Dataset Information

Lung ultrasound predicts clinical course but not outcome in COVID-19 ICU patients: a retrospective single-center analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Point-of-care lung ultrasound (LU) is an established tool in the first assessment of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Purpose of this study was to evaluate the value of lung ultrasound in COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) patients in predicting clinical course and outcome.

Methods

We analyzed lung ultrasound score (LUS) of all COVID-19 patients admitted from March 2020 to December 2020 to the Internal Intensive Care Unit, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU) of Munich. LU was performed according to a standardized protocol at ICU admission and in case of clinical deterioration with the need for intubation. A normal lung scores 0 points, the worst LUS has 24 points. Patients were stratified in a low (0-12 points) and a high (13-24 points) lung ultrasound score group.

Results

The study included 42 patients, 69% of them male. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (81%) and obesity (57%). The values of pH (7.42 ± 0.09 vs 7.35 ± 0.1; p = 0.047) and p_aO₂ (107 [80-130] vs 80 [66-93] mmHg; p = 0.034) were significantly reduced in patients of the high LUS group. Furthermore, the duration of ventilation (12.5 [8.3-25] vs 36.5 [9.8-70] days; p = 0.029) was significantly prolonged in this group. Patchy subpleural thickening (n = 38; 90.5%) and subpleural consolidations (n = 23; 54.8%) were present in most patients. Pleural effusion was rare (n = 4; 9.5%). The median total LUS was 11.9 ± 3.9 points. In case of clinical deterioration with the need for intubation, LUS worsened significantly compared to baseline LU. Twelve patients died during the ICU stay (29%). There was no difference in survival in both LUS groups (75% vs 66.7%, p = 0.559).

Conclusions

LU can be a useful monitoring tool to predict clinical course but not outcome of COVID-19 ICU patients and can early recognize possible deteriorations.

SUBMITTER: Stecher SS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8236568 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeInformation regarding the use of lung ultrasound (LUS) in patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is quickly accumulating, but its use for risk stratification and outcome prediction has yet to be described. We performed the first systematic and comprehensive LUS evaluation of consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection, in order to describe LUS findings and their association with clinical course and outcome.MethodsBetween 21/03/2020 and 04/05/2020, 120 consecutive patients admitted to the Tel Aviv Medical Center due to COVID-19, underwent complete LUS within 24 h of admission. A second exam was performed in case of clinical deterioration. LUS score of 0 (best)-36 (worst) was assigned to each patient. LUS findings were compared with clinical data.ResultsThe median baseline total LUS score was 15, IQR [7-20]. Baseline LUS score was 0-18 in 80 (67%) patients, and 19-36 in 40 (33%) patients. The majority had patchy pleural thickening (n = 100; 83%), or patchy subpleural consolidations (n = 93; 78%) in at least one zone. The prevalence of pleural thickening, subpleural consolidations and the total LUS score were all correlated with severity of illness on admission. Clinical deterioration was associated with increased follow-up LUS scores (p = 0.0009), mostly due to loss of aeration in anterior lung segments. The optimal cutoff point for LUS score was 18 (sensitivity = 62%, specificity = 74%). Both mortality and need for invasive mechanical ventilation were increased with baseline LUS score > 18 compared to baseline LUS score 0-18. Unadjusted hazard ratio of death for LUS score was 1.08 per point [1.02-1.16], p = 0.008; Unadjusted hazard ratio of the composite endpoint (death or need for invasive mechanical ventilation) for LUS score was 1.12 per point [1.05-1.2], p = 0.0008.ConclusionHospitalized patients with COVID-19, at all clinical grades, present with pathological LUS findings. Baseline LUS score strongly correlates with the eventual need for invasive mechanical ventilation and is a strong predictor of mortality. Routine use of LUS may guide patients' management strategies, as well as resource allocation in case of surge capacity.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The lung ultrasound score has been regarded as a decent semiquantitative score to measure the lung aeration loss. The score has been proven to be valuable in diagnosing and monitoring lung pathology, but no studies have demonstrated its relationship to the outcome. We aimed to investigate the relationship between the lung ultrasound score and outcome in shock patients in the Intensive Care Unit. METHODS:The data were extracted from the SHOCK-ICU study, a 14-month prospective study of shock patients in the Medical Intensive Care Unit in West China Hospital. A bivariate logistic regression model was established to identify the correlation between the lung ultrasound score on admission and the 28-day mortality. For subsequent analyses, we divided patients into lung ultrasound score quartiles, and survival analysis was performed using Cox stratified survival analysis and regression analysis with the Breslow method of ties. RESULTS:A total of 175 cases with a completed lung ultrasound exam were included. The mean APACHE II score was 23.7?±?8.8, and the 28-day mortality was 46.3% (81/175). The multivariate analysis demonstrated that the lung ultrasound score was an independent risk factor for 28-day mortality, as well as the APACHE II score and lactate level. When divided into lung ultrasound score quartiles, after correcting for the APACHE II score, vasoactive use, PaO2/FiO2, and lactate level, the COX analysis reveals that a higher lung ultrasound score was related to a lower survival rate. Quartile 1 and quartile 2 had a significantly lower hazard ratio versus quartile 4 (OR 0.442[0.215-0.911]; 0.484[0.251-0.934], respectively). CONCLUSIONS:The lung ultrasound score is independently related to the 28-day mortality, as well as the APACHE II score and lactate level, in Intensive Care Unit shock patients. A higher elevated lung ultrasound score on admission is associated with a worse outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The study is registered on Clinical Trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT03082326 ; retrospectively registered on 3 March 2017.

Project description:The treatment of locally recurrent lung cancer is a major challenge for radiation-oncologists, especially with data on high-dose reirradiation being limited to small retrospective studies. The aim of the present study is to assess overall survival (OS) for patients with locally recurrent lung cancer after high-dose thoracic reirradiation. Thirty-nine patients who were re-irradiated for lung cancer relapse between October 2013 and February 2019 were eligible for the current retrospective analysis. All patients were re-irradiated with curative intent for in-field tumor recurrence. The diagnostic work-up included a mandatory 18F-FDG-PET-CT scan and-if possible-histological verification. The ECOG was ≤2, and the interval between initial and second radiation was at least nine months. Thirty patients (77%) had non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), eight (20%) had small cell lung cancer (SCLC), and in one patient (3%) histological confirmation could not be obtained. More than half of the patients (20/39, 51%) received re-treatment with dose differentiated accelerated re-irradiation (DART) at a median interval of 20.5 months (range: 6-145.3 months) after the initial radiation course. A cumulative EQD2 of 131 Gy (range: 77-211 Gy) in a median PTV of 46 mL (range: 4-541 mL) was delivered. Patients with SCLC had a 3 mL larger median re-irradiation volume (48 mL, range: 9-541) compared to NSCLC patients (45 mL, range: 4-239). The median cumulative EQD2 delivered in SCLC patients was 84 Gy (range: 77-193 Gy), while NSCLC patients received a median cumulative EQD2 of 135 Gy (range: 98-211 Gy). The median OS was 18.4 months (range: 0.6-64 months), with tumor volume being the only predictor (p < 0.000; HR 1.007; 95%-CI: 1.003-1.012). In terms of toxicity, 17.9% acute and 2.6% late side effects were observed, with a toxicity grade >3 occurring in only one patient. Thoracic high dose reirradiation plays a significant role in prolonging survival, especially in patients with small tumor volume at recurrence.

Project description:Shiga-toxin producing O157:H7 Entero Haemorrhagic E. coli [STEC/EHEC] are the most common cause of Haemolytic Uraemic Syndrome [HUS] related to infectious haemorrhagic colitis. Nearly all recommendations on long term treatment of EHEC infections refer to this strain. The 2011 outbreak in Northern Europe was the first of this dimension to be caused by the serotype O104:H4. We report on the 3.5 year follow up of 61 patients diagnosed with symptomatic EHEC O104:H4 infection in spring 2011.Patients with EHEC O104 infection were followed in a monocentric, prospective observational study at four time points: 4, 12, 24 and 36 months. These data include the patients' histories, clinical findings, and complications.Sixty-one patients suffering from EHEC O104:H4 associated enterocolitis participated in the study at the time of hospital discharge. The mean age of patients was 43 ± 2 years, 37 females and 24 males. 48 patients participated in follow up 1 [FU 1], 34 patients in follow up 2 [FU 2], 23 patients in follow up 3 [FU 3] and 18 patients in follow up 4 [FU 4]. Out of 61 patients discharged from the hospital and included in the study, 54 [84%] were examined at least at one additional follow up. Serum creatinine decreased significantly between discharge and FU 1 from 1.3 ± 0.1 mg/dl to 0.7 ± 0.1 mg/dl [p = 0.0045]. From FU 1 until FU 4, no further change in creatinine levels could be observed. The patients need of antihypertensive medications decreased significantly [p = 0.0005] between discharge and FU 1 after four months. From FU 1 until FU 3, 24 months later, no further significant change in antihypertensive treatment was observed.Our findings suggest that patients free of pathological findings at time of discharge do not need a specific follow up. Patients with persistent health problems at hospital discharge should be clinically monitored over four months to evaluate chronic organ damage. Progressive or new emerging renal damage could not be observed over time in any patient.