Qing Deng1, Sheng Cao1, Hao Wang1, Yao Zhang1, Liao Chen1, Zhaohui Yang2, Zhoufeng Peng2, Qing Zhou3. 1. Department of Ultrasound, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430060, Hubei, China. 2. Department of Radiology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430060, Hubei, China. 3. Department of Ultrasound, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430060, Hubei, China. qingzhou128@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) is the preferred imaging technique for the evaluation of COVID-19 pneumonia. However, it is not suitable as a monitoring tool for pregnant women because of the risk of ionizing radiation damage to the fetus as well as the possible infection of others. In this study, we explored the value of bedside lung ultrasound (LUS) as an alternative to CT for the detection and monitoring of lung involvement in pregnant women with COVID-19. METHODS: Clinical and LUS data of 39 pregnant women with COVID-19 were retrospectively reviewed. All LUS and CT images were analyzed to summarize the findings and calculate LUS scores and CT scores for each patient. LUS findings were compared with CT, and correlation between LUS scores and CT scores was evaluated. RESULTS: Among the 39 pregnant women, there were 6 mild-type cases, 29 common-type cases, 4 severe-type cases, and no critical-type cases. The most common LUS findings of COVID-19 pneumonia in pregnant women were various grades of multiple B-lines (84.6%), thickened and irregular pleural lines (71.8%), pleural effusion (61.5%) and small multifocal consolidation limited to the subpleural space (35.9%). The mean LUS score at admission was 0 points in mild-type cases, 10.6 points in common-type cases and 15.3 points in severe-type cases (P < 0.01). The correlation between LUS scores and CT was 0.793. All patients were clinically cured and each underwent an average of three LUS follow-ups during hospitalization. The mean LUS score at discharge was 5.6 points lower than that at admission. The consistency of LUS and chest CT during follow-up was 0.652. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative LUS scoring can effectively instead of CT for detecting and monitoring of COVID-19 pneumonia in pregnant women and protect fetuses from the risk of ionizing radiation.
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) is the preferred imaging technique for the evaluation of COVID-19 pneumonia. However, it is not suitable as a monitoring tool for pregnant women because of the risk of ionizing radiation damage to the fetus as well as the possible infection of others. In this study, we explored the value of bedside lung ultrasound (LUS) as an alternative to CT for the detection and monitoring of lung involvement in pregnant women with COVID-19. METHODS: Clinical and LUS data of 39 pregnant women with COVID-19 were retrospectively reviewed. All LUS and CT images were analyzed to summarize the findings and calculate LUS scores and CT scores for each patient. LUS findings were compared with CT, and correlation between LUS scores and CT scores was evaluated. RESULTS: Among the 39 pregnant women, there were 6 mild-type cases, 29 common-type cases, 4 severe-type cases, and no critical-type cases. The most common LUS findings of COVID-19 pneumonia in pregnant women were various grades of multiple B-lines (84.6%), thickened and irregular pleural lines (71.8%), pleural effusion (61.5%) and small multifocal consolidation limited to the subpleural space (35.9%). The mean LUS score at admission was 0 points in mild-type cases, 10.6 points in common-type cases and 15.3 points in severe-type cases (P < 0.01). The correlation between LUS scores and CT was 0.793. All patients were clinically cured and each underwent an average of three LUS follow-ups during hospitalization. The mean LUS score at discharge was 5.6 points lower than that at admission. The consistency of LUS and chest CT during follow-up was 0.652. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative LUS scoring can effectively instead of CT for detecting and monitoring of COVID-19 pneumonia in pregnant women and protect fetuses from the risk of ionizing radiation.
Authors: E Kalafat; E Yaprak; G Cinar; B Varli; S Ozisik; C Uzun; A Azap; A Koc Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-05-05 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: D Buonsenso; F Raffaelli; E Tamburrini; D G Biasucci; S Salvi; A Smargiassi; R Inchingolo; G Scambia; A Lanzone; A C Testa; F Moro Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 8.678