Daniel S Brenner1, Gigi Y Liu2, Rodney Omron3, Olive Tang4, Brian T Garibaldi5, Tiffany C Fong3. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 1830 East Monument St Suite 6-100, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. dbrenne7@jhmi.edu. 2. Hospitalist Program, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. Gliu12@jhmi.edu. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 1830 East Monument St Suite 6-100, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. 4. Medical Scientist Training Program, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As medical infrastructures are strained by SARS-CoV-2, rapid and accurate screening tools are essential. In portions of the world, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing remains slow and in limited supply, and computed tomography is expensive, inefficient, and involves exposure to ionizing radiation. Multiple studies evaluating the efficiency of lung point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) have been published recently, but include relatively small cohorts and often focus on characteristics associated with severe illness rather than screening efficacy. This study utilizes a retrospective cohort to evaluate the test characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, predictive values) of lung POCUS in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, and to determine lung score cutoffs that maximize performance for use as a screening tool. RESULTS: Lung POCUS examinations had sensitivity 86%, specificity 71.6%, NPV 81.7%, and PPV 77.7%. The Lung Ultrasound Score had an area under the curve of 0.84 (95% CI 0.78, 0.90). When including only complete examinations visualizing 12 lung fields, lung POCUS had sensitivity 90.9% and specificity 75.6%, with NPV 87.2% and PPV 82.0% and an area under the curve of 0.89 (95% CI 0.83, 0.96). Lung POCUS was less accurate in patients with a history of interstitial lung disease, severe emphysema, and heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: When applied in the appropriate patient population, lung POCUS is an inexpensive and reliable tool for rapid screening and diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic patients with influenza-like illness. Adoption of lung POCUS screening for SARS-CoV-2 may identify patients who do not require additional testing and reduce the need for RT-PCR testing in resource-limited environments and during surge periods.
BACKGROUND: As medical infrastructures are strained by SARS-CoV-2, rapid and accurate screening tools are essential. In portions of the world, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing remains slow and in limited supply, and computed tomography is expensive, inefficient, and involves exposure to ionizing radiation. Multiple studies evaluating the efficiency of lung point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) have been published recently, but include relatively small cohorts and often focus on characteristics associated with severe illness rather than screening efficacy. This study utilizes a retrospective cohort to evaluate the test characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, predictive values) of lung POCUS in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, and to determine lung score cutoffs that maximize performance for use as a screening tool. RESULTS: Lung POCUS examinations had sensitivity 86%, specificity 71.6%, NPV 81.7%, and PPV 77.7%. The Lung Ultrasound Score had an area under the curve of 0.84 (95% CI 0.78, 0.90). When including only complete examinations visualizing 12 lung fields, lung POCUS had sensitivity 90.9% and specificity 75.6%, with NPV 87.2% and PPV 82.0% and an area under the curve of 0.89 (95% CI 0.83, 0.96). Lung POCUS was less accurate in patients with a history of interstitial lung disease, severe emphysema, and heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: When applied in the appropriate patient population, lung POCUS is an inexpensive and reliable tool for rapid screening and diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic patients with influenza-like illness. Adoption of lung POCUS screening for SARS-CoV-2 may identify patients who do not require additional testing and reduce the need for RT-PCR testing in resource-limited environments and during surge periods.
Authors: Brittany Pardue Jones; Ee Tein Tay; Inna Elikashvili; Jennifer E Sanders; Audrey Z Paul; Bret P Nelson; Louis A Spina; James W Tsung Journal: Chest Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: L Zieleskiewicz; A Cornesse; E Hammad; M Haddam; C Brun; C Vigne; B Meyssignac; A Remacle; K Chaumoitre; F Antonini; C Martin; M Leone Journal: Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: David M Tierney; Joshua S Huelster; Josh D Overgaard; Michael B Plunkett; Lori L Boland; Catherine A St Hill; Vincent K Agboto; Claire S Smith; Bryce F Mikel; Brynn E Weise; Katelyn E Madigan; Ameet P Doshi; Roman R Melamed Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Daniel Lichtenstein; Ivan Goldstein; Eric Mourgeon; Philippe Cluzel; Philippe Grenier; Jean-Jacques Rouby Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Bruce J Kimura; Rujing Shi; Eric M Tran; Samantha R Spierling Bagsic; Pamela M Resnikoff Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2021-09-02 Impact factor: 2.754
Authors: Damiano D'Ardes; Claudio Tana; Alessandro Salzmann; Fabrizio Ricci; Maria Teresa Guagnano; Maria Adele Giamberardino; Francesco Cipollone Journal: Ann Med Date: 2022-12 Impact factor: 5.348
Authors: Thomas J Marini; Katherine Kaproth-Joslin; Robert Ambrosini; Timothy M Baran; Ann M Dozier; Yu T Zhao; Malavika Satheesh; Christian Mahony Reátegui-Rivera; Walter Sifuentes; Gloria Rios-Mayhua; Benjamin Castaneda Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-10-03 Impact factor: 3.006