Lung Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Late Sequelae of COVID-19 Pneumonia—A Comparison with Chest Computed Tomography: A Prospective Study (original) (raw)
Related papers
Respiration, 2021
Background: Point-of-care lung ultrasound (LUS) score is a semiquantitative score of lung damage severity. High-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) is the gold standard method to evaluate the severity of lung involvement from the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Few studies have investigated the clinical significance of LUS and HRCT scores in patients with COVID-19. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic yield of LUS and of HRCT in COVID-19 patients. Methods: We carried out a multicenter, retrospective study aimed at evaluating the prognostic yield of LUS and HRCT by exploring the survival curve of COVID-19 inpatients. LUS and chest CT scores were calculated retrospectively by 2 radiologists with >10 years of experience in chest imaging, and the decisions were reached in consensus. LUS score was calculated on the basis of the presence or not of pleural line abnormalities, B-lines, and lung consolidations. The total score (range 0–36) was obtained f...
Lung ultrasonography as an alternative to chest computed tomography in COVID-19 pneumonia?
Intensive Care Medicine, 2020
A letter recently published by Yang et al. in this journal raises the important question as to whether lung ultrasonography (LUS) may be an useful alternative to chest computed tomography (CT) for the evaluation of COVID-19 pneumonia [1]. The information in the study is particularly relevant to a situation in which an overwhelming volume of COVID-19 patients may exceed CT performance and processing capacity. What is new and provocative in Yang's study is the reported higher sensitivity of LUS compared to CT for the detection of alveolar-interstitial syndrome (AIS), consolidation, and pleural effusion in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. The authors found weak or very weak agreement between LUS and CT for alveolar-interstitial findings, consolidation, and pleural effusion, with CT not able to identify a significant proportion of these findings. This editorial comments on the controversy engendered by the letter with the intent of furthering the discussion on LUS and CT as imaging modalities for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Lung ultrasonography offers the clinician an alternative imaging modality to CT for management of COVID-19. We already know that LUS is more accurate than chest radiography to detect pneumothorax, pleural effusion, AIS, and consolidation [2, 3]. In acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), LUS has been reported to be effective for evaluating the extent of pulmonary edema [4] and identifying poorly aerated areas [5]. LUS also allows for assessment of the effects of prone position [6] and positive end-expiratory pressure on lung re-aeration [7],
Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, 2020
Objectives-We compared 2 imaging modalities in patients suspected of having coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. Blinded to the results of real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) testing, lung ultrasound (LUS) examinations and chest computed tomography (CT) were performed, and the specific characteristics of these imaging studies were assessed. Methods-From March 15, 2020, to April 15, 2020, 63 consecutive patients were enrolled in this prospective pilot study. All patients underwent hematochemical tests, LUS examinations, chest CT, and confirmatory rRT-PCR. The diagnostic performance of LUS and chest CT was calculated with rRT-PCR as a reference. The interobserver agreement of radiologists and ultrasound examiners was calculated. Ultrasound and CT features were compared to assess the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Positive and negative likelihood ratios measured the diagnostic accuracy. Results-Nineteen (30%) patients were COVID-19 negative, and 44 (70%) were positive. No differences in demographics and clinical data at presentation were observed among positive and negative patients. Interobserver agreement for CT had a κ value of 0.877, whereas for LUS, it was 0.714. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of chest CT for COVID-19 pneumonia were 93%, 90%, 85%, and 95%, respectively; whereas for LUS, they were 68%, 79%, 88%, and 52%. On receiver operating characteristic curves, area under the curve values were 0.834 (95% confidence interval, 0.711-0.958) and 0.745 (95% confidence interval, 0.606-0.884) for chest CT and LUS. Conclusions-Lung ultrasound had good reliability compared to chest CT. Therefore, our results indicate that LUS may be used to assess patients suspected of having COVID-19 pneumonia.
Journal of Medical Ultrasonics, 2021
Purpose The purpose of our study was to determine the usability of lung ultrasonography (LUS) in the diagnosis of COVID-19, and to match the morphological features of lesions detected on computed tomography (CT) with the findings observed on LUS. Methods Sixty patients with COVID-19 were included in this prospective study. Patients were examined by radiology and anesthesia clinic specialists for a visual CT score. A LUS 12-zone ultrasonography protocol was applied by the investigator blinded to the CT and PCR test results. The characteristics of abnormal findings and the relationship of lesions to the pleura and the distance to the pleura were investigated. Results Forty-five males and 25 females evaluated within the scope of the study had an average age of 61.2 ± 15.3 years. The total CT score was calculated as 14.3 ± 5.3, and the LUS score was found to be 19.9 ± 7.6. There was a statistically significant positive correlation between the measured LUS and CT scores (r = 0.857, p < 0.001). The mean distance of these lesions to the pleura was 5.2 ± 1.76 cm. LUS findings in 51 areas corresponded to non-pleural lesions on CT. There was a negative correlation between the measured distance to the pleura and the LUS scores (p < 0.001, r = − 0.708). Conclusion The results of this study showed that the correlation between CT and LUS findings may be used in the diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia, although there are some limitations. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04719234.
Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, 2022
Objectives-Lung ultrasound (LUS) holds the promise of an accurate, radiationfree, and affordable diagnostic and monitoring tool in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. We sought to evaluate the usefulness of LUS in the diagnosis of patients with respiratory distress and suspicion of interstitial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia, in comparison to other imaging modalities. Methods-This was a multicenter, retrospective study. LUS was performed, on Emergency Department (ED) arrival of patients presenting for possible COVID-19 evaluation, by trained emergency physicians, before undergoing conventional radiologic examination or while waiting for the report. Scans were performed using longitudinal transducer orientation of the lung regions. CXR was interpreted by radiologists staffing ED radiology. Subjects were divided into two group based on molecular test results. LUS findings were compared to COVID test results, nonlaboratory data, and other imaging for each patient. Categorical variables were expressed as percentages and continuous variables as median AE standard error. Results-A total of 479 patients were enrolled, 87% diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 by molecular testing. COVID positive and COVID negative patients differed with respect to sex, presence of fever, and white blood cells count. Most common findings on lung point of care ultrasound (POCUS) for COVID-positive patients were B-lines, irregular pleural lines, and small consolidation. Normal chest X-ray was found in 17.89% of cases. Conclusions-This 479 patient cohort, with COVID-19, found LUS to be noninferior to chest X-ray (CXR) for diagnostic accuracy. In this study, COVIDpositive patients are most likely to show B lines and sub-pleural consolidations on LUS examination.
Lung ultrasound predicts clinical course and outcomes in COVID-19 patients
Intensive Care Medicine
Information 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. Methods: Between 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. Results: The 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. Conclusion: Hospitalized 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.
Journal of Ultrasound
Background In the past months, several lung ultrasonography (LUS) protocols have been proposed, mainly on previously validated schemes independent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objectives The main purpose of this study was to determine the impact and accuracy of different LUS protocols proposed in COVID-19. Methods Patients were evaluated with a standard sequence of LUS scans in 72 intercostal spaces along 14 anatomic lines in the chest. A scoring system of LUS findings was reported and then analyzed separately according to each proposed LUS protocol zones. This score was then correlated to a validated Pulmonary Inflammation Index (PII) on chest Computed Tomography (CT). Results Thirty-two patients were enrolled. The most frequent pattern was ground-glass opacities in the chest X-ray (53.1%), chest CT (59.1%) and subpleural or lobar consolidations (40.8%) in the posteroinferior areas (p < 0.001) on LUS. The Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was significantly correlated with almost every protocol analyzed except the 8-zone (p = 0.119) and the 10-zone protocol that only included one posterior point (p = 0.052). The highest ICC was obtained with a 12-zone protocol (ICC 0.500; p = 0.027) and decreased as more points were included. Conclusions In conclusion, our study results suggest that performing an ultrasound protocol with 12-zone scanning, including the superior and inferior areas of the anterior, lateral and posterior regions of the chest was consistent with higher ICC and higher degree of concordance with CT. We emphasize the need of a more standardization technique to further implement and develop this imaging modality in COVID-19. Keywords Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) • Lung ultrasonography (LUS) • Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) • Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)