Immersive Virtual Reality in Basic Point-of-Care Ultrasound Training: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

This study was aimed at comparing the learning efficacy of a traditional instructor-led lesson with that of a completely virtual, self-directed lesson in immersive virtual reality (IVR) in teaching basic point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) skills. We conducted a blinded, non-inferiority, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial in which final-year medical students were randomized to an instructor-led (n = 53) or IVR (n = 51) lesson. Participants' learning efficacy was evaluated by blinded assessors, who rated each participant's performance using the Objective Structured Assessment of Ultrasound Skills (OSAUS) assessment tool.The mean total scores for participants were 11.0 points (95% confidence interval: 9.8-12.2) for the instructor-led lesson and 10.3 points (95% confidence interval: 9.0-11.5) for the IVR lesson. No significant differences were observed between the groups with respect to total score (p = 0.36) or subgroup objectives of the OSAUS score (p = 0.34 for familiarity, p = 0.45 for image optimization, p = 0.96 for systematic approach and p = 0.07 for interpretation). Maintenance costs for both courses were estimated at 400 euros each. Startup costs for the instructor-led course were estimated 16 times higher than those for the IVR course. The learning efficacy of an instructor-led lesson on basic US did not differ significantly from that of a self-directed lesson in IVR, as assessed using the OSAUS. The results suggest that IVR could be an equivalent alternative to instructor-led lessons in future basic US courses, but further research is warranted to clarify the role of IVR in PoCUS courses.

Ultra-low dose computed tomography of the chest in an emergency setting: A prospective agreement study.

Ultra-low dose computed tomography (ULD-CT) assessed by non-radiologists in a medical Emergency Department (ED) has not been examined in previous studies. To (i) investigate intragroup agreement among attending physicians caring for ED patients (i.e., radiologists, senior- and junior clinicians) and medical students for the detection of acute lung conditions on ULD-CT and supine chest X-ray (sCXR), and (ii) evaluate the accuracy of interpretation compared to the reference standard. In this prospective study, non-traumatic patients presenting to the ED, who received an sCXR were included. Between February and July 2019, 91 patients who underwent 93 consecutive examinations were enrolled. Subsequently, a ULD-CT and non-contrast CT were performed. The ULD-CT and sCXR were assessed by 3 radiologists, 3 senior clinicians, 3 junior clinicians, and 3 medical students for pneumonia, pneumothorax, pleural effusion, and pulmonary edema. The non-contrast CT, assessed by a chest radiologist, was used as the reference standard. The results of the assessments were compared within each group (intragroup agreement) and with the reference standard (accuracy) using kappa statistics. Accuracy and intragroup agreement improved for pneumothorax on ULD-CT compared with the sCXR for all groups. Accuracy and intragroup agreement improved for pneumonia on ULD-CT when assessed by radiologists and for pleural effusion when assessed by medical students. In patients with acute lung conditions ULD-CT offers improvement in the detection of pneumonia by radiologists and the detection of pneumothorax by radiologists as well as non-radiologists compared to sCXR. Therefore, ULD-CT may be considered as an alternative first-line imaging modality to sCXR for non-traumatic patients who present to EDs.

Diagnostic accuracy of ultra-low-dose chest computed tomography in an emergency department.

BACKGROUND: This study examined whether ultra-low-dose chest computed tomography (ULD-CT) could improve detection of acute chest conditions. PURPOSE: To determine (i) whether diagnostic accuracy of ULD-CT is superior to supine chest X-ray (sCXR) for acute chest conditions and (ii) the feasibility of ULD-CT in an emergency department. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 1 February to 31 July 2019, 91 non-traumatic patients from the Emergency Department were prospectively enrolled in the study if they received an sCXR. An ULD-CT and a non-contrast chest CT (NCCT) scan were then performed. Three radiologists assessed the sCXR and ULD-CT examinations for cardiogenic pulmonary edema, pneumonia, pneumothorax, and pleural effusion. Resources and effort were compared for sCXR and ULD-CT to evaluate feasibility. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated for sCXR and ULD-CT using NCCT as the reference standard. RESULTS: The mean effective dose of ULD-CT was 0.05±0.01 mSv. For pleural effusion and cardiogenic pulmonary edema, no difference in diagnostic accuracy between ULD-CT and sCXR was observed. For pneumonia and pneumothorax, sensitivities were 100% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69-100) and 50% (95% CI 7-93) for ULD-CT and 60% (95% CI 26-88) and 0% (95% CI 0-0) for sCXR, respectively. Median examination time was 10 min for ULD-CT vs. 5 min for sCXR (P<0.001). For ULD-CT 1-2 more staff members were needed compared to sCXR (P<0.001). ULD-CT was rated more challenging to perform than sCXR (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: ULD-CT seems equal or better in detecting acute chest conditions compared to sCXR. However, ULD-CT examinations demand more effort and resources.