Eline G M Cox1, Geert Koster2, Aidan Baron3, Thomas Kaufmann4, Ruben J Eck5, T Corien Veenstra2, Bart Hiemstra4, Adrian Wong6, Thomas C Kwee7, Jaap E Tulleken2, Frederik Keus2, Renske Wiersema2, Iwan C C van der Horst8. 1. Department of Critical Care, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. e.g.m.cox@umcg.nl. 2. Department of Critical Care, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. 3. Emergency, Cardiovascular, and Critical Care Research Group, Centre for Health and Social Care Research, Kingston University and St George's University, London, UK. 4. Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK. 7. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Intensive Care, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In critically ill patients, auscultation might be challenging as dorsal lung fields are difficult to reach in supine-positioned patients, and the environment is often noisy. In recent years, clinicians have started to consider lung ultrasound as a useful diagnostic tool for a variety of pulmonary pathologies, including pulmonary edema. The aim of this study was to compare lung ultrasound and pulmonary auscultation for detecting pulmonary edema in critically ill patients. METHODS: This study was a planned sub-study of the Simple Intensive Care Studies-I, a single-center, prospective observational study. All acutely admitted patients who were 18 years and older with an expected ICU stay of at least 24 h were eligible for inclusion. All patients underwent clinical examination combined with lung ultrasound, conducted by researchers not involved in patient care. Clinical examination included auscultation of the bilateral regions for crepitations and rhonchi. Lung ultrasound was conducted according to the Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Emergency protocol. Pulmonary edema was defined as three or more B lines in at least two (bilateral) scan sites. An agreement was described by using the Cohen κ coefficient, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and overall accuracy. Subgroup analysis were performed in patients who were not mechanically ventilated. RESULTS: The Simple Intensive Care Studies-I cohort included 1075 patients, of whom 926 (86%) were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Three hundred seven of the 926 patients (33%) fulfilled the criteria for pulmonary edema on lung ultrasound. In 156 (51%) of these patients, auscultation was normal. A total of 302 patients (32%) had audible crepitations or rhonchi upon auscultation. From 130 patients with crepitations, 86 patients (66%) had pulmonary edema on lung ultrasound, and from 209 patients with rhonchi, 96 patients (46%) had pulmonary edema on lung ultrasound. The agreement between auscultation findings and lung ultrasound diagnosis was poor (κ statistic 0.25). Subgroup analysis showed that the diagnostic accuracy of auscultation was better in non-ventilated than in ventilated patients. CONCLUSION: The agreement between lung ultrasound and auscultation is poor. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02912624. Registered on September 23, 2016.
BACKGROUND: In critically ill patients, auscultation might be challenging as dorsal lung fields are difficult to reach in supine-positioned patients, and the environment is often noisy. In recent years, clinicians have started to consider lung ultrasound as a useful diagnostic tool for a variety of pulmonary pathologies, including pulmonary edema. The aim of this study was to compare lung ultrasound and pulmonary auscultation for detecting pulmonary edema in critically ill patients. METHODS: This study was a planned sub-study of the Simple Intensive Care Studies-I, a single-center, prospective observational study. All acutely admitted patients who were 18 years and older with an expected ICU stay of at least 24 h were eligible for inclusion. All patients underwent clinical examination combined with lung ultrasound, conducted by researchers not involved in patient care. Clinical examination included auscultation of the bilateral regions for crepitations and rhonchi. Lung ultrasound was conducted according to the Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Emergency protocol. Pulmonary edema was defined as three or more B lines in at least two (bilateral) scan sites. An agreement was described by using the Cohen κ coefficient, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and overall accuracy. Subgroup analysis were performed in patients who were not mechanically ventilated. RESULTS: The Simple Intensive Care Studies-I cohort included 1075 patients, of whom 926 (86%) were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Three hundred seven of the 926 patients (33%) fulfilled the criteria for pulmonary edema on lung ultrasound. In 156 (51%) of these patients, auscultation was normal. A total of 302 patients (32%) had audible crepitations or rhonchi upon auscultation. From 130 patients with crepitations, 86 patients (66%) had pulmonary edema on lung ultrasound, and from 209 patients with rhonchi, 96 patients (46%) had pulmonary edema on lung ultrasound. The agreement between auscultation findings and lung ultrasound diagnosis was poor (κ statistic 0.25). Subgroup analysis showed that the diagnostic accuracy of auscultation was better in non-ventilated than in ventilated patients. CONCLUSION: The agreement between lung ultrasound and auscultation is poor. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02912624. Registered on September 23, 2016.
Authors: Francesco Palmese; Barbara Caroli; Alessandro Graziani; Grazia Zanframundo; Rossella Del Toro; Elisabetta Sagrini; Pierluigi Cataleta; Marco Domenicali Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 2.345