Feasibility of a New Lung Ultrasound Protocol to Determine the Extent of Lung Injury in COVID-19 Pneumonia

Lung ultrasound score for the assessment of lung aeration in ARDS patients: comparison of two approaches

Purpose  A 4-step lung ultrasound (LUS) score has been previously used to quantify lung density. We compared 2 versions of this scoring system for distinguishing severe from moderate loss of aeration in ARDS: coalescence-based score (cLUS) vs. quantitative-based score (qLUS - >50% pleura occupied by artefacts). Materials and Methods   We compared qLUS and cLUS to lung density measured by quantitative CT scan in 12 standard thoracic regions. A simplified approach (1 scan per region) was compared to an extensive one (regional score computed as the mean of all relevant intercostal space scores). Results   We examined 13 conditions in 7 ARDS patients (7 at PEEP 5, 6 at PEEP 15 cmH2O-156 regions, 398 clips). Switching from cLUS to qLUS resulted in a change in interpretation in 117 clips (29.4%, 1-point reduction) and in 41.7% of the regions (64 decreases (range 0.2-1), 1 increase (0.2 points)). Regional qLUS showed very strong correlation with lung density (rs=0.85), higher than cLUS (rs=0.79; p=0.010). The agreement with CT classification in well aerated, poorly aerated, and not aerated tissue was moderate for cLUS (agreement 65.4%; Cohen's K coefficient 0.475 (95%CI 0.391-0.547); p<0.0001) and substantial for qLUS (agreement 81.4%; Cohen's K coefficient 0.701 (95%CI 0.653-0.765), p<0.0001). The agreement between single spot and extensive approaches was almost perfect (cLUS: agreement 89.1%, Cohen's kappa coefficient 0.840 (95%CI 0.811-0.911), p<0.0001; qLUS: agreement 86.5%, Cohen's kappa coefficient 0.819 (95%CI 0.761-0.848), p<0.0001). Conclusion   A LUS score based on the percentage of occupied pleura performs better than a coalescence-based approach for quantifying lung density. A simplified approach performs as well as an extensive one.

Handheld Ultrasound Devices Used by Newly Certified Operators for Pneumonia in the Emergency Department-A Diagnostic Accuracy Study

The diagnostic accuracy of handheld ultrasound (HHUS) devices operated by newly certified operators for pneumonia is unknown. This multicenter diagnostic accuracy study included patients prospectively suspected of pneumonia from February 2021 to February 2022 in four emergency departments. The index test was a 14-zone focused lung ultrasound (FLUS) examination, with consolidation with air bronchograms as diagnostic criteria for pneumonia. FLUS examinations were performed by newly certified operators using HHUS. The reference standard was computed tomography (CT) and expert diagnosis using all medical records. The sensitivity and specificity of FLUS and chest X-ray (CXR) were compared using McNemar's test. Of the 324 scanned patients, 212 (65%) had pneumonia, according to the expert diagnosis. FLUS had a sensitivity of 31% (95% CI 26-36) and a specificity of 82% (95% CI 78-86) compared with the experts' diagnosis. Compared with CT, FLUS had a sensitivity of 32% (95% CI 27-37) and specificity of 81% (95% CI 77-85). CXR had a sensitivity of 66% (95% CI 61-72) and a specificity of 76% (95% CI 71-81) compared with the experts' diagnosis. Compared with CT, CXR had a sensitivity of 69% (95% CI 63-74) and a specificity of 68% (95% CI 62-72). Compared with the experts' diagnosis and CT diagnosis, FLUS performed by newly certified operators using HHUS devices had a significantly lower sensitivity for pneumonia when compared to CXR (p < 0.001). FLUS had a significantly higher specificity than CXR using CT diagnosis as a reference standard (p = 0.02). HHUS exhibited low sensitivity for pneumonia when used by newly certified operators.

Standardization of interstitial lung disease assessment by ultrasound: results from a Delphi process and web-reliability exercise by the OMERACT ultrasound working group

OBJECTIVES

Over the last years ultrasound has shown to be an important tool for evaluating lung involvement, including interstitial lung disease (ILD) a potentially severe systemic involvement in many rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMD). Despite the potential sensitivity of the technique the actual use is hampered by the lack of consensual definitions of elementary lesions to be assessed and of the scanning protocol to apply. Within the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Ultrasound Working Group we aimed at developing consensus-based definitions for ultrasound detected ILD findings in RMDs and assessing their reliability in dynamic images.

METHODS

Based on the results from a systematic literature review, several findings were identified for defining the presence of ILD by ultrasound (i.e., Am-lines, B-lines, pleural cysts and pleural line irregularity). Therefore, a Delphi survey was conducted among 23 experts in sonography to agree on which findings should be included and on their definitions. Subsequently, a web-reliability exercise was performed to test the reliability of the agreed definitions on video-clips, by using kappa statistics.

RESULTS

After three rounds of Delphi an agreement >75 % was obtained to include and define B-lines and pleural line irregularity as elementary lesions to assess. The reliability in the web-based exercise, consisting of 80 video-clips (30 for pleural line irregularity, 50 for B-lines), showed moderate inter-reader reliability for both B-lines (kappa = 0.51) and pleural line irregularity (kappa = 0.58), while intra-reader reliability was good for both B-lines (kappa = 0.72) and pleural line irregularity (kappa = 0.75).

CONCLUSION

Consensus-based ultrasound definitions for B-lines and pleural line irregularity were obtained, with moderate to good reliability to detect these lesions using video-clips. The next step will be testing the reliability in patients with ILD linked to RMDs and to propose a consensual and standardized protocol to scan such patients.

The Comparison of Ultrasound and Tomographic Images of Lung Involvement in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Prospective Observational Study

Introduction Computed tomography (CT) has a high sensitivity for diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia in critically ill patients, but it has significant limitations. Lung ultrasonography (LUS) is an imaging method increasingly used in intensive care units. Our primary aim is to evaluate the relationship between LUS and CT images by scoring a critically ill patient who was previously diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia and underwent CT, as well as to determine their relationship with the patient's oxygenation. Methods This was a single-center, prospective observational study. The study included COVID-19 patients (positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, RT-PCR) who were admitted to the intensive care unit between June 2020 and December 2020, whose oxygen saturation (SpO2) was below 92%, and who underwent a chest tomography scan within the last 12 hours. CT findings were scored by the radiologist using the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS). The intensivist evaluated 12 regions to determine the LUS score. The ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen in the arterial blood to the inspiratory oxygen concentration (PaO2/FiO2) was used to assess the patient's oxygenation. Results The study included 30 patients and found a weak correlation (ICC = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.25-0.65, p < 0.05) between total scores obtained from LUS and CT scans. The correlation between the total LUS score and oxygenation (r = -0.514, p = 0.004) was stronger than that between the CT score and oxygenation (r = -0.400, p = 0.028). The most common sonographic findings were abnormalities in the pleural line, white lung, and subpleural consolidation. On the other hand, the CT images revealed dense ground-glass opacities and consolidation patterns classified as CO-RADS 5. Conclusion A weak correlation was found between LUS and CT scores in critically ill COVID-19 pneumonia patients. Also, as both scores increased, oxygenation was detected to be impaired, and such a correlation is more evident with the LUS score.

Point-of-care ultrasound use in COVID-19: a narrative review

Background and Objective

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic that began in early 2020 resulted in significant mortality from respiratory tract infections. Existing imaging modalities such as chest X-ray (CXR) lacks sensitivity in its diagnosis while computed tomography (CT) scan carries risks of radiation and contamination. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has the advantage of bedside testing with higher diagnostic accuracy. We aim to describe the various applications of POCUS for patients with suspected severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods

We performed literature search on the use of POCUS in the diagnosis and management of COVID-19 in MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus databases using the following search terms: "ultrasonography", "ultrasound", "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2", "SARS-CoV-2 variants", "emergency services", "emergency department" and "intensive care units". Search was performed independently by two reviewers with any discrepancy adjudicated by a third member.

Key Content and Findings

Lung POCUS in patients with COVID-19 shows different ultrasonographic features from pulmonary oedema, bacterial pneumonia, and other viral pneumonia, thus useful in differentiating between these conditions. It is more sensitive than CXR, and more accessible and widely available than CT scan. POCUS can be used to diagnose COVID-19 pneumonia, screen for COVID-19-related pulmonary and extrapulmonary complications, and guide management of ICU patients, such as timing of ventilator weaning based on lung POCUS findings.

Conclusions

POCUS is a useful and rapid point-of-care modality that can be used to aid in diagnosis, management, and risk stratification of COVID-19 patients in different healthcare settings.

Qualitative and semi-quantitative ultrasound assessment in delta and Omicron Covid-19 patients: data from high volume reference center

OBJECTIVE

to evaluate the efficacy of US, both qualitatively and semi-quantitatively, in the selection of treatment for the Covid-19 patient, using patient triage as the gold standard.

METHODS

Patients admitted to the Covid-19 clinic to be treated with monoclonal antibodies (mAb) or retroviral treatment and undergoing lung ultrasound (US) were selected from the radiological data set between December 2021 and May 2022 according to the following inclusion criteria: patients with proven Omicron variant and Delta Covid-19 infection; patients with known Covid-19 vaccination with at least two doses. Lung US (LUS) was performed by experienced radiologists. The presence, location, and distribution of abnormalities, such as B-lines, thickening or ruptures of the pleural line, consolidations, and air bronchograms, were evaluated. The anomalous findings in each scan were classified according to the LUS scoring system. Nonparametric statistical tests were performed.

RESULTS

The LUS score median value in the patients with Omicron variant was 1.5 (1-20) while the LUS score median value in the patients with Delta variant was 7 (3-24). A difference statistically significant was observed for LUS score values among the patients with Delta variant between the two US examinations (p value = 0.045 at Kruskal Wallis test). There was a difference in median LUS score values between hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients for both the Omicron and Delta groups (p value = 0.02 on the Kruskal Wallis test). For Delta patients groups the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, considering a value of 14 for LUS score for the hospitalization, were of 85.29%, 44.44%, 85.29% and 76.74% respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LUS is an interesting diagnostic tool in the context of Covid-19, it could allow to identify the typical pattern of diffuse interstitial pulmonary syndrome and could guide the correct management of patients.

Lung ultrasound monitoring: impact on economics and outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to summarize the impact of lung ultrasonography (LUS) on economics and possible impact on patients' outcomes, proven its diagnostic accuracy in patients with acute respiratory failure.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite some previous ethical concerns on LUS examination, today this technique has showed several advantages. First, it is now clear that the daily use of LUS can provide a relevant cost reduction in healthcare of patients with acute respiratory failure, while reducing the risk of transport of patients to radiological departments for chest CT scan. In addition, LUS reduces the exposition to x-rays since can replace the bedside chest X-ray examination in many cases. Indeed, LUS is characterized by a diagnostic accuracy that is even superior to portable chest X-ray when performed by well trained personnel. Finally, LUS examination is a useful tool to predict the course of patients with pneumonia, including the need for hospitalization and ICU admission, noninvasive ventilation failure and orotracheal intubation, weaning success, and mortality.

SUMMARY

LUS should be implemented not only in Intensive Care Units, but also in other setting like emergency departments. Since most data comes from the recent coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, further investigations are required in Acute Respiratory Failure of different etiologies.

Lung ultrasound to evaluate aeration changes in response to recruitment maneuver and prone positioning in intubated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: preliminary study

BACKGROUND

This single-center preliminary prospective observational study used bedside ultrasound to assess the lung aeration modifications induced by recruitment maneuver and pronation in intubated patients with acute respiratory disease syndrome (ARDS) related to coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19). All adult intubated COVID-19 patients suitable for pronation were screened. After enrollment, patients underwent 1 h in a volume-controlled mode in supine position (baseline) followed by a 35-cmH2O-recruitment maneuver of 2 min (recruitment). Final step involved volume-controlled mode in prone position set as at baseline (pronation). At the end of the first two steps and 1 h after pronation, a lung ultrasound was performed, and global and regional lung ultrasound score (LUS) were analyzed. Data sets are presented as a median and 25th-75th percentile.

RESULTS

From January to May 2022, 20 patients were included and analyzed. Global LUS reduced from 26.5 (23.5-30.0) at baseline to 21.5 (18.0-23.3) and 23.0 (21.0-26.3) at recruitment (p < 0.001) and pronation (p = 0.004). In the anterior lung regions, the regional LUS were 1.8 (1.1-2.0) following recruitment and 2.0 (1.6-2.2) in the supine (p = 0.008) and 2.0 (1.8-2.3) in prone position (p = 0.023). Regional LUS diminished from 2.3 (2.0-2.5) in supine to 2.0 (1.8-2.0) with recruitment in the lateral lung zones (p = 0.036). Finally, in the posterior lung units, regional LUS improved from 2.5 (2.3-2.8) in supine to 2.3 (1.8-2.5) through recruitment (p = 0.003) and 1.8 (1.3-2.2) with pronation (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In our investigation, recruitment maneuver and prone positioning demonstrated an enhancement in lung aeration when compared to supine position, as assessed by bedside lung ultrasound.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov , Number NCT05209477, prospectively registered and released on 01/26/2022.