Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jul 7;14(1):27.
doi: 10.1186/s13089-022-00274-6.

Comparison of four handheld point-of-care ultrasound devices by expert users

Minh-Phuong T Le #  1 , Lara Voigt #  2 , Robert Nathanson  3   4 , Anna M Maw  5 , Gordon Johnson  6 , Ria Dancel  7   8 , Benji Mathews  9 , Alvaro Moreira  10 , Harald Sauthoff  11   12 , Christopher Gelabert  13 , Linda M Kurian  14 , Jenna Dumovich  3 , Kevin C Proud  15   16 , Jessica Solis-McCarthy  13 , Carolina Candotti  17 , Christopher Dayton  13   15 , Alexander Arena  13 , Brandon Boesch  18 , Saul Flores  19 , Mark T Foster  13 , Nicholas Villalobos  20 , Tanping Wong  21 , Gabriel Ortiz-Jaimes  22 , Michael Mader  23 , Craig Sisson  13 , Nilam J Soni  3   4   15
Affiliations

Comparison of four handheld point-of-care ultrasound devices by expert users

Minh-Phuong T Le et al. Ultrasound J. .

Abstract

Background: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is rapidly becoming ubiquitous across healthcare specialties. This is due to several factors including its portability, immediacy of results to guide clinical decision-making, and lack of radiation exposure to patients. The recent growth of handheld ultrasound devices has improved access to ultrasound for many clinicians. Few studies have directly compared different handheld ultrasound devices among themselves or to cart-based ultrasound machines. We conducted a prospective observational study comparing four common handheld ultrasound devices for ease of use, image quality, and overall satisfaction. Twenty-four POCUS experts utilized four handheld devices (Butterfly iQ+™ by Butterfly Network Inc., Kosmos™ by EchoNous, Vscan Air™ by General Electric, and Lumify™ by Philips Healthcare) to obtain three ultrasound views on the same standardized patients using high- and low-frequency probes.

Results: Data were collected from 24 POCUS experts using all 4 handheld devices. No single ultrasound device was superior in all categories. For overall ease of use, the Vscan Air™ was rated highest, followed by the Lumify™. For overall image quality, Lumify™ was rated highest, followed by Kosmos™. The Lumify™ device was rated highest for overall satisfaction, while the Vscan Air™ was rated as the most likely to be purchased personally and carried in one's coat pocket. The top 5 characteristics of handheld ultrasound devices rated as being "very important" were image quality, ease of use, portability, total costs, and availability of different probes.

Conclusions: In a comparison of four common handheld ultrasound devices in the United States, no single handheld ultrasound device was perceived to have all desired characteristics. POCUS experts rated the Lumify™ highest for image quality and Vscan Air™ highest for ease of use. Overall satisfaction was highest with the Lumify™ device, while the most likely to be purchased as a pocket device was the Vscan Air™. Image quality was felt to be the most important characteristic in evaluating handheld ultrasound devices.

Keywords: Handheld ultrasound; POCUS; Point-of-care ultrasound; Portable ultrasound diagnostic imaging; Procedures.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Echonous, Philips, General Electric, and Butterfly Network, Inc. did not have any involvement in the development of this study, data review and analysis, writing of the manuscript, or any approval or decision making in the submission of this manuscript. None of the authors are or were in any contractual agreement with Echonous, Philips, General Electric, or Butterfly Network, Inc. regarding the study equipment (other than purchasing or loan agreements). None of the authors serve as speakers or consultants for any of the companies whose devices were included in this study. The authors did not receive any payment, support, or benefits from these companies for the present study or in the past. The Kosmos™ (Echonous), Lumify™ (Phillips), and Vscan Air™ (General Electric) ultrasound equipment were temporarily loaned from their respective companies at the request of one of our authors (NS). The Butterfly IQ+™ (Butterfly Network, Inc.) equipment was previously purchased by one of our authors (GJ) for personal use and temporarily loaned for this study. One of the authors (HS) has received loaned equipment with shipping from Butterfly Network, Inc. for an unrelated investigator-initiated study.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Mean ratings of handheld ultrasound devices by ease of use and image quality
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Parasternal long-axis view by four handheld ultrasound devices. Parasternal long-axis views acquired from the same standardized patient in early systole with the mitral valve closed and aortic valve open are shown from the A Butterfly IQ+™ (Butterfly Network, Inc.), B Kosmos™ (Echonous, Inc.), C Lumify™ (Phillips Healthcare), and D Vscan Air™ (General Electric)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
A Overall satisfaction with handheld ultrasound devices per POCUS Experts. Experts’ responses were defined as Satisfied for "I like this device and would definitely use it in patient care", Neutral for “I don’t have strong feeling for or against this device. I might use it in patient care,” and Dissatisfied for “I would not use this device even if it was given to me for free.” B Overall Ranking of Handheld Ultrasound Devices by POCUS Experts. C Recommendation for Purchase of a Personal Handheld Ultrasound Device by POCUS Experts
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. LoPresti CM, Boyd JS, Schott C, et al. A national needs assessment of point-of-care ultrasound training for hospitalists. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;94(9):1910–1912. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.07.016. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Micks T, Sue K, Rogers P. Barriers to point-of-care ultrasound use in rural emergency departments. CJEM. 2016;18(6):475–479. doi: 10.1017/cem.2016.337. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Boyd JS, LoPresti CM, Core M, et al. Current use and training needs of point-of-care ultrasound in emergency departments: a national survey of VA hospitals. Am J Emerg Med. 2019;37(9):1794–1797. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2019.02.043. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Buchanan MS, Backlund B, Liao MM, et al. Use of ultrasound guidance for central venous catheter placement: survey from the American board of emergency medicine longitudinal study of emergency physicians. Acad Emerg Med. 2014;21(4):416–421. doi: 10.1111/acem.12350. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Russell FM, Zakeri B, Herbert A, Ferre RM, Leiser A, Wallach PM. The state of point-of-care ultrasound training in undergraduate medical education: findings from a national survey. Acad Med. 2021 doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000004512. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources