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

The Role of Pocus in Acute Respiratory Failure: A Narrative Review on Airway and Breathing Assessment

Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is a challenging condition that clinicians, especially in emergency settings, have to face frequently. Especially in emergency settings, many underlying diseases can lead to ARF and life-threatening conditions have to be promptly assessed and correctly treated to avoid unfavorable outcomes. In recent years, point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) gained growing consideration due to its bedside utilization, reliability and reproducibility even in emergency settings especially in unstable patients. Research on POCUS application to assess ARF has been largely reported mainly with observational studies showing heterogeneous results from many different applications. This narrative review describes the wide potentiality of POCUS to face airways and breathing life-threatening conditions such as upper airway management, pulmonary and pleural pathologies and diaphragm impairment. We conducted extensive research of the literature to report from major studies to case reports deemed useful in practical clinical utilization of POCUS in ARF. Due to the huge amount of the literature found, we focused on airways and breathing assessment trying to systematize the evidence according to clinical care of ARF in emergency settings. Further studies, possibly trials, should determine how POCUS is crucial in clinical practice in terms of standard of care improvements, patient safety and cost-benefit analysis.

Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound for shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Circulatory failure is classified into four types of shock (obstructive, cardiogenic, distributive, and hypovolemic) that must be distinguished as each requires a different treatment. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is widely used in clinical practice for acute conditions, and several diagnostic protocols using POCUS for shock have been developed. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS in identifying the etiology of shock.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, Clinicaltrial.gov, European Union Clinical Trials Register, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR) until June 15, 2022. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Meta-analysis was conducted to pool the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS for each type of shock. The study protocol was prospectively registered in UMIN-CTR (UMIN 000048025).

RESULTS

Of the 1553 studies identified, 36 studies were full-text reviewed, and 12 studies with 1132 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-0.91] and 0.98 [95% CI 0.92-0.99] for obstructive shock, 0.78 [95% CI 0.56-0.91] and 0.96 [95% CI 0.92-0.98] for cardiogenic shock, 0.90 [95% CI 0.84-0.94] and 0.92 [95% CI 0.88-0.95] for hypovolemic shock, and 0.79 [95% CI 0.71-0.85] and 0.96 [95% CI 0.91-0.98] for distributive shock, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for each type of shock was approximately 0.95. The positive likelihood ratios for each type of shock were all greater than 10, especially 40 [95% CI 11-105] for obstructive shock. The negative likelihood ratio for each type of shock was approximately 0.2.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of the etiology for each type of shock using POCUS was characterized by high sensitivity and positive likelihood ratios, especially for obstructive shock.

Lung Ultrasound in Critical Care and Emergency Medicine: Clinical Review

Lung ultrasound has become a part of the daily examination of physicians working in intensive, sub-intensive, and general medical wards. The easy access to hand-held ultrasound machines in wards where they were not available in the past facilitated the widespread use of ultrasound, both for clinical examination and as a guide to procedures; among point-of-care ultrasound techniques, the lung ultrasound saw the greatest spread in the last decade. The COVID-19 pandemic has given a boost to the use of ultrasound since it allows to obtain a wide range of clinical information with a bedside, not harmful, repeatable examination that is reliable. This led to the remarkable growth of publications on lung ultrasounds. The first part of this narrative review aims to discuss basic aspects of lung ultrasounds, from the machine setting, probe choice, and standard examination to signs and semiotics for qualitative and quantitative lung ultrasound interpretation. The second part focuses on how to use lung ultrasound to answer specific clinical questions in critical care units and in emergency departments.

Lung ultrasound monitoring: impact on economics and outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to summarize the impact of lung ultrasonography (LUS) on economics and possible impact on patients' outcomes, proven its diagnostic accuracy in patients with acute respiratory failure.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite some previous ethical concerns on LUS examination, today this technique has showed several advantages. First, it is now clear that the daily use of LUS can provide a relevant cost reduction in healthcare of patients with acute respiratory failure, while reducing the risk of transport of patients to radiological departments for chest CT scan. In addition, LUS reduces the exposition to x-rays since can replace the bedside chest X-ray examination in many cases. Indeed, LUS is characterized by a diagnostic accuracy that is even superior to portable chest X-ray when performed by well trained personnel. Finally, LUS examination is a useful tool to predict the course of patients with pneumonia, including the need for hospitalization and ICU admission, noninvasive ventilation failure and orotracheal intubation, weaning success, and mortality.

SUMMARY

LUS should be implemented not only in Intensive Care Units, but also in other setting like emergency departments. Since most data comes from the recent coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, further investigations are required in Acute Respiratory Failure of different etiologies.

Lung ultrasound as a screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection in surgical patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of lung ultrasound (LUS) in screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients requiring surgery.

METHODS

Patients underwent a LUS protocol that included a scoring system for screening COVID-19 pneumonia as well as RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2. The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve was determined for the relationship between LUS score and PCR test results for COVID-19. The optimal threshold for the best discrimination between non-COVID-19 patients and COVID-19 patients was calculated.

RESULTS

Among 203 patients enrolled (mean age 48 years; 82 males), 8.3% were COVID-19-positive; 4.9% were diagnosed via the initial RT-PCR test. Of the patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, 64.7% required in-hospital management and 17.6% died. The most common ultrasound findings were B lines (19.7%) and a thickened pleura (19.2%). The AUC of the ROC curve of the relationship of LUS score with a cutoff value >8 versus RT-PCR test for the assessment of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia was 0.75 (95% CI 0.61-0.89; sensitivity 52.9%; specificity 91%; LR (+) 6.15, LR (-) 0.51).

CONCLUSION

The LUS score in surgical patients is not a useful tool for screening patients with potential COVID-19 infection. LUS score shows a high specificity with a cut-off value of 8.