Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T05:51:21.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transfer of Real-time Ultrasound Video of FAST Examinations from a Simulated Disaster Scene Via a Mobile Phone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2014

Srikar Adhikari ,
Michael Blaivas ,
Matthew Lyon  and
Stephen Shiver
Srikar Adhikari*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Arizona Medical Center, Tucson, ArizonaUSA
Michael Blaivas
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia, South CarolinaUSA
Matthew Lyon
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Georgia Regents University, Augusta, GeorgiaUSA
Stephen Shiver
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Georgia Regents University, Augusta, GeorgiaUSA
*
Correspondence: Srikar Adhikari, MD, MS Department of Emergency Medicine University of Arizona Medical Center PO Box 245057 Tucson, AZ 85724 USA E-mail sriadhikari@aol.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Disaster management is a complex and difficult undertaking that may involve limited health care resources and evaluation of multiple victims. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the feasibility of real-time ultrasound video transmission from a simulated disaster triage location via commercially available video mobile phones and assess the ability of emergency physicians to accurately interpret the transmitted video of Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) ultrasound examinations.

Methods

This was a prospective, observational study that took place at a simulated disaster scene put on for an Advanced Disaster Life Support (ADLS) course. The second component occurred at a Level I academic urban emergency department (ED) with an annual census of 78,000. Nineteen subjects at a simulated disaster scene were scanned using a SonoSite Titan ultrasound system (Bothell, Washington USA). An off-the-shelf, basic, video-capable mobile phone was used to record each ultrasound examination; and then immediately transmit the videos to another mobile phone approximately 170 miles away. The transmitted video was received by three emergency physicians with hospital credentialing in emergency ultrasound. Each FAST examination video was assessed for pathology, such as free fluid. The reviewers graded the image quality and documented the overall confidence level regarding whether or not a complete and adequate examination was visualized. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to examine the agreement between the reviewers and the sonologist who performed the ultrasound examinations.

Results

A total of 19 videos were transmitted. The median time for transmission of a video was 82.5 seconds (95% CI, 67.7 seconds-97.3 seconds). No video failed to transmit correctly on the first attempt. The image quality ratings for the three reviewers were 7.7, 7.5, and 7.4 on a 10-point Likert scale. There was a moderate agreement between the reviewers and sonologist in image quality rating and overall confidence level scores (rho = 0.6).

Conclusions

Real-time portable ultrasound video transmission via commercially available video mobile phones from a simulated disaster triage location is feasible and emergency physicians were able to accurately interpret video of FAST ultrasound examinations.

AdhikariS, BlaivasM, LyonM, ShiverS. Transfer of Real-time Ultrasound Video of FAST Examinations from a Simulated Disaster Scene Via a Mobile Phone. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2014;29(3):1-4.

Keywords

disasteremergency ultrasoundmobile phoneprehospitalultrasound
Type
Brief Report
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , June 2014 , pp. 290 - 293
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Ma, OJ, Norvell, JG, Subramanian, S. Ultrasound applications in mass casualties and extreme environments. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(5 Suppl):S275-S279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Beck-Razi, N, Fischer, D, Michaelson, M, Engel, A, Gaitini, D. The utility of focused assessment with sonography for trauma as a triage tool in multiple-casualty incidents during the second Lebanon war. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26(9):1149-1156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Keven, K, Ates, K, Yagmurlu, B, et al. Renal doppler ultrasonographic findings in earthquake victims with crush injury. J Ultrasound Med. 2001;20(6):675-679.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Dean, AJ, Ku, BS, Zeserson, EM. The utility of handheld ultrasound in an austere medical setting in Guatemala after a natural disaster. Am J Disaster Med. 2007;2(5):249-256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Mazur, SM, Rippey, J. Transport and use of point-of-care ultrasound by a disaster medical assistance team. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2009;24(2):140-144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Zhou, J, Huang, J, Wu, H, et al. Screening ultrasonography of 2,204 patients with blunt abdominal trauma in the Wenchuan earthquake. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;73(4):890-894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Nelson, BP, Chason, K. Use of ultrasound by emergency medical services: a review. Int J Emerg Med. 2008;1(4):253-259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Ferlin, RM, Vaz-Oliani, DM, Ferreira, AC, Tristão, EG, Oliani, AH. Tele-obstetric ultrasound: analysis of first-trimester ultrasound images transmitted in realtime. J Telemed Telecare. 2012;18(1):54-58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Yoo, SK, Kim, DK, Jung, SM, Kim, EK, Lim, JS, Kim, JH. Performance of a web-based, realtime, tele-ultrasound consultation system over high-speed commercial telecommunication lines. J Telemed Telecare. 2004;10(3):175-179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Blaivas, M, Kuhn, W, Reynolds, B, Brannam, L. Change in differential diagnosis and patient management with the use of portable ultrasound in a remote setting. Wilderness Environ Med. 2005;16(1):38-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Blaivas, M, Lyon, M, Duggal, S. Ultrasound image transmission via camera phones for overreading. Am J Emerg Med. 2005;23:433-438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Strode, CA, Rubal, BJ, Gerhardt, RT, et al. Satellite and mobile wireless transmission of focused assessment with sonography in trauma. Acad Emerg Med. 2003;10:1411-1414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Garrett, PD, Boyd, SY, Bauch, TD, et al. Feasibility of realtime echocardiographic evaluation during patient transport. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2003;16(3):197-201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Huffer, LL, Bauch, TD, Furgerson, JL, et al. Feasibility of remote echocardiography with satellite transmission and real-time interpretation to support medical activities in the austere medical environment. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2004;17:670-674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. American College of Emergency Physicians. Emergency ultrasound guidelines. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;53(4):550-570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar