Introduction
Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) is defined as the acquisition, interpretation,
and immediate clinical integration of ultrasonographic imaging performed by a
treating clinician at the patient’s bedside rather than by a radiologist or
cardiologist [1 ].
Low-cost handheld ultrasound (HH-US) systems that are connected to a smartphone or
tablet by means of sophisticated wireless technology have become readily available
to clinicians. Furthermore, applications are limited by lack of user training,
difficulty in maintaining ultrasound competencies, access to equipment for optimal
imaging, and limitations in quality control [2 ].
Physical examination remains the mainstay of modern medicine [3 ], and the stethoscope plays a central role in this [4 ]. However, handheld ultrasonography has recently
started playing an increasing role. Nonetheless, the stethoscope should always
remain part of the physical examination and ultrasound should be used in addition,
not as a replacement.
First experiences with HH-US were described in the cardiologic area: Handheld
echocardiography performed by a medical internist, as an extension of the physical
examination of patients with heart failure, is a valid and safe test that helps to
significantly increase diagnostic performance [5 ]. An
ultrasound-augmented cardiac physical examination can be taught in traditional
medical education, and it has the potential to improve bedside diagnosis and patient
care [6 ]. Both physical examination and clinical
ultrasound deserve their place in the evaluation of patients. Finally, the addition
of POCUS to standard physical examination techniques in cardiovascular medicine will
result in an ultrasound-augmented cardiac physical examination that reaffirms the
value of bedside diagnosis [7 ].
Handheld ultrasound systems used at the bedside (BED) of the patient during the
medical examination (MED) make ultrasound easier (US). The purpose of this
prospective study is to evaluate the reliability of BED MED-US, its clinical impact,
and the saving of time and human resources (by avoiding the round trip of the
patient from the ward to the ultrasound room).
Materials and Methods
1007 consecutive patients (519 males, 488 females, mean age:
76.4+/-14.8, range: 18–101), consecutively admitted to our
internal medicine department from March 2021 to November 2022 underwent BED MED-US
evaluation of one or more regions, depending on clinical presentation and clinical
needs. Every patient was evaluated in one or more regions depending on the clinical
need. The number of examinations and the location of the ultrasound examination(s)
(abdominal, thoracic, lower or upper extremities) were determined by the clinical
picture at presentation and/or patient history. Gold standard diagnosis:
clinical and other reference tests depending on single specific diagnosis (clinical
and laboratory tests for acute heart failure, CHEST X-ray, or CHEST CT for
pneumonia, clinical, fibroscan, and laboratory tests for cirrhosis, gastroscopy or
colonoscopy for gastrointestinal cancers or inflammatory diseases, spiral CT
and/or RMN for hepatic, renal, pancreatic, bladder lesions; clinical and
laboratory test for urinary tract infections, etc.). Second look was performed in 18
cases with a high-end machine (Esaote MyLab X9) and in 51 cases, at bedside, with
MINDRAY MX9, followed by contrast-enhanced ultrasound. In all cases HH-US B-MODE
ultrasound showed correct visualization and diagnosis, with results similar to those
of a recent review [8 ]. HH-US color Doppler (where
employed) appeared equally comprehensive for the study of the great vessels as
recently demonstrated [9 ], while it was less efficient
for the tissue microvasculature. The patients’ clinical characteristics are
described in [Table 1 ].
Table 1 demographic and diagnostic characteristics of
patient.
TYPES OF DISEASES
PATIENTS
MEAN AGE
%
CHEST DISEASES
437
81.34
43.40%
ACUTE HEART FAILURE
251
82.25
24.93%
PNEUMONIA
132
79.95
13.11%
CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE
23
81.96
2.28%
PULMONARY EMBOLISM
14
81.36
1.39%
ACUTE PLEURITIS
7
80.85
0.70%
PLEURAL MESOTHELIOMA
5
76.80
0.50%
LUNG CANCER
5
82.80
0.50%
ABDOMINAL DISEASES
434
71.36
43.10%
CIRRHOSIS
59
69.56
5.86%
URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS
48
75.96
4.77%
INTESTINAL SUBOCCLUSION SECONDARY TO COPROSTASIS
43
82.45
4.27%
CHOLELITHIASIS
40
75.69
3.97%
ACUTE GASTROENTERITIS
38
76.40
3.77%
ACUTE DIVERTICULITIS
29
78.79
2.88%
KIDNEY STONES
25
70.48
2.48%
GASTROINTESTINAL CANCERS
24
74.79
2.38%
INFECTIOUS ILEITIS
20
73.70
1.99%
PANCREATIC CANCERS
18
78.80
1.79%
KIDNEY CANCERS
17
73.30
1.69%
URINARY BLADDER OVERDISTENSION
13
83.31
1.29%
ACUTE PANCREATITIS
12
60.92
1.19%
INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASES
11
40.54
1.09%
HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA
10
63.10
0.99%
ACUTE CHOLECYSTITIS
10
85.40
0.99%
ACUTE RENAL FAILURE
9
72.90
0.89%
BOWEL OBSTRUCTION
8
80.30
0.79%
ENDOCRINOLOGIC DISEASES
54
74.32
5.36%
DIABETES MELLITUS
35
72.3
3.48%
HYPOTHYROIDISM
16
75.40
1.59%
HYPERTHYROIDISM
3
68.3
0.30%
VASCULAR DISEASES
40
72.83
3.97%
DEEP VENOUS THROMBOSIS
36
73.57
3.57%
ANGINA ABDOMINIS
3
71
0.30%
LOWER LIMB ARTERIAL OCCLUSION
1
67
0.10%
NEUROLOGIC DISEASES
28
78.68
2.78%
MAJOR STROKE
14
78.43
1.39%
MINOR STROKE
9
79.00
0.89%
CEREBRAL HEMORRHAGE
3
83.4
0.30%
MENIERE'S SYNDROME
2
84.5
0.20%
SYSTEMIC DISEASES
14
78.63
1.39%
SEPSIS
10
80.3
0.99%
LYMPHOMA
3
56.33
0.30%
SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS
1
67.3
0.10%
Our ultrasound examination
Bedside ultrasound was performed by a single skilled operator (with approximately
30 years of ultrasound experience) during the clinic visit, using a handheld
system (CERBERO version 3.0, ATL Milan, Italy). This system is composed of a
portable ultrasound probe, comprising a miniconvex probe (abdominal and
cardiological) and a linear probe. It uses two types of Wi-Fi and a USB
connection. It works with a mobile app that is compatible with most iOS,
Android, and Windows devices. Images are transmitted via internal 5 G
Wi-Fi. No external networks are required.
Statistics
We evaluated true-positive diagnoses (corresponding positive US and final diagnoses),
true-negative ones (corresponding negative US and final diagnoses), false-positive
diagnoses (false-positive US diagnosis and final negative diagnosis), and
false-negative diagnoses (false-negative US diagnosis and final positive diagnosis),
and evaluated sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio+, and likelihood
ratio based on Bayes’ theorem [10 ]. The
confidence interval is calculated using the continuity-corrected score method
described by Newcombe [11 ]. Finally, the respective
area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic (AU-ROC) was
calculated.
Ultrasound scans completed the clinical examination resulting in 4 types of
diagnosis: Confirmation diagnosis (Co) (HH-US revealed sonographic signs confirming
the clinical diagnosis) ([Fig. 1 ]), exclusion
diagnosis (Ex) (HH-US excluded the presence of ultrasound signs of other pathologies
in the clinical differential diagnosis) ([Fig. 2 ]),
etiological diagnosis (HH-US was able to demonstrate the correct diagnosis when
clinical tests were unclear) ([Fig. 3 ]), and
clinically relevant incidental diagnosis [12 ] (for
short: “incidental diagnosis”) (Inc) (HH-US detected benign or
malignant findings that changed the patient's diagnosis and prognosis
completely) ([Fig. 4 ], [5 ])
Fig. 1 A case of confirmation diagnosis: 78-year-old man is
hospitalized for pain in the left iliac fossa and fever; abdominal
examination shows severe pain on deep palpation in the left iliac fossa;
palmar ultrasound demonstrates (a ) the presence of outpouring of the
sigmoid wall, with its thickening, thickening of the mesentery; on power
Doppler (b ) presence of flow inside the mesentery, near the
diverticulum, a sign of acute inflammation.
Fig. 2 A case of exclusion diagnosis: female, 83 years old, comes to
the emergency room for dyspnea with a clinical picture of acute heart
failure; after hospitalization in the internal medicine ward, objective
finding of hard but not sore calf. Venous BED MED-US of the lower limbs is
performed, which excludes (Fig. 2A: normal US and Fig. 2B: compression US)
deep vein thrombosis with demonstration of Baker's cyst (Fig.
2C).
Fig. 3 A case of etiological diagnosis: female, 89 years old; resident
of a retirement home; patient affected by senile dementia and therefore
non-cooperative; she comes to the emergency room with dyspnea and fever; on
X-ray left pleural effusion (a ), but without signs of pneumonia;
after hospitalization in the internal medicine department, pulmonary
objectivity is not possible due to the clinical conditions and the poor
compliance of the patient (b ); on MED MED-US large basal pneumonia
(c ).
Fig. 4 A case of incidental diagnosis: 64-year-old male; for a few
days he has had fever and stinging pain in the left pulmonary base, with a
sense of weight in the left side. In the emergency department, blood
chemistry tests revealed microcytic anemia and high inflammation indexes.
Chest X-ray (a ) demonstrates pneumonia at the base of the left lung.
Upon entering the ward, after the visit, he undergoes thoracic and abdominal
ultrasound. BED MED-US confirmed left basal pneumonia (b ) but
diagnosed an unexpected expansive lesion of the colonic splenic flexure
(c ), such as colon cancer at that site, later confirmed by
colonoscopy.
Fig. 5 A case of incidental diagnosis (the ultrasound data allows the
clinician to perform clinical reasoning that leads to an unexpected
diagnosis). 78-year-old man, smoker, on anticoagulant therapy for chronic
atrial fibrillation; he was admitted to the emergency room for an episode of
macrohematuria. US reveals a big bladder lesion (a ); power Doppler
(b ) and then CEUS (performed at patient’s bedside with
portable MINDRAY MX7) (c ) demonstrate non-vascularization inside this
lesion, like in the case of a big clot; abdominal ultrasonography
demonstrates bilateral adrenal and lymph node lesions in the abdomen with
kidney infiltration and consequent bleeding from invasion of the arch
arteries and renal calices (demonstrated subsequently by spiral CT)
(d and e ). Chest US reveals the initial cause: a big
pulmonary lesion (f ).
Finally, the time (and money) that were saved by avoiding the transport of patients
to the ultrasound room were calculated. We recorded the minutes needed to transport
patients from the bed in the hospital ward to the ultrasound room by running tests
with a wheelchair and a stretcher from each room and calculating the round trip
times in minutes. Based on the number of beds in the report, we evaluated the time
required to transport an autonomous or bedridden patient from each bed. The level of
autonomy of each patient was then reported. We simulated the time needed to move the
patient to a wheelchair or stretcher, to transport them from the room to the
ultrasound area, and to return them to their room. It should be noted here that the
ultrasound area is located outside the ward about 30 meters from the entrance and
that the ward consists of two wings situated at a 90-degree angle, with the longer
wing being about 120 meters and the other about 35 meters.
Autonomous patients needed only one transport worker, while bedridden patients
required two people to carry the stretcher. Finally, the cost of each minute saved
with respect to patient transport was calculated by multiplying the number of
minutes by the average cost per minute of a social health worker in Lombardy (0.27
euros per minute; this value is obtained by dividing the hourly cost average salary
equal to 16.25 euros) [13 ]. Other aspects of
“time and money savings” (avoiding other examinations, cost of other
examinations, subsequent lengthening of waiting lists, inconvenience for the
patient, shortening of hospital stays, etc.) are not considered in this paper. The
economic calculation relates to the simple saving of time (and money) in comparison
with the execution of a conventional US examination in an ultrasound room.
Results
In total, 1103 BED MED-US examinations were performed: 1007 in acute settings; 96 for
follow-up (these were excluded from analysis). 456 acute BED MED-US were performed
in a single region, 429 in two regions, 122 in three regions. The diagnosis sites
were as follows: 442 chest, 432 abdominal, 33 neurologic, 31 vascular, 21
endocrinologic, 19 integumentary, 19 musculoskeletal, 6 systemic diseases, 4
hematologic diseases.
We performed an ultrasound examination to solve clinical questions and, whenever
possible, abdominal US was also included.
We correlated the ultrasound result with the final clinical diagnosis: 752 true
positives; 242 true negatives; 7 false positives; 6 false negatives (sens:
99.1%, spec: 97.6%, LR+: 98.5; LR-:00.15) ([Table 2 ]). The corresponding receiver operating
characteristic (ROC) curve of [Table 2 ] was
calculated with the Excel calculator [14 ], with the
area under the curve (AUROC) corresponding to 0.997 (confidence interval: MIN:
0.993-MAX: 1.002; SEauc:0.0027) ([Fig. 6 ]). One
possible bias of this study is that the clinician who performed US has about 30
years of ultrasound experience.
Fig. 6 Corresponding Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve of
[Table 2 ] was obtained with Excel
calculator (Fig. based on data from [14 ]),
with the Area Under the Curve (AUROC) corresponding to 0.997 (confidence
interval: MIN: 0.993-MAX: 1.002; SEauc: 0.0027).
Table 2 Comparison of ultrasound and FINAL diagnosis
(clinical, instrumental, etc.): Incidence of true-positive (TP)
diagnosis and true-negative (TN) diagnosis was high; US obtained only 6
false-positive (FP) and 7 false-negative (FN) diagnoses in a population
of 1007 pts (n). Percentage (p) of Sens, Spec, Prev, TP.ve and TN.ve
(with lower and upper limits) were evaluated. (*) The confidence
interval is calculated by the method of scoring with the correction for
continuity described by Newcombe [11 ].
TP diagnosis
FP diagnosis
TN diagnosis
FN diagnosis
Ultrasound diagnosis
752
6
242
7
FINAL DIAGNOSIS
758
-
249
-
Diagnosis (n)
p
Lower limit
Upper limit
q
z (*)
Sensitivity (Sens)
1007
0.99
0.98
1.00
0.01
1.96
Specificity (Spec)
1007
0.98
0.96
0.98
0.02
1.96
Prevalence (Prev)
1007
0.75
0.73
0.78
0.25
1.96
TP
1007
0.99
0.98
1.00
0.01
1.96
TN
1007
0.97
0.96
0.98
0.03
1.96
The clinical impact of BED MED-US was evaluated ([Table
3 ]): confirmation diagnosis was obtained in 214/1007 cases
(21%) (with 45.80% being cardiologic diagnoses); exclusion diagnosis
in 249/1007 cases (25%) (with 26.9% being gastroenteric
diagnoses); etiological diagnosis in 475/1007 cases (47%) (with
31.58% being gastroenteric, 26.73% (127/475) cardiovascular,
and 24.8% respiratory diagnoses); the incidental diagnosis was
“irrelevant” in more than 50% of cases (296 gallbladder
calculi (29.4%), 270 hepatic and renal cysts (26.8%)), but
“clinically relevant” in 7% of cases (69/1007)
(62.31% gastroenteric diagnoses) with 33 being benign relevant diagnoses (20
abdominal, 10 thoracic, 2 endocrinological, 1 vascular) (3.2%) and 36 being
cancers (30 abdominal, 6 thoracic) (3.58%).
Table 3 Type of ultrasonographic diagnosis in comparison with
its site (apparatus).
TYPES OF DIAGNOSIS
SITE (AND CORRESPONDING APPARATUS)
CONFIRMATION
CONFIRMATION (% )
EXCLUSION
% EXCLUSION
ETIOLOGICAL
ETIOLOGICAL (%)
INCIDENTAL
INCIDENTAL (%)
TOTAL
CHEST DISEASES
115
11.42%
66
6.55%
245
24.33%
16
1.59%
442
CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM
98
9.73%
24
2.38%
127
12.61%
4
0.40%
253
RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
17
1.69%
42
4.17%
118
11.72%
12
1.19%
189
ABDOMINAL DISEASES
81
8.04%
112
11.12%
189
18.77%
50
4.97%
432
GASTROENTERIC SYSTEM
75
7.45%
67
6.65%
150
14.90%
43
4.27%
335
GENITAL SYSTEM
1
0.10%
7
0.70%
1
0.10%
9
URINARY SYSTEM
5
0.50%
45
4.47%
32
3.18%
6
0.60%
88
NEUROLOGIC DISEASES
32
3.18%
1
0.10%
33
VASCULAR DISEASES
9
0.89%
21
2.09%
1
0.10%
31
ARTERIES
5
0.50%
2
0.20%
7
VEINS
4
0.40%
19
1.89%
1
0.10%
24
ENDOCRINOLOGIC DISEASES
5
0.50%
4
0.40%
10
0.99%
2
0.20%
21
INTEGUMENTARY SYSTEM DISEASES
3
0.30%
10
0.99%
6
0.60%
19
MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASES
1
0.10%
18
1.79%
19
SYSTEMIC DISEASES
6
0.60%
6
HEMATOLOGICAL DISEASES
1
0.10%
3
0.30%
4
TOTAL
214
21.25%
249
24.73%
475
47.17%
69
6.85%
1007
We calculated that BED MED-US makes it possible to save approximately
34,532 minutes of work and 9324 euros ([Table
4 ]).
Table 4 This table demonstrates the number of patients for every
room of our department, the number of minutes saved with respect to round
trip transporting of patients, and the costs consequently saved based on the
use of a single operator (for self-sufficient patients) (1) or two (2)
operators (for bedridden patients the cost of each minute saved for patient
transport was calculated by multiplying the number of minutes by the average
cost per minute of a social health worker in Lombardy (0.27 euros per
minute) (This value is obtained by dividing the hourly cost average wage
equal to 16.25 euros) [13 ].
PATIENTS
MINUTES
COSTS (euros)
ROOM
1
OPERATOR(S)
1
30
628
169.56
2
25
1068
288.36
TOTAL
55
1696
457.92
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (single operator)
10–11 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (single operator)
20–22 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (two operators)
40–44 min
ROOM
2
OPERATOR(S)
1
24
594
160.38
2
27
1364
368.28
TOTAL
51
1958
528.66
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (single operator)
12–13 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (single operator)
24–26 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (two operators)
48–52 min
ROOM
3
OPERATOR(S)
1
29
850
229.50
2
35
2020
545.40
TOTAL
64
2870
774.90
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (single operator)
14–15 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (single operator)
28–30 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (two operators)
56–60 min
ROOM
4
OPERATOR(S)
1
20
658
177.66
2
29
1920
518.40
TOTAL
49
2578
696.06
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (single operator)
16–17 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (single operator)
32–34 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (two operators)
64–68 min
ROOM
5
OPERATOR(S)
1
11
396
106.92
2
12
864
233.28
TOTAL
23
1260
340.20
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (single operator)
18–19 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (single operator)
36–38 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (two operators)
72–76 min
ROOM
6
OPERATOR(S)
1
24
988
266.76
2
31
2532
683.64
TOTAL
55
3520
950.40
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (single operator)
21 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (single operator)
42 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (two operators)
84 min
ROOM
7
OPERATOR(S)
1
15
600
162.00
2
11
880
237.60
TOTAL
26
1480
399.60
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (single operator)
20 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (single operator)
40 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (two operators)
80 min
ROOM
8
OPERATOR(S)
1
13
468
126.36
2
17
1224
330.48
TOTAL
30
1692
456.84
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (single operator)
19 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (single operator)
38 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (two operators)
76 min
ROOM
9
OPERATOR(S)
1
29
900
243.00
2
32
1980
534.60
TOTAL
61
2880
777.60
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (single operator)
10–11 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (single operator)
20–22 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (two operators)
40–42 min
ROOM
10
OPERATOR(S)
1
25
678
183.06
2
33
1780
480.60
TOTAL
58
2458
663.66
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (single operator)
9–10 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (single operator)
18–20 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (two operators)
36–40 min
ROOM
11
OPERATOR(S)
1
37
850
229.50
2
27
1236
333.72
TOTAL
64
2086
563.22
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (single operator)
8–9 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (single operator)
16–18 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (two operators)
32–36 min
ROOM
12
OPERATOR(S)
1
30
574
154.98
2
29
1104
298.08
TOTAL
59
1678
453.06
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (single operator)
7–8 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (single operator)
14–16 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (two operators)
28–32 min
ROOM
13
OPERATOR(S)
1
23
344
92.88
2
29
868
234.36
TOTAL
52
1212
327.24
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (single operator)
6–7 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (single operator)
12–14 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (two operators)
24–28 min
ROOM
14
OPERATOR(S)
1
23
308
83.16
2
43
1104
298.08
TOTAL
66
1412
381.24
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (single operator)
5–6 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (single operator)
10–12 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (two operators)
20–24 min
ROOM
15
OPERATOR(S)
1
21
228
61.56
2
34
756
204.12
TOTAL
55
984
265.68
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (single operator)
4–5 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (single operator)
8–10 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (two operators)
16–20 min
ROOM
16
OPERATOR(S)
1
24
216
58.32
2
30
544
146.88
TOTAL
54
760
205.20
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (single operator)
3–4 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (single operator)
6–8 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (two operators)
12–16 min
ROOM
17
OPERATOR(S)
1
27
184
49.68
2
33
456
123.12
TOTAL
60
640
172.80
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (single operator)
2–3 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (single operator)
4–6 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (two operators)
8–12 min
ROOM
18
OPERATOR(S)
1
24
130
35.10
2
36
352
95.04
TOTAL
60
482
130.14
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (single operator)
2–3 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (single operator)
4–6 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (two operators)
8–12 min
ROOM
19
OPERATOR(S)
1
20
640
172.80
2
14
896
241.92
TOTAL
34
1536
414.72
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (single operator)
11 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (single operator)
22 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (two operators)
44 min
ROOM
20
OPERATOR(S)
1
17
510
137.70
2
14
840
226.80
TOTAL
31
1350
364.50
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (single operator)
10 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (single operator)
20 min
TOTAL MINUTES FOR TRANSPORT (ROUND TRIP) (two operators)
40 min
TOTAL
OPERATOR(S)
1
466
10744
2901.00
2
541
23788
6423.00
TOTAL
1007
34532
9324.00
Discussion
HH-US is a real-time examination that can be performed wherever the patient is. It
can answer simple and focused medical questions regarding organ- or symptom-related
issues. It is an excellent adjunct to the physical examination in emergency
departments where patient screening and disposition are needed or in daily clinical
practice where bedside imaging information may be required. Simple clinical
questions may be answered by implementing rapidly performed and focused examination
protocols [7 ], as already documented in the fields of
emergency medicine, critical care, cardiology, anesthesiology, rheumatology,
obstetrics, neonatology, gynecology, gastroenterology, and many other specialties
[15 ]. In the last few years several medical and
surgical subspecialties have adopted POCUS protocols to rule in or rule out certain
conditions using an algorithmic approach. Common protocols include BLUE (Bedside
Lung Ultrasound in Emergency) for acute respiratory failure [16 ], FAST (Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma) for peritoneal
free fluid [17 ], RUSH (Rapid Ultrasound for Shock and
Hypotension) for shock [18 ]
[19 ], and CLUE (Cardiovascular Limited Ultrasound Examination) for heart
failure [20 ]. These protocols offer a logical POCUS
workflow for specific clinical scenarios and provide a foundation for integrating
POCUS findings in clinical decision-making.
This “clinical tool” is able to reduce clinical overtesting and
testing can likely be reduced without a negative impact on patients [21 ]. Subsequently, POCUS is not simply considered a
diagnostic algorithm but rather a tool used by a skilled clinician at the bedside to
guide clinical decisions in real time. Experience regarding the following has been
described: acute dyspnea [22 ]
[23 ] not only in the emergency setting but also in the sub-acute internal
medicine area [24 ]
[25 ]
[26 ], acute heart failure, and
cardiogenic shock [27 ]
[28 ]. The use of multi-organ ultrasound by intensivists, emergency
doctors, and anesthetists to decrease costs and the utilization of other tests and
to aid decision-making in real time has previously been well documented [29 ]. The use of POCUS in an internal medicine ward is
associated with a significant reduction in echocardiograms, chest X-rays, chest CT
scans, and abdominal ultrasound examinations [30 ].
A recent review showed that HH-US devices could be a reliable tool for evaluating
peripheral lung diseases [31 ]
[32 ]. In the abdominal area, even if there are currently no reviews,
previous experience has shown the clinical use of HH-US in different abdominal
specialties (gastroenterology [33 ]
[34 ]
[35 ]
[36 ], urology [37 ],
nephrology [38 ], geriatrics [39 ], pediatrics [40 ], and vascular surgery
[41 ]). HH-US has also been used by primary care
physicians [2 ]
[42 ] for
at-home or out-of-hospital patients, Medicare Wellness patients [43 ], and for in-home palliative care [44 ]. In 2019, the European Federation of Societies for
Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB) published an official position paper
regarding HH-US in abdominal, chest, cardiac and pediatric US [45 ]. For distinct clinical questions, handheld devices
may be a valuable supplement to physical examination. The American Institute of
Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM) prepared practice parameters for the performance of
point-of-care ultrasound [46 ].
Our prospective experience demonstrates that, in expert hands, BED MED-US is an
effective, safe, and inexpensive imaging technique that can help clinicians during
the daily medical examination (sens: 99.1%, spec: 97.6%,
LR+: 98.5; LR-:00.15). These data may be distorted by a background bias,
namely the operator has 30 years of ultrasound experience. However, this method has
proved to be highly effective with minimal false negatives and false positives. The
data becomes even more important when referring to the use of a palm-sized
device.
However, HH-US is a complementary tool and it currently cannot be used in place of
traditional US. In fact, it is impossible to perform a comprehensive ultrasound
examination with HH-US because of the lack of spectral Doppler, tissue Doppler, and
other specific technologies (shear wave, contrast-enhanced US, 3D reconstructions,
etc.) offered by conventional devices with full features [31 ], which transform simple conventional ultrasound into
“multiparametric” ultrasound in some sectors (such as hepatology
[47 ], gastroenterology [48 ], urology [49 ], etc.)
In recent years, the international literature has shown increasing interest in
“overall” diagnostic ultrasound. Authors have turned their focus
from POCUS to multi-organ US and whole-body ultrasound (WB-US).
Multi-organ POCUS provides relevant diagnostic information that complements
traditional physical examination and facilitates therapy adjustment regardless of
the cause of admission. Multi-organ POCUS, to be useful, needs to be systematically
integrated into the decision-making process in internal medicine [50 ]
[51 ]
[52 ]
[53 ].
WB-US can be used to improve the speed and accuracy of the evaluation of an
increasing number of organ systems in critically ill patients. Cardiac and abdominal
ultrasound can be used to identify the mechanisms and etiology of hemodynamic
instability. In hypoxemia or hypercarbia, lung ultrasound can rapidly identify the
etiology of the condition, with an accuracy that is equivalent to that of computed
tomography. For encephalopathy, ocular ultrasound and transcranial Doppler can
identify elevated intracranial pressure and midline shift. Renal and bladder
ultrasound can identify the mechanisms and etiology of renal failure. Ultrasound can
also improve the accuracy and safety of percutaneous procedures and should currently
be used routinely for central vein catheterization and percutaneous tracheostomy
[54 ]. Furthermore, ultrasound guidance is used
increasingly to perform the following six bedside procedures that are core
competencies of hospitalists: abdominal paracentesis, arterial catheter placement,
arthrocentesis, central venous catheter placement, lumbar puncture, and
thoracentesis. It’s necessary to standardize procedures [55 ].
However, evidence is still inadequate, and more research is needed regarding the
abdominal and pleural use of handheld ultrasound with more standardized comparisons,
using only blinded reviewers [8 ].
The system has proved to be reliable but the most important clinical aspect is
clinical utility. Internal medicine patients are complex, because they have multiple
comorbidities, and sometimes they also have poor compliance (due to advanced age)
during the execution of the physical examination and/or instrumental
tests.
In these settings, BED MED-US is quickly able to provide the clinician at the bedside
with "ultrasound information" that the doctor immediately translates
into clinical data that is useful for a precise diagnosis. For the first time, our
experience demonstrated that ultrasound information is able not only to answer a
single clinical question but also to help the doctor with regard to clinical
reasoning and confirmation of a clinical diagnosis ([Fig.
1 ]) or exclusion of other possible diagnoses ([Fig. 2 ]). However, the best results were achieved in the search for the
etiological diagnosis ([Fig. 3 ]) and clinically
relevant incidental diagnosis ([Fig. 4 ] and [5 ]).
The percentage of etiological diagnoses was slightly higher in the abdomen than in
the cardiological or pulmonary regions. However, abdominal ultrasound has shown a
high incidence of incidental diagnoses. It can be concluded that abdominal
ultrasound, at least in internal medicine departments, should be performed
routinely, even independently of the clinical picture.
The term incidental diagnosis is usually defined as the detection of an abnormality
in a symptomatic patient that is not apparently related to the patient's
symptoms [12 ]. The vast majority of incidentalomas
will be a normal variant or an incidental benign finding (from 3% and up to
50% depending on the imaging method and sites [56 ]). However, a rare but possibly malignant incidental finding can be
detected [12 ]. We did not consider
"incidentalomas" that were irrelevant for the management of the
patient (gallbladder calculi: 29.4%, hepatic and renal cysts:
26.8%). We only considered those that clinically modified the
patient's diagnostic and/or therapeutic procedure: 3.2% of
causes were benign and 3.6% were malignant. Recently, it was demonstrated
that an “incidental cancer” was identified in 4% of a
general population by several image techniques [57 ]
and this finding is very similar to our experience (3.6%).
The use of BED MED-US in difficult cases, i. e., cases in which ultrasound
information, guided by clinical reasoning, quickly leads to etiological or
incidental diagnoses that are otherwise clinically impossible, merits a separate
discussion ([Fig. 5 ]).
In addition to being effective and clinically useful, ultrasound performed at the
bedside saves time and human resources. In our experience, we have saved about
575 hours of work just for the transport of patients from the ward to the
ultrasound room and about 9,300 euros.
This study has many limitations. Although it was prospective, it was performed in a
single center, and there was only a single operator with vast ultrasound experience.
The real clinical impact should be reevaluated in multicenter studies and also with
less skilled staff.
Finally, official regulations regarding the use of handheld ultrasound in medical
departments by internists vary, and the degree to which POCUS has been integrated is
variable worldwide. In Europe, POCUS is considered a core competency [58 ], while in Canada, POCUS is recommended only as part
of an expanded curriculum [59 ]. Regardless of these
curricular differences, what has emerged over time is the consistent recognition of
the importance of POCUS in the practice of clinical medicine by regulatory bodies
and professional societies both on the national level (e. g., Society for
Hospital Medicine, USA [60 ] and the international
level (e. g., WINFOCUS [61 ]).
Bibliographical Record
Francesco Giangregorio, Emilio Mosconi, Maria Grazia Debellis, Eliana Palermo, Stella Provini, Manuela Mendozza, Laura Ricevuti, Ciro Esposito. Bedside Clinical Hand-held Ultrasound in an Internal Medicine
Department: The "Bed Med-Us" Experience of Codogno and its
Clinical Utility in the Management of Diagnosis and Therapy in 1007
Patients. Ultrasound Int Open 2024; 10: a21961599. DOI: 10.1055/a-2196-1599