Imaging Breakthrough "Sees" Lung Disease

Roland Piquepaille writes "According to BusinessWeek, an Israeli startup, aptly named Deep Breeze, has developed a high-tech replacement for the 200-year-old stethoscope. This noninvasive device can draw, in seconds, an image of your lungs by listening to its vibrations. The Vibration Response Imaging (VRI) system could already be used in Israel, Europe and South Korea. Last month, the US Food and Drug Administration approved its introduction in the US. But don't expect to see one of these systems used by your local physician anytime soon. This VRI system will carry a price tag of over $40K."

Is that a lot?

[lawpoop (604919)]

But don't expect to see one of these systems used by your local physician anytime soon. This VRI system will carry a price tag of over $40K.

Is that really so much money that a local doctor can't afford it? I would expect a GP not to have it, just because he doesn't do enough long-disease screening to cover the cost. Probably the local hospital and a specialist would have it.

But is $40K a lot as far as medical devices cost? How much is the x-ray machine at the doctor's office, or the ultrasound equipment at the heart specialist?

Re:

[Brian Gordon (987471)]

From wikipedia: "The [MRI] scanners used in medicine have a typical magnetic field strength of 0.3 to 3 teslas. Construction costs approximately US$ 1 million per tesla, and maintenance an additional several hundred thousand dollars per year." X ray machines are significantly cheaper, but they'd still make $40k seem cheap.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

40K is not a lot for a medical imaging device. I work in an imaging lab, and if anything that is on the cheap side. The higher end CT scanners run well over a quarter of a million dollars, and most of the X-Ray scanners are at least tens of thousands.

Re:Is that a lot?

[Rob T Firefly (844560)]

How expensive is it compared to the machine that goes "ping?" [youtube.com]

Re:Is that a lot?

[Joe Random (777564)]

How expensive is it compared to the machine that goes "ping?" [youtube.com]

Pocket change. Why, the machine that goes "ping" is the most expensive machine in the whole hospital! It cost over three quarters of a million pounds. Not to worry, though. You see, we lease it back from the company we sold it to, and that way, it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.

It's cheap, but might be overpriced.

[twitter (104583)]

But is $40K a lot as far as medical devices cost? How much is the x-ray machine at the doctor's office, or the ultrasound equipment at the heart specialist?

Those machines go from $50,000 (xray) to $3,000,000 (CT, Linac, MRI). QC, operators and electricity are also expensive.

That makes this device sound cheap, but it could be way overpriced if it's nothing more than a microphone hooked to a stethoscope run through some FFTs. In that case, you are paying for a database of frequency signatures. Even if

$40K is cheap

[wsanders (114993)]

I think that was an editorial remark from someone who doesn't know how much stuff costs. MRI machines cost MILLIONS of dollars.

I think the idea is that this device is supposed to be CHEAPER than MRI or CT scanning.

cheap

[InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837)]

In the dental imaging practice, the large pano devices (that scan around your entire head) go for $100k, while small sensors (of which a single office would have more than one) cost about $10,000 and regularly need replaced. This is a decent price.

Re:

[dfn_deux (535506)]

Heh, you don't even need to look to imaging equipment to see how much standard medical fair costs. A regular no frills hospital bed with rails 2 articulation points and pneumatic adjustment costs well over 20kUSD.

Re:

[smellsofbikes (890263)]

I don't know how much a whole ultrasound machine costs. I do know the company for which I was making just the transducer itself -- the handheld part they put on your stomach (if you're pregnant) or up your butt (if you're unlucky) -- was selling them to the people who made the ultrasound machines for between $5000 and $20,000. One assumes the machine, with all the amplifiers and software and video, probably costs quite a bit more than just the transducer itself.

So, yes, $40K is pocket change. A family pr

Expensive?

[knivesx11 (1085179)]

That really no where near the price of a MRI machine so I'm pretty sure that it is as capable as the article makes it sound than thats not that much to spend. Several hospitals in my area have spent 100+ million in renovations.

Re:Expensive?

[tgatliff (311583)]

What I find interesting is that checking lung inhalation capacity is only one small task for a stethoscope. How is imaging the lungs going to help checking for heart valve / murmur problems?

Meaning, from a marketing standpoint, saying that their product "replaces" the stethoscope is sexy to say, but actually pulling it off is a completely different thing all together...

Re:

[everphilski (877346)]

A stethoscope that generates imagery, without using radiation, and can accurately diagnose between multiple conditions? It'll pay for itself.

$40grand?

[josquint (193951)]

But don't expect to see one of these systems used by your local physician anytime soon. This VRI system will carry a price tag of over $40K."

At $40,000 it may not be around every doctor's neck, but geez just the exam table I sit on and the scale they make me stand on totals a staggering amount. I can't imagine something in the tens of thousands being cost prohibative to the medical field.

Re:

[lawpoop (604919)]

I don't know the details, but if a doctor in a private practice can afford an $40-80K vehicle drawing a salary from the practice, certainly the practice can afford a $40K+ machine as an expense, when it's making money off of it.

Re:

[TubeSteak (669689)]

I can't imagine something in the tens of thousands being cost prohibative to the medical field.

If insurance companies refuse to cover it, very few Doctors & hospitals will buy it.

It really is that simple.

Re:

[Doctor Memory (6336)]

If insurance companies refuse to cover it, very few Doctors & hospitals will buy it.

If it can eliminate the need for sending patients out for chest X-rays[0], the HMOs will mandate it. Hell, I can see them refusing to pay for a chest X-ray or MRI if you haven't been checked out on one of these first. If all it takes is the electricity to run it, some saline gel for the electrodes/transponder/whatever and an annual maintenance contract, this thing will save money hand over fist in some areas.

[0] Obviously not all patients, but (say) 30-50% of those who come in complaining of shortness of

Cost vs need

[east coast (590680)]

The real question is how often will this be used? Not every doctor is going to need this as, it seems, this is going to start out as a specialist item. Your local hospital may only have need for one of these things in the long run.

In any case this is a good step forward and I'm glad to hear about it...

Now, where did I put that pack of Camels???

If it is there it will get used

[EmbeddedJanitor (597831)]

Most medical tests are not run because theres a need, but because the test is available and it is run as an extra screening tool.

A significant number of xrays and blood tests are run "just to make sure", not because a problem is expected.

If one of these lung viewers was available you can be sure it would get used to check out coughs and all sorts of complaints "just to make sure" and would find its way into medical examinations too.

Re:

[Martin Blank (154261)]

These could actually be profitable for a practice, depending on how long they take to complete a scan. As part of an annual physical, these could add very little cost to the visit, and insurance companies may be enthusiastic about approving them if they can pick up on serious diseases more quickly. I'm not sure how many patient visits a doctor has each year, but if it's around 5000, and only 10% of them use this, the basic purchase cost could be paid back at less than $20 per visit. I'd be willing to chi

Costs

[Da3vid (926771)]

I can tell you that radiology/cardiology and a lot of the imaging modalities is really where hospitals make a lot of their bucks. I'm actually a medical consultant. While I don't work with the machines much at all, I work with getting properly trained staff out at the places. I get the impression that a lot of the machines are in the quarter to half million dollar range. I can tell you that an ultrasound technologist can make quite a few pretty pennies :) The good ones can get into the 6 figures easily annually. Hospitals rely on them so much that when they're short handed, they're willing to pay $50 to $100 dollars per hour for long extended periods (3-12 months at a time) to make sure they have someone running their machines.

Re:

[Prof.Phreak (584152)]

...they're willing to pay $50 to $100 dollars per hour for long extended periods

'cause they charge each and every patient 10x that for their time :-)

Though I doubt it will cost you $500-$1000 if a doctor really spends an hour on you---likely much much more.

Re:

[JDevers (83155)]

He isn't talking about a doctor, just an ultrasound tech.

Re:Costs

[Da3vid (926771)]

I'd say for ultrasound, the average would be to have a patient scheduled every 30 minutes. Also, a lot of people don't realize it... but you don't even need a bachelor's to be an ultrasonographer. Its an associate's degree.

Re:

[vigmeister (1112659)]

My last visit to the hospital: $866 for 25min spent in the hospital. Doctor's consultation itself was probably 3-4min. The fire dept took me there and 2 nurses from the hospital spent a total of about 10 min collecting my personal information, moving a stand to hold the IV pouch and getting me some Gatorade.

Cheers!

Re:

[everphilski (877346)]

The fire dept took me there

That'd explain it. Emergency response.

Re:

[vigmeister (1112659)]

Does the fire dept. charge your for 911 calls?

Oddly enough, they required me to explicitly consent to being taken to a hospital even though my blood pressure was dangerously low and people had to pinch me and put ice on me to keep me conscious. Weird.

Cheers!
--
Vig

$5 million for MRI machine

[DrDitto (962751)]

A state-of-the-art MRI or CT scanner cost upwards of $5 million. $40,000? Easily within the reach of even your local general practitioner.

But using sound to create an image? This is exactly what an ultrasound does.

Re:

[tgatliff (311583)]

Brilliant statement, by the way... Now if only you could consult the investors on this... :-)

PICTURES, DANG IT

[MBCook (132727)]

Why, when there is an article about something visual, especially a revolutionary new visualization system, do they never show pictures.

I hate that.

If you are reporting on a neat visual thingy,... SHOW ME THE THINGY. Even a picture of the machine would be a plus, even if it looks exactly like an MRI or some other machine. I don't care if the picture may mean nothing to me. Put a little caption trying to explain it. It doesn't matter, show me SOMETHING.

Does anyone have a picture?

This should be criminal.

(the annoyed MBCook)

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Visit the site for some images from the thingy.

http://www.deepbreeze.com/Default.aspx?state=Int [deepbreeze.com]

Most of the links are broken but there's more under FAQ.

Re:

[gardyloo (512791)]

Here, too: http://medgadget.com/archives/2007/07/video_of_vri xp_system_from_deep_breeze.html [medgadget.com]

Re:PICTURES, DANG IT

[Chris Burke (6130)]

SHOW ME THE THINGY.

Oh sure. You say that, and get +5 Funny. I say that, and I get a visit from the police. :(

Great.

[Wilson_6500 (896824)]

So we have Businessweek's perspective on things, where--in the very first few sentences--the word "sales" sparkles out. Anyone have a little more to add about the technical side of this imaging system?

40k?

[jshriverWVU (810740)]

This VRI system will carry a price tag of over $40K

When MRI and other can cost over $1 million, 40k isn't that much.

Imagine

[Constantine XVI (880691)]

a Beowulf cluster of these... ...what? It already is a Beowulf cluster?

My work is done here.

Nice In Theory

[LightPhoenix7 (1070028)]

This is nice in theory, however I don't see it really catching on.

For one thing, a stethescope is very cheap. Forty-thousand isn't a lot for a hospital, but if it's not necessary, they won't buy it. That money is better spent on salaries, or saving up for that high-tech imagine unit. Furthermore, even with an output from this, it's highly likely they'll order a CT or MRI anyway for a higher resolution picture.

$40K is Cheap

[N8F8 (4562)]

They bleed me so bad now that I wouldn't even feel the prick.

FDA Approval?!

[Skevin (16048)]

Can someone please tell me how a machine is considered a "Food" or "Drug"?

Solomon

Here are some pictures and videos

[mzs (595629)]

Comany website:

    http://www.deepbreeze.com/ [deepbreeze.com]

Multimedia:

    http://medgadget.com/archives/2007/07/video_of_vri xp_system_from_deep_breeze.html [medgadget.com]
    http://www.medgadget.com/archives/2007/07/new_pulm onary_imaging_modality_approved_by_the_fda.html [medgadget.com]
    http://www.thieme.de/viamedici/aktuelles/wissensch aft_archiv1/0000001_digitales_stethoskop.html [thieme.de]
   

Physicians will still use their ears

[MagicDude (727944)]

IIAMS (Medical Student), and here how I see this device being used, docs will continue using regular stethoscopes because most diagnoses quite straightforward. When there are unusual sounds that require additional insight, then you break out the one VRI that is available in the physician's group. It would be similar to how most cardiac auscultation is straightforward, but when there is something particularly unusual, you send a person for an echo cardiogram. Even there where there is a well established, safe, accurate, non-invasive, relatively cheap imaging modality, you still listen first. Also, imaging isn't infallible, and just like different physicians can disagree about lung sounds, different radiologists can disagree about image interpretation.

$40k scaling down to $10k, and why not stethoscope

[ganesaraja12 (963631)]

TFA says that the price of the imaging modality will drop in the next few years with economies of scale and so forth. This is good, very good. It means that it'll make its way into the GP's practice soon and not just be in the hands of respiratory physicians and hospitals. But, honestly, look at things like this: TFA mentions that as far as replacing the stethoscope goes, it removes any sort of interpersonal bias between doctors in diagnosis. While this is just wonderful in respect to some esoteric diagnoses ie. whether you can *hear* a tiny small-cell carcinoma, but for the rest of us, I feel that a stethoscope, a quiet room and a competent doctor will suffice. The sounds of pneumonia, emphysema, pulmonary oedema, tuberculosis, bronchiole asthma etc. are all quite distinctive and as a medical student, I find it somewhat surprising that there can be any significant argument or doubt regarding the diagnosis of such patients. Heck, even if there was doubt, there are other elements of the presenting complaint (risk factors, family history, blood tests and plain old signs & symptoms) that can help doctors reach a definitive diagnosis. What I'm trying to say is, the old stuff works, its tried and true, and it's not easy to honestly miss pulmonary lesions. So, apart from being a novel visual toy (I know it's an instrument but how much fun is this?!) would it HONESTLY replace a $70 stethoscope and a head full of juicy knowledge brains? Me thinks nah :-p

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

That's just silly. 40 grand is cheap for a medical imaging device. In fact the chances are that you will see quick adoption of a device so reasonably priced. (as long as it works as well as advertised)

MRI machines cost about $2 million each.

Re:

[cayenne8 (626475)]

"That's just silly. 40 grand is cheap for a medical imaging device. In fact the chances are that you will see quick adoption of a device so reasonably priced. (as long as it works as well as advertised) "

I hear ya, that is nothing money wise...and the business buys it, so it is a write off as a business expense. This would be nothing...I've worked with doctors 15+ years ago that paid over $300K in taxes for personal taxes.....you can imagine the amount of money pulled in to warrant that amount of tax even

Fraud alert -- Possible fraud

[Futurepower(R) (558542)]

Note that imaging with sound generated in the lungs naturally is apparently not possible because the source and frequency of the sound cannot be known in advance. The use of the word "Imaging" is apparently fraud.

The BusinessWeek article says, amazingly, begging the question, "Its sales prospects are not just hot air"

Notice that, at present, there is no period at the end of that sentence, suggesting that the article received little or no attention from an editor.

Slashdot has run several stories about companies that had products that they were supposedly trying to bring to market, but which, on close examination, apparently were just methods of collecting investor money, with no real hope of return.

Roland Piquepaille, the author of the Slashdot story, is apparently paid to get articles in publications an on blogs. There has never been any information, that I know of, about whether he pays someone at Slashdot or Slashdot's parent company. His Slashdot stories apparently never note Mr. Piquepaille's affiliations with the companies being discussed.

Slashdot has often been scientifically challenged [slashdot.org]. The Slashdot article The Car That Makes Its Own Fuel [slashdot.org] has a +5 moderated First Post that expresses the consensus of the comments on that story.

Actually

[everphilski (877346)]

$40k for medical equiptment isn't bad. Compare it to the cost of a MRI machine, or even a 'low cost' (which is $100k-$200k) x-ray machine. Radiosurgery machines (for cancer) run $3-5 million. Having an accurate diagnosis for $40k is almost cheap by those standards.

Re:

[Pedrito (94783)]

$40k for medical equiptment isn't bad.

$40K is chump change. A decent MRI machine costs at least a couple of million dollars. Just starting up the machine can cost $100,000 (you don't turn them off when you're done). Upgrades generally run hundreds of thousands of dollars. More importantly, like x-rays, MRIs and CT-Scanners, not every doctor needs one. A specialist would have it or a radiology center would have it and the doctor sends you there to get the work done, just like x-rays, MRIs and CT scans.

If th

Re:

[roman_mir (125474)]

It's not that expensive, until you realize that the thing it replaces costs like 20 bucks and that the thing it replaces still does more (it listens to sounds and detect various irregularities for example in the heart beat, etc.)

Re:

[Babbster (107076)]

I know you're trolling, but for the edification of those who might not know, a good stethoscope can cost over $100 and a cheap one will be between $50-100. Also, anyone who thinks that the idea of replacing the stethoscope [entirely] with this machine is anything but hyperbole needs to check their exaggeration sensors.

Re:

[gardyloo (512791)]

Actually, you're talking about pulse-echo ultrasound, as when you see whether your unborn child has a wee-wee or goat horns or whatever. "Ultrasound" as used by people who work with it generally just refers to the frequency ranges above human hearing (as it should).

There is active ultrasound (baby monitors, etc.) and passive ultrasound, which relies on picking up sounds produced by whatever processes you're trying to monitor. I agree that large amounts of the acoustic energy produced by biological processes