Weibel Nadir, Shifflett Ben, Liu Weichen, Lin Jacob, Pirahanchi Yasaman, Bowers Jeffrey, Ravi Vikas, Carrión-Penagos Julián, Mortin Melissa, Hailey Lovella, Bolar Divya S, Shahripour Reza Bavarsad, Agrawal Kunal, Modir Royya, Meyer Dawn M, Hemmen Thomas T, Meyer Brett C
Stroke Vasc Interv Neurol. 2025 May;5(3). doi: 10.1161/SVIN.124.001713. Epub 2025 Apr 15.
Augmented Reality (AR) enables visualization of and interaction with both physical and virtual environments. Holograms can allow 3D image transmission to distant sites, allowing patients to interact with providers as if in the same space. Our prior publication resulted in high satisfaction/immersion for patients interacting with Holo-Stroke providers. Our aim here was to determine if providers assessing CTAs for large vessel occlusion (LVO) would result in reliability and satisfaction.
Thirty-six head CTAs were de-identified and scored by Stroke Faculty, Fellows, and Nurse Practitioners for LVO using DICOM viewer. CTAs were presented 2 months later via Holo-Stroke. Holograms were positioned in 3D-space, viewable through the Hololens-2, and scored by the same providers. Kappa Reliability was assessed comparing scores to gold-standard (radiology report). Satisfaction was assessed via Likert scale.
Thirteen providers scored the CTAs. Overall Kappa reliability, compared to gold standard, was 0.78(81%)DICOMvs.0.94(94%)Holo-Stroke-CTA(p<0.0001). Overall %correct was 81%vs.94%(p<0.001). Holo-Stroke-CTA's reliability improved for most examiners: Overall (κ=0.78(81%)vs.0.94(94%)), Faculty (κ=0.85(87%)vs.0.92(93%)), NPs (κ=0.81(83%)vs.0.90(92%)), and Fellows (κ=0.68(72%)vs.0.97(97%)). Overall MCA (κ=0.76(86%)vs.0.93(96%)), ICA (κ=0.8(88%)vs.0.9(94%)), and Basilar (κ=0.73(95%)vs. 0.82(96%)) scored high, with marked improvement for ACA (κ=0.3(39%)vs. 0.91(94%)), and PCA (κ=0.55(70%)vs.0.95(98%)). Likert satisfaction "Overall" was (18DICOM,48Holo-Stroke-CTA;p=0.002) with %increasing from 39% to 96%. "Immersion" scores were (0,10;p=0.001), "Ease of Use" (5,9;p=0.002), "Accuracy" (7,9;p=0.002), "Technology Advancement" (4,10;p=0.001), and "Interest" (3,10;p=0.002).
Holo-Stroke-CTA resulted in higher reliability and satisfaction vs. standard DICOM tele-stroke tele-radiology. Providers noted the ability to see 3D vessels in virtual space, vs. scrolling through axial/sagittal/coronal images, resulted in higher accuracy. Even for trainees and difficult to assess vessels, providers were more able to identify LVOs using Holo-Stroke-CTA. Providers were enthusiastic for the immersive radiology assessment, with the ability to immersively resize, rotate, and investigate hologram in 3D virtual space. Though further assessments are needed, Holo-Stroke-CTA can help providers more easily, and at-a-glance, evaluate CTA for LVO.
增强现实(AR)技术能够实现物理环境与虚拟环境的可视化及交互。全息图可实现三维图像向远程站点的传输,使患者能如同身处同一空间般与医疗服务提供者进行互动。我们之前的研究表明,患者与Holo-Stroke医疗服务提供者互动时满意度/沉浸感较高。我们此次的目的是确定使用Holo-Stroke评估大血管闭塞(LVO)的CT血管造影(CTA)时,其可靠性和满意度情况。
36例头部CTA被去除标识信息,由卒中专科医生、研究员和执业护士使用DICOM查看器对LVO进行评分。2个月后通过Holo-Stroke展示这些CTA。全息图被放置在三维空间中,可通过HoloLens-2查看,并由相同的医疗服务提供者进行评分。通过将评分与金标准(放射学报告)进行比较来评估kappa可靠性。通过李克特量表评估满意度。
13名医疗服务提供者对CTA进行了评分。与金标准相比,总体kappa可靠性方面,DICOM为0.78(81%),而Holo-Stroke-CTA为0.94(94%)(p<0.0001)。总体正确百分比为81%对94%(p<0.001)。对于大多数检查者而言,Holo-Stroke-CTA的可靠性有所提高:总体(κ=0.78(81%)对0.94(94%))、专科医生(κ=0.85(87%)对0.92(93%))、执业护士(κ=0.81(83%)对0.90(92%))以及研究员(κ=0.68(72%)对0.97(97%))。大脑中动脉(MCA)总体(κ=0.76(86%)对0.93(96%))、颈内动脉(ICA)(κ=0.8(88%)对0.9(94%))和基底动脉(κ=0.73(95%)对0.82(96%))评分较高,前交通动脉(ACA)(κ=0.3(39%)对0.91(94%))和后交通动脉(PCA)(κ=0.55(70%)对0.95(98%))有显著改善。李克特满意度“总体”方面,DICOM为(18),Holo-Stroke-CTA为(48);p=0.002,百分比从39%增至96%。“沉浸感”评分分别为(0,10);p=0.001,“易用性”(5,9);p=0.002,“准确性”(7,9);p=0.002,“技术进步”(4,10);p=0.001,“兴趣”(3,10);p=0.002。
与标准的DICOM远程卒中远程放射学相比,Holo-Stroke-CTA具有更高的可靠性和满意度。医疗服务提供者指出,与在轴向/矢状/冠状图像中滚动查看相比,在虚拟空间中查看三维血管能提高准确性。即使对于实习生以及难以评估的血管,医疗服务提供者使用Holo-Stroke-CTA也更能识别LVO。医疗服务提供者对这种沉浸式放射学评估充满热情,能够在三维虚拟空间中对全息图进行沉浸式缩放、旋转和研究。尽管还需要进一步评估,但Holo-Stroke-CTA可帮助医疗服务提供者更轻松、一目了然地评估用于LVO的CTA。