine the extent that AI impacts POCUS learning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Baum et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) novices (n=43). AI-enabled POCUS device (Echonous) vs. Non-AI POCUS device (Butterfly) was evaluated on Time to acquire an apical 4-chamber (A4C) image at two-week follow-up (p=0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: