The Feasibility and Impact of Routine Combined Limited Transthoracic Echocardiography and Lung Ultrasound on Diagnosis and Management of Patients Admitted to ICU: A Prospective Observational Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 354-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kavi Haji ◽  
Darsim Haji ◽  
David J. Canty ◽  
Alistair G. Royse ◽  
Dhaksha Tharmaraj ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Observational Study ◽  
Transthoracic Echocardiography ◽  
Prospective Observational Study ◽  
Lung Ultrasound ◽  
Diagnosis And Management

scholarly journals Sensitivity of lung ultrasound for the detection of pneumothorax one day after pulmonary resection—a prospective observational study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Galetin ◽  
Mark Schieren ◽  
Benjamin Marks ◽  
Jerome Defosse ◽  
Erich Stoelben
Keyword(s):  
Observational Study ◽  
Thoracic Surgery ◽  
Test Performance ◽  
Prospective Observational Study ◽  
Lung Ultrasound ◽  
Lung Resection ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Therapeutic Decisions ◽  
Chest X Ray ◽  
Diagnostic Test Performance

Summary Background Chest X‑ray (CXR) after thoracic surgery contributes to patient discomfort and costs and is of limited therapeutic value. Lung ultrasound (LU) for pneumothorax may be an alternative to CXR, but diagnostic accuracy data are heterogeneous and biased by insufficient sonographic technique and patient selection. Reported sensitivities range from 0.21 to 1.0. We evaluated the sensitivity of LU on the first day after thoracic surgery under routine conditions. Methods We performed a prospective observational study (trial-ID DRKS00014557). Consecutive patients undergoing lung resection received standardized LU in addition to routine CXR on the first postoperative day. Ultrasound examiner and radiologist were blinded to corresponding X‑ray and ultrasound findings. CXR was used as reference to determine diagnostic test performance of ultrasound. The conformity of sonography- and routine-based therapeutic decisions was evaluated. Results A total of 68 patients were examined. The mean duration of ultrasound was 145 ± 64 s. CXR identified 23 patients with pneumothorax with a mean apex-to-cupola size of 1.5 ± 1.0 cm. Ultrasound detected 18 patients with pneumothorax. The computed sensitivity of LU was 0.48 (95% confidence interval [0.36; 0.60]). Specificity was between 0.81 and 1.0, the negative predictive value 0.76 [0.66; 0.86]. The sensitivity of CXR was 0.56 [0.44; 0.68]. Air leakage via chest tube correlated weakly with CXR (spearman’s rho = 0.26) and moderately with LU (rho = 0.43). The conformity between sonographically based recommendations and the actual therapy based on routine diagnostics was 96%. Conclusions Sensitivity of ultrasound for pneumothorax detection nearly reached CXR and resulted in equally safe patient management. Our data can serve as a pilot study for upcoming larger-scaled controlled trials.

Rapid decay of transthoracic echocardiography skills at 1 month: A prospective observational study

2018 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 503-509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryo Yamamoto ◽  
David Clanton ◽  
Ross E. Willis ◽  
Rachelle Babbitt Jonas ◽  
Ramon F. Cestero
Keyword(s):  
Observational Study ◽  
Transthoracic Echocardiography ◽  
Prospective Observational Study ◽  
Rapid Decay

scholarly journals Comparing lung ultrasound: extensive versus short in COVID-19 (CLUES): a multicentre, observational study at the emergency department

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e048795
Author(s):  
Bram Kok ◽  
Frederik Schuit ◽  
Arthur Lieveld ◽  
Kaoutar Azijli ◽  
Prabath WB Nanayakkara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Prospective Observational Study ◽  
Lung Ultrasound ◽  
Final Diagnosis ◽  
Likelihood Ratios ◽  
Reverse Transcription Pcr ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

BackgroundBedside lung ultrasound (LUS) is an affordable diagnostic tool that could contribute to identifying COVID-19 pneumonia. Different LUS protocols are currently used at the emergency department (ED) and there is a need to know their diagnostic accuracy.DesignA multicentre, prospective, observational study, to compare the diagnostic accuracy of three commonly used LUS protocols in identifying COVID-19 pneumonia at the ED.Setting/patientsAdult patients with suspected COVID-19 at the ED, in whom we prospectively performed 12-zone LUS and SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription PCR.MeasurementsWe assessed diagnostic accuracy for three different ultrasound protocols using both PCR and final diagnosis as a reference standard.ResultsBetween 19 March 2020 and 4 May 2020, 202 patients were included. Sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value compared with PCR for 12-zone LUS were 91.4% (95% CI 84.4 to 96.0), 83.5% (95% CI 74.6 to 90.3) and 90.0% (95% CI 82.7 to 94.4). For 8-zone and 6-zone protocols, these results were 79.7 (95% CI 69.9 to 87.6), 69.0% (95% CI 59.6 to 77.4) and 81.3% (95% CI 73.8 to 87.0) versus 89.9% (95% CI 81.7 to 95.3), 57.5% (95% CI 47.9 to 66.8) and 87.8% (95% CI 79.2 to 93.2). Negative likelihood ratios for 12, 8 and 6 zones were 0.1, 0.3 and 0.2, respectively. Compared with the final diagnosis specificity increased to 83.5% (95% CI 74.6 to 90.3), 78.4% (95% CI 68.8 to 86.1) and 65.0% (95% CI 54.6 to 74.4), respectively, while the negative likelihood ratios were 0.1, 0.2 and 0.16.ConclusionIdentifying COVID-19 pneumonia at the ED can be aided by bedside LUS. The more efficient 6-zone protocol is an excellent screening tool, while the 12-zone protocol is more specific and gives a general impression on lung involvement.Trial registration numberNL8497.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document