Artificial intelligence (AI) versus expert: A comparison of left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral (LVOT‐VTI) assessment between ICU doctors and an AI tool

Abstract

Purpose The application of point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) in medical education is a relatively new course. There are still great differences in the existence, quantity, provision, and depth of bedside ultrasound education. The left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral (LVOT‐VTI) has been successfully used in several studies as a parameter for hemodynamic management of critically ill patients, especially in the evaluation of fluid responsiveness. While LVOT‐VTI has been broadly used, valuable applications using artificial intelligence (AI) in PoCUS is still limited. We aimed to identify the degree of correlation between auto LVOT‐VTI and the manual LVOT‐VTI acquired by PoCUS trained ICU doctors. Methods Among the 58 ICU doctors who attended PoCUS training from 1 September 2019 to 30 November 2020, 46 ICU doctors who trained for more than 3 months were enrolled. At the end of PoCUS training, each of the enrolled ICU doctors acquired echocardiography parameters of a new ICU patient in 2 h after new patient was admitted. One of the two bedside expert sonographers would take standard echocardiogram of new ICU patients within 24 h. For ICU doctors, manual LVOT‐VTI was obtained for reference and auto LVOT‐VTI was calculated instantly by using an AI software tool. Based on the image quality of the auto LVOT‐VTI, ICU patients was separated into ideal group (n = 31) and average group (n = 15). Results Left ventricular end‐diastolic dimension (LVEDd, p = 0.1028), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, p = 0.3251), left atrial dimension (LA‐d, p = 0.0962), left ventricular E/A ratio (p = 0.160), left ventricular wall motion (p = 0.317) and pericardial effusion (p = 1) had no significant difference between trained ICU doctors and expert sonographer. ICU patients in average group had greater sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score (7.33 ± 1.58 vs. 4.09 ± 0.57, p = 0.022) and lactic acid (3.67 ± 0.86 mmol/L vs. 1.46 ± 0.12 mmol/L, p = 0.0009) with greater value of LVEDd (51.93 ± 1.07 vs. 47.57 ± 0.89, p = 0.0053), LA‐d (39.06 ± 1.47 vs. 35.22 ± 0.98, p = 0.0334) and percentage of decreased wall motion (p = 0.0166) than ideal group. There were no significant differences of δLVOT‐VTI (|manual LVOT‐VTI – auto LVOT‐VTI|/manual VTI*100%) between the two groups (8.8% ± 1.3% vs. 10% ± 2%, p = 0.6517). Statistically, significant correlations between manual LVOT‐VTI and auto LVOT‐VTI were present in the ideal group (R2 = 0.815, p = 0.00) and average group (R2 = 0.741, p = 0.00). Conclusions ICU doctors could achieve the satisfied level of expertise as expert sonographers after 3 months of PoCUS training. Nearly two thirds of the enrolled ICU doctors could obtain the ideal view and one third of them could acquire the average view. ICU patients with higher SOFA scores and lactic acid were less likely to acquire the ideal view. Manual and auto LVOT‐VTI had statistically significant agreement in both ideal and average groups. Auto LVOT‐VTI in ideal view was more relevant with the manual LVOT‐VTI than the a...

Artificial Intelligence (AI) versus POCUS Expert: A Validation Study of Three Automatic AI-Based, Real-Time, Hemodynamic Echocardiographic Assessment Tools

“…The study included a small number of tests that were measured by the auto LVOT-VTI tool (n = 46) as a secondary objective of the research, and unlike our study, compared the auto tool’s measurements to measurements conducted by relatively novice operators. The study has shown good agreement between a manual examination and the auto LVOT-VTI tool in the Venue™ device [ 28 ]. All in all, the issue of real time POCUS measuring tools has not yet been thoroughly studied.…”

Accuracy and Efficacy of Artificial Intelligence-Derived Automatic Measurements of Transthoracic Echocardiography in Routine Clinical Practice

“…The results suggest that beginners may have taken longer to perform manual measurements due to uncertainty and technical inexperience. Although echocardiographic studies using AI have reported its usefulness as an image acquisition guide for inexperienced beginners and as an educational and diagnostic aid [14,27], the automatic measurement used in this study may also be useful for beginners. The automatic measurement used in this study can also be used by beginners as a guide for automatic analysis itself, which may allow for a faster examination and more efficient skills training.…”

Use of Artificial Intelligence to Assess Cardiac Function by Echocardiography: Systematic Review of the State of the Art

“…It can also help standardize image acquisition and measurements. 1,6 In this way, it would be a tool used to optimize training and echocardiographic studies, 5,25,26 with the possibility of acquiring images of diagnostic quality comparable to those acquired manually by experts. 5,19,20,[22][23][24] The technology is applicable in clinical practice, in emergencies, and in remote areas with scarce resources and few experienced professionals.…”