Dataset Information

Diagnostic Performance of 6-Point Lung Ultrasound in ICU Patients: A Comparison with Chest X-Ray and CT Thorax.

ABSTRACT: Objective:To evaluate the diagnostic performance of a rapid bedside 6-point lung ultrasonography (LUS) performed by an intensive care unit (ICU) physician for detection of four common pathological conditions of the lung, such as alveolar consolidation, pleural effusion, interstitial syndrome and pneumothorax, in critically ill patients and its comparison with bedside chest X-ray (CXR) and high-resolution computed tomography (CT) scan of the thorax. Volume of pleural effusion measured by LUS and CT thorax was also compared. Methods:This was a cross-sectional, observational study of 90 adult patients with an acute lung injury score of ?1 admitted to the medical-surgical ICU. They were examined by CXR and 6-point LUS as per BLUE protocol at bedside, followed by CT thorax in the radiology department. Results:The sensitivity of 6-point LUS for detecting alveolar consolidation, pleural effusion, interstitial syndrome and pneumothorax was 76%, 88%, 83% and 89%, respectively, which was remarkably higher than that of CXR. The specificity of LUS was 100% for all pathologies, which was again notably higher than that of CXR except for interstitial syndrome for which it was 88.5%. Measurement of volume of pleural effusion by LUS was comparable and had a strong absolute agreement with CT thorax. Conclusion:6-Point LUS can be a useful diagnostic tool and is better than CXR in diagnosing respiratory pathologies in critically ill patients. Owing to the comparable diagnostic performance of LUS and CT scan and with increasing evidence in favour of LUS, the requirement of CT thorax can be reduced. Radiation hazards associated with CXR and CT, as well as potentially risky transfer of patients to CT room, can also be minimised.

SUBMITTER: Danish M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6645838 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic Performance of 6-Point Lung Ultrasound in ICU Patients: A Comparison with Chest X-Ray and CT Thorax.

Danish Mohammad M Agarwal Aarti A Goyal Puneet P Gupta Devendra D Lal Hira H Prasad Raghunandan R Dhiraaj Sanjay S Agarwal Anil A Mishra Prabhaker P

Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation 20190312 4

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the diagnostic performance of a rapid bedside 6-point lung ultrasonography (LUS) performed by an intensive care unit (ICU) physician for detection of four common pathological conditions of the lung, such as alveolar consolidation, pleural effusion, interstitial syndrome and pneumothorax, in critically ill patients and its comparison with bedside chest X-ray (CXR) and high-resolution computed tomography (CT) scan of the thorax. Volume of pleural effusion measured by ...[more]

PMID: 31380512

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHypoxia is a common presentation in the Emergency Department (ED) worldwide. It affects 9-12% of hospitalized adults in Sub-Saharan Africa. Timely diagnosis of the multiple causes such as pneumonia, heart failure among others is challenging. Chest X-Ray (CXR), one of the most utilized imaging modalities has many limitations, and the gold standard (Computed Tomography scan) is inaccessible. Point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) is more available and increasingly being used, however little is known of its performance in resource limited EDs. The study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of PoCUS compared with CXR in identifying the causes of hypoxia in the medical ED.Methods49 adults presenting with hypoxia (SP02 ≤ 88%) in the medical ED were evaluated. Ultrasound of the lungs and heart (PoCUS) was done, then CXR obtained. Lung ultrasound (LUS) was compared with CXR (first reference standard). Chest X-Ray and PoCUS were each compared to the physician diagnosis (second reference standard) to determine agreement using an acceptable disagreement cut-off of 15%.Results31% more abnormalities were identified by LUS than CXR. Lung ultrasound findings agreed with CXR in 86% of the participants with moderate reliability (ĸ=0.75). There was no significant difference between the actual findings of the two tests (X2= 2, p 0.1). Using the second reference, 82% of the CXRs were similar with weak reliability (ĸ=0.5) compared to 98% of PoCUS findings with strong reliability (ĸ=0.9). Compared to PoCUS, CXRs significantly differed from the physician diagnosis (X2= 0.85, p 0.38 vs X2= 8.5, p 0.004 respectively).ConclusionOverall, PoCUS was not inferior to CXR when compared to final physician diagnosis in identifying causes of hypoxia, and LUS and CXR had comparable performance. Significantly more abnormalities were identified on PoCUS and it demonstrated better agreement and strong reliability with the physician diagnosis than CXR. We recommend PoCUS use in patients with hypoxia attending resource limited in- and pre-hospital settings.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough lung ultrasound has been reported to be a portable, cost-effective, and accurate method to detect pneumonia, it has not been widely used because of the difficulty in its interpretation. Here, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness of a novel artificial intelligence-based automated pneumonia detection method using point-of-care lung ultrasound (AI-POCUS) for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsWe enrolled consecutive patients admitted with COVID-19 who underwent computed tomography (CT) in August and September 2021. A 12-zone AI-POCUS was performed by a novice observer using a pocket-size device within 24 h of the CT scan. Fifteen control subjects were also scanned. Additionally, the accuracy of the simplified 8-zone scan excluding the dorsal chest, was assessed. More than three B-lines detected in one lung zone were considered zone-level positive, and the presence of positive AI-POCUS in any lung zone was considered patient-level positive. The sample size calculation was not performed given the retrospective all-comer nature of the study.ResultsA total of 577 lung zones from 56 subjects (59.4 ± 14.8 years, 23% female) were evaluated using AI-POCUS. The mean number of days from disease onset was 9, and 14% of patients were under mechanical ventilation. The CT-validated pneumonia was seen in 71.4% of patients at total 577 lung zones (53.3%). The 12-zone AI-POCUS for detecting CT-validated pneumonia in the patient-level showed the accuracy of 94.5% (85.1%- 98.1%), sensitivity of 92.3% (79.7%- 97.3%), specificity of 100% (80.6%- 100%), positive predictive value of 95.0% (89.6% - 97.7%), and Kappa of 0.33 (0.27-0.40). When simplified with 8-zone scan, the accuracy, sensitivity, and sensitivity were 83.9% (72.2%- 91.3%), 77.5% (62.5%- 87.7%), and 100% (80.6%- 100%), respectively. The zone-level accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of AI-POCUS were 65.3% (61.4%- 69.1%), 37.2% (32.0%- 42.7%), and 97.8% (95.2%- 99.0%), respectively.InterpretationAI-POCUS using the novel pocket-size ultrasound system showed excellent agreement with CT-validated COVID-19 pneumonia, even when used by a novice observer.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic Performance of 6-Point Lung Ultrasound in ICU Patients: A Comparison with Chest X-Ray and CT Thorax.

Publications

Diagnostic Performance of 6-Point Lung Ultrasound in ICU Patients: A Comparison with Chest X-Ray and CT Thorax.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets