Evolution of the Stethoscope: Advances with the Adoption of Machine Learning and Development of Wearable Devices / 결핵및호흡기질환

The stethoscope has long been used for the examination of patients, but the importance of auscultation has declined due to its several limitations and the development of other diagnostic tools. However, auscultation is still recognized as a primary diagnostic device because it is non-invasive and provides valuable information in real-time. To supplement the limitations of existing stethoscopes, digital stethoscopes with machine learning (ML) algorithms have been developed. Thus, now we can record and share respiratory sounds and artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted auscultation using ML algorithms distinguishes the type of sounds. Recently, the demands for remote care and non-face-to-face treatment diseases requiring isolation such as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection increased. To address these problems, wireless and wearable stethoscopes are being developed with the advances in battery technology and integrated sensors. This review provides the history of the stethoscope and classification of respiratory sounds, describes ML algorithms, and introduces new auscultation methods based on AI-assisted analysis and wireless or wearable stethoscopes.

Efficacy and Safety of a Pressurized Metered-Dose Inhaler in Older Asthmatics: Comparison to a Dry Powder Inhaler in a 12-Week Randomized Trial

PURPOSE: Asthma control in older asthmatics is often less effective, which may be attributed to small airway dysfunction and poor inhalation technique. We compared the efficacy of 2 inhalers (fluticasone propionate/formoterol treatment using a pressurized metered-dose inhaler [p-MDI group] vs. fluticasone propionate/salmeterol treatment using a dry powder inhaler [DPI group]) in older asthmatics.METHODS: We conducted a 12-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-designed trial in older patients (over 55 years old) with moderate-to-severe asthma, and compared the efficacy and safety for asthma control between the 2 groups. Subgroup analyses on disease duration and air trapping were performed. Clinical parameters, including changes in lung function parameters, inhaler technique and adherence, were compared with monitoring adverse reactions between the 2 groups.RESULTS: A total of 68 patients underwent randomization, and 63 (30 in the p-MDI group and 33 in the DPI group) completed this study. The p-MDI group was non-inferior to the DPI group with regard to the rate of well-controlled asthma (53.3% vs. 45.5%, P < 0.001; a predefined non-inferiority limit of 17%). In subgroup analyses, the proportion of patients who did not reach well-controlled asthma in the p-MDI group was non-inferior to that in the DPI group; the difference was 12.7% among those with a longer disease duration (≥ 15 years) and 17.5% among those with higher air-trapping (RV/TLC ≥ 45%), respectively (a predefined non-inferiority limit of 17%, P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in lung function parameters, inhalation techniques, adherence and adverse reactions between the 2 groups.CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the p-MDI group may be comparable to the DPI group in the management of older asthmatics in aspects of efficacy and safety.