Key result
Remote robot-assisted echocardiography achieves 92% feasibility versus traditional echo but slows image acquisition.
Why the study?
Access to echocardiography services outside metropolitan areas is persistently limited, prompting evaluation of remotely-controlled robot-assisted echocardiography.
Does remotely-performed robot-assisted echocardiography provide comparable feasibility and efficiency to traditional echocardiography in patients and volunteers?
Cross-Sectional (n=78)
Does remotely-performed robot-assisted echocardiography provide comparable feasibility and efficiency to traditional echocardiography in patients and volunteers?
Remotely-performed robot-assisted echocardiography is highly feasible but requires significantly more time for image acquisition compared to traditional echocardiography.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Demonstrates remote robot-assisted echocardiography feasibility; leaves open whether acquisition times and learning curve permit routine use.
Background Access to echocardiography services outside metropolitan areas is persistently limited. We sought to determine the feasibility and efficiency of performing remotely-controlled, semi-automated robot-assisted echocardiographic examinations (robot-assisted echo) by cardiac sonographers as a potential avenue to provide standard echocardiographic specialist services to remote and rural areas as well as permit expedited diagnoses enabling earlier management of disease. Methods Two accredited cardiac sonographers (Cardiac Investigations Unit) undertook 6 hours virtual training, and 10 hours hands-on robot-assisted echo simulation training; using a novel, semi-automated robotic arm system to remotely manipulate an ultrasound probe to acquire echocardiographic images. Sonographers then performed remotely-performed robot-assisted echo examinations on staff volunteers, and consenting inpatients in whom echocardiography was clinically indicated. Cameras, probe pressure sensors and an ultrasound platform remote console were utilised to support remote operation. Traditional echocardiography (manipulation of probe by hand) was also performed as a reference. Feasibility to obtain a comprehensive robot-assisted echo was compared to traditional echocardiography. Sonographer learning curve and efficiency (image acquisition time and offline measurement time) was also investigated. Results Total cohort was n=78 (age 51±15yrs; 57% male) with 63% patients. All participants had robot-assisted echo and traditional echocardiograms performed within 72hrs. Average feasibility (%) of robot-assisted echo as (a) 11 averaged assessments and (b) 38 averaged measures was 92±9 (a) and 86±11 (b), compared to (a) 99±1 and (b) 97±7 by traditional examination (all respectively). Sonographer learning curve was identified via 1:1 block subcohort analysis, with averaged assessment feasibility (n=33:31) being 86±19 (first block) to 98±3 (last block) and averaged measurement feasibility (n=32:31) being 77±11 (first block) to 92±7 (last block), all respectively. In the staff participant cohort (n=31), average image acquisition efficiency in robot-assisted echo was poorer than that of traditional examination (47+9 minutes compared to 19+2 minutes; p<0.0001), respectively. Average efficiency of offline measurement time was 13+7 minutes by robot-assisted echo; comparable (p=0.33) to traditional examination at 12+6 minutes. There was no learning curve effect on image acquisition efficiency; 42+10 vs 51+7 minutes (1:1; n=16:15; p=0.007). Conclusion Remotely-performed, robot-assisted echo using a commercially-available ultrasound platform performed by briefly-trained, cardiac sonographers is feasible, with reasonable efficiency even though less efficient in image acquisition compared to traditional echocardiograms. Further investigation of performance as a remote service is warranted in larger, clinically-indicated populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guppy-Coles et al. (2024) conducted a cross-sectional in Clinical indication for echocardiography (n=78). Remotely-performed, robot-assisted echocardiography vs. Traditional echocardiography was evaluated on Average feasibility of 11 averaged assessments. Remotely-performed, robot-assisted echocardiography achieved 92% feasibility for averaged assessments compared to 99% for traditional echocardiography, though image acquisition was slower (P<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: