Mohammad Danish1, Aarti Agarwal1, Puneet Goyal1, Devendra Gupta1, Hira Lal2, Raghunandan Prasad2, Sanjay Dhiraaj1, Anil Agarwal1, Prabhaker Mishra3. 1. Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, UP, India. 2. Department of Radiodiagnosis, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, UP, India. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, UP, India.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of a rapid bedside 6-point lung ultrasonography (LUS) performed by an intensive care unit (ICU) physician for detection of four common pathological conditions of the lung, such as alveolar consolidation, pleural effusion, interstitial syndrome and pneumothorax, in critically ill patients and its comparison with bedside chest X-ray (CXR) and high-resolution computed tomography (CT) scan of the thorax. Volume of pleural effusion measured by LUS and CT thorax was also compared. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, observational study of 90 adult patients with an acute lung injury score of ≥1 admitted to the medical-surgical ICU. They were examined by CXR and 6-point LUS as per BLUE protocol at bedside, followed by CT thorax in the radiology department. RESULTS: The sensitivity of 6-point LUS for detecting alveolar consolidation, pleural effusion, interstitial syndrome and pneumothorax was 76%, 88%, 83% and 89%, respectively, which was remarkably higher than that of CXR. The specificity of LUS was 100% for all pathologies, which was again notably higher than that of CXR except for interstitial syndrome for which it was 88.5%. Measurement of volume of pleural effusion by LUS was comparable and had a strong absolute agreement with CT thorax. CONCLUSION: 6-Point LUS can be a useful diagnostic tool and is better than CXR in diagnosing respiratory pathologies in critically ill patients. Owing to the comparable diagnostic performance of LUS and CT scan and with increasing evidence in favour of LUS, the requirement of CT thorax can be reduced. Radiation hazards associated with CXR and CT, as well as potentially risky transfer of patients to CT room, can also be minimised.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of a rapid bedside 6-point lung ultrasonography (LUS) performed by an intensive care unit (ICU) physician for detection of four common pathological conditions of the lung, such as alveolar consolidation, pleural effusion, interstitial syndrome and pneumothorax, in critically ill patients and its comparison with bedside chest X-ray (CXR) and high-resolution computed tomography (CT) scan of the thorax. Volume of pleural effusion measured by LUS and CT thorax was also compared. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, observational study of 90 adult patients with an acute lung injury score of ≥1 admitted to the medical-surgical ICU. They were examined by CXR and 6-point LUS as per BLUE protocol at bedside, followed by CT thorax in the radiology department. RESULTS: The sensitivity of 6-point LUS for detecting alveolar consolidation, pleural effusion, interstitial syndrome and pneumothorax was 76%, 88%, 83% and 89%, respectively, which was remarkably higher than that of CXR. The specificity of LUS was 100% for all pathologies, which was again notably higher than that of CXR except for interstitial syndrome for which it was 88.5%. Measurement of volume of pleural effusion by LUS was comparable and had a strong absolute agreement with CT thorax. CONCLUSION: 6-Point LUS can be a useful diagnostic tool and is better than CXR in diagnosing respiratory pathologies in critically ill patients. Owing to the comparable diagnostic performance of LUS and CT scan and with increasing evidence in favour of LUS, the requirement of CT thorax can be reduced. Radiation hazards associated with CXR and CT, as well as potentially risky transfer of patients to CT room, can also be minimised.
Entities:
Keywords:
6-Point BLUE protocol; CT scan thorax; chest X-ray; lung ultrasound; point of care ultrasound
Authors: Philippe Vignon; Catherine Chastagner; Vanessa Berkane; Eric Chardac; Bruno François; Sandrine Normand; Michel Bonnivard; Marc Clavel; Nicolas Pichon; Pierre-Marie Preux; Antoine Maubon; Hervé Gastinne Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Vicki E Noble; Alice F Murray; Roberta Capp; Mary H Sylvia-Reardon; David J R Steele; Andrew Liteplo Journal: Chest Date: 2009-02-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: M Rocco; I Carbone; A Morelli; L Bertoletti; S Rossi; M Vitale; L Montini; R Passariello; P Pietropaoli Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 2008-05-12 Impact factor: 2.105
Authors: Lior Fuchs; Ori Galante; Yaniv Almog; Roy R Dayan; Alexander Smoliakov; Yuval Ullman; David Shamia; Ran Ben David Ohayon; Evgeny Golbets; Khaled El Haj; Jonathan Taylor; Itai Weissberg; Victor Novack; Leonid Barski; Eli Rosenberg; Eyal Gohar; Muhammad Abo Abed; Iftach Sagy Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Yang Yang; James Anstey; Konstantin Yastrebov; Vinodh Bhagyalakshmi Nanjayya; Sam Orde; Marek Nalos; Cartan Costello; Nicholas Patrick George Ryan Journal: Australas J Ultrasound Med Date: 2020-05-30