International journal of cardiology · 2026
AI-assisted handheld echocardiography for hospital bedside cardiac triage: The prospective OPTIMUST implementation study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Paineau Mathieu, Zygouri Andromahi, Wazzan Adrien A L, Ardois Samuel, Le Gallou Thomas, Warot Anne, Coirier Valentin, Perlat Antoinette, Somme Dominique, Ramee Isabelle, Coste Marie, L'official Guillaume, Artru Florent, Donal Erwan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Timely echocardiography remains difficult because expertise is concentrated within cardiology laboratories. Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted handheld ultrasound (HUD) could expand bedside cardiac imaging, but prospective implementation data integrating AI, structured training, digital workflows, and expert governance are lacking.
METHODS: OPTIMUST was a prospective, single-center implementation study evaluating AI-assisted HUD across cardiology and non-cardiology wards. Physicians without formal echocardiography certification completed a structured two-month curriculum and performed focused examinations using Caption AI-enabled HUD integrated into institutional archiving and electronic medical records. Co-primary endpoints were implementation feasibility (analyzable examinations) and interpretive agreement for left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and filling-pressure categories between ward operators and centralized expert review of the same handheld image sets. Secondary endpoints included image quality, physician-reported clinical impact, downstream referral, and workflow integration.
RESULTS: Among 287 attempted examinations, 206 (71.8%) were analyzable; 50 (17.4%) were non-analyzable and 31 (10.8%) lacked a complete report. Among analyzable studies, image quality was excellent in 21%, sufficient in 34%, and suboptimal but interpretable in 45%. Operator assessment correlated with expert review of the same handheld images for LVEF (r = 0.84); Bland-Altman limits of agreement were approximately -21 to +19 percentage points. Filling-pressure category agreement yielded a quadratic weighted κ of 0.659. Physicians reported that HUD findings changed or confirmed management in 93.7% of examinations; this outcome was not independently adjudicated. Comprehensive echocardiography was performed within one month after HUD in 32.8%. Digital integration enabled centralized archiving, structured reporting, remote review, and quality assurance.
CONCLUSIONS: A governed AI-enabled HUD pathway was feasible in a tertiary hospital and provided interpretable studies in 71.8% of attempts. The study demonstrates implementation feasibility and agreement between operator and expert interpretation of the same handheld images; it does not establish safety, diagnostic accuracy versus comprehensive echocardiography, or an independent effect of AI. Multicenter studies with reference-standard imaging, safety endpoints, objective clinical outcomes, and non-AI comparators are required.
METHODS: OPTIMUST was a prospective, single-center implementation study evaluating AI-assisted HUD across cardiology and non-cardiology wards. Physicians without formal echocardiography certification completed a structured two-month curriculum and performed focused examinations using Caption AI-enabled HUD integrated into institutional archiving and electronic medical records. Co-primary endpoints were implementation feasibility (analyzable examinations) and interpretive agreement for left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and filling-pressure categories between ward operators and centralized expert review of the same handheld image sets. Secondary endpoints included image quality, physician-reported clinical impact, downstream referral, and workflow integration.
RESULTS: Among 287 attempted examinations, 206 (71.8%) were analyzable; 50 (17.4%) were non-analyzable and 31 (10.8%) lacked a complete report. Among analyzable studies, image quality was excellent in 21%, sufficient in 34%, and suboptimal but interpretable in 45%. Operator assessment correlated with expert review of the same handheld images for LVEF (r = 0.84); Bland-Altman limits of agreement were approximately -21 to +19 percentage points. Filling-pressure category agreement yielded a quadratic weighted κ of 0.659. Physicians reported that HUD findings changed or confirmed management in 93.7% of examinations; this outcome was not independently adjudicated. Comprehensive echocardiography was performed within one month after HUD in 32.8%. Digital integration enabled centralized archiving, structured reporting, remote review, and quality assurance.
CONCLUSIONS: A governed AI-enabled HUD pathway was feasible in a tertiary hospital and provided interpretable studies in 71.8% of attempts. The study demonstrates implementation feasibility and agreement between operator and expert interpretation of the same handheld images; it does not establish safety, diagnostic accuracy versus comprehensive echocardiography, or an independent effect of AI. Multicenter studies with reference-standard imaging, safety endpoints, objective clinical outcomes, and non-AI comparators are required.