The diagnostic performance of chest ultrasonography in the up-to-date work-up of the critical care setting

Diagnosis Accuracy of Lung Ultrasound for ARF in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is a commonly distressing condition in critically ill patients. Its early recognition and treatment may improve clinical outcomes. Mounting evidence suggests that lung ultrasound (LUS) could be an alternative to chest X-ray (CXR) or computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of ARF in critically ill patients. This meta-analysis aimed to determine whether LUS can be an alternative tool used to investigate the cause of ARF or thoracic pathologies associated with the diagnosis of ARF in critically ill patients.

Method: A systematic literature search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted from inception to March 2020. Two researchers independently screened studies investigating the accuracy of LUS with CXR or CT for adult critically ill patients with ARF. Data with baseline, true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives were extracted. The study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were obtained using a bivariate model.

Results: Eleven studies, including 1,232 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Most studies were of low quality. LUS had a pooled sensitivity of 92% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 85–96) and a pooled specificity of 98% (95% CI: 94–99). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 98% (95% CI: 97–99). The sensitivity and specificity of LUS to identify different pathological types of ARF were investigated. For consolidation (1,040 patients), LUS had a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 97%. For pleural effusion (279 patients), LUS had a pooled sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 99%. For acute interstitial syndrome (174 patients), LUS had a pooled sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 91%.

Conclusions: LUS is an adjuvant tool that has a moderate sensitivity and high specificity for the diagnosis of ARF in critically ill patients.

Systematic Review Registration: The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020211493).

The diagnostic accuracy of chest ultrasound for CT-detected radiographic consolidation in hospitalised adults with acute respiratory failure: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

(1) Summarise chest ultrasound accuracy to diagnose radiological consolidation, referenced to chest CT in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). (2) Directly compared ultrasound with chest X-ray.

SETTING

Hospitalised patients.

PARTICIPANTS

Studies were eligible if adult participants in respiratory failure underwent chest ultrasound to diagnose consolidation referenced to CT. Exclusion: (1) not primary study, (2) not respiratory failure, (3) not chest ultrasound, (4) not consolidation, (5) translation unobtainable, (6) unable to extract data, (7) unable to obtain paper. 4 studies comprising 224 participants met inclusion.

OUTCOME MEASURES

As planned, paired forest plots display 95% CIs of sensitivity and specificity for ultrasound and chest X-ray. Sensitivity and specificity from each study are plotted in receiver operator characteristics space. Meta-analysis was planned if studies were sufficiently homogeneous and numerous (≥4). Although this numerical requirement was met, meta-analysis was prevented by heterogeneous units of analysis between studies.

RESULTS

All studies were in intensive care, with either a high risk of selection bias or high applicability concerns. Studies had unclear or high risk of bias related to use of ultrasound. Only 1 study clearly performed ultrasound within 24 h of respiratory failure diagnosis. Ultrasound sensitivity ranged from 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97) to 1.00 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.00). Specificity ranged from 0.78 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.94) to 1.00 (0.99 to 1.00). In two studies, chest X-ray had lower sensitivity than ultrasound, but there were insufficient patients to compare specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

Four small studies suggest ultrasound is highly sensitive and specific for consolidation in ARF, but high risk of bias and concerns about applicability in all studies may have inflated diagnostic accuracy. Further robustly designed studies are needed to define the role of ultrasound in this setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ (CRD42013006472).