Original ContributionAccuracy of lung ultrasound for the diagnosis of consolidations when compared to chest computed tomography☆,☆☆,★,★★
Introduction
Pneumonia is a common disease characterized by an infection that involves alveoli, distal airways, and interstitium, and leads to lung inflammatory consolidations. Chest computed tomography (CT) is considered the gold standard imaging test for the diagnosis of pulmonary consolidations, but its routine application for the diagnosis of pneumonia is limited by concerns about the high radiation exposure and high costs [1], [2]. In clinical practice, the diagnosis of pneumonia is based on clinical signs and supported by the visualization of typical opacities on chest radiography (CXR). However, in patients evaluated in the emergency department (ED), CXR showed a poor sensitivity (43.5%) when compared to CT [3]. Therefore, reliance on CXR to diagnose pneumonia may lead to significant rates of misdiagnosis.
Lung ultrasonography (LUS) is a bedside diagnostic tool that showed high sensitivity for the diagnosis of various pulmonary conditions, including pneumonia [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. However, an important limitation of some of these previous studies is that not always CT was used as the gold standard to confirm a pulmonary consolidation.
The aim of our study was to define the diagnostic performance of LUS in detecting pulmonary consolidations with the morphologic characteristics of pneumonia, using chest CT as the gold standard.
Section snippets
Study subjects and design
This was a prospective accuracy study, approved by the local institutional review board. Written informed consent was obtained for inclusion in the study. The patients were recruited from December 2011 to August 2012 in the ED of an Italian university hospital with an annual census of 120000 visits. Consecutive patients aged > 18 years with at least one unexplained respiratory complaint among dyspnea, chest pain, cough or hemoptysis, for which the attending emergency physician ordered a chest CT
Baseline characteristics
A total of 308 patients with respiratory complains underwent chest CT in the ED during the study period. Four patients did not consent to participate. In 19 patients LUS was not performed before chest CT or within the time limit. Thus, 285 patients were included in the final analysis (Fig. 1). These patients had a mean age of 71±14 years (range, 23-100) and 152 (53.3%) were women. Chest CT was positive for at least one consolidation in 87 patients (30.5%), with an almost perfect agreement
Discussion
This study demonstrates that LUS is a reliable tool for the diagnosis of pneumonia-related lung consolidations, when chest CT imaging is used as the gold standard, in adults with respiratory complains of unexplained origin. Our data showed that LUS rules in consolidations with the radiologic characteristics of pneumonia with a high positive likelihood ratio (+ LR = 18.2, 95% CI 9.6-34.7) and rules out this condition with a moderate negative likelihood ratio (− LR = 0.18, 95% CI 0.1-0.3).
These
Conclusions
LUS is a reliable method for the diagnosis of pulmonary consolidations when compared to chest CT in patients with respiratory complains of unexplained origin. Ultrasonography has certain advantages over CXR and may be considered a valid alternative for the diagnosis of pneumonia. LUS is highly feasible and its application in the ED may be extended to physicians with different levels of expertise, still maintaining a high diagnostic accuracy.
The following are the supplementary data related to
References (37)
- et al.
High discordance of chest x-ray and computed tomography for detection of pulmonary opacities in ED patients: implications for diagnosing pneumonia
Am J Emerg Med
(2013) - et al.
Evaluation of lung ultrasound for the diagnosis of pneumonia in the ED
Am J Emerg Med
(2009) - et al.
Lung ultrasound in the diagnosis and follow-up of community-acquired pneumonia: a prospective, multicenter, diagnostic accuracy study
Chest
(2012) - et al.
Diagnosis of radio-occult pulmonary conditions by real-time chest ultrasonography in patients with pleuritic pain
Ultrasound Med Biol
(2008) - et al.
Can chest ultrasonography replace standard chest radiography for evaluation of acute dyspnea in the ED?
Chest
(2011) - et al.
Pulmonary infarction: sonographic appearance with pathologic correlation
Eur J Radiol
(1993) - et al.
The dynamic air bronchogram. A lung ultrasound sign of alveolar consolidation ruling out atelectasis
Chest
(2009) - et al.
Thoracic ultrasound for diagnosing pulmonary embolism: a prospective multicenter study of 352 patients
Chest
(2005) - et al.
Accuracy of point-of-care multiorgan ultrasonography for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism
Chest
(2014) - et al.
Interobserver reliability of the chest radiograph in community-acquired pneumonia. PORT Investigators
Chest
(1996)
Relevance of lung ultrasound in the diagnosis of acute respiratory failure: the BLUE protocol
Chest
A comparison of different diagnostic tests in the bedside evaluation of pleuritic pain in the ED
Am J Emerg Med
Lung ultrasound in the evaluation of patients with pleuritic pain in the emergency department
J Emerg Med
Chest ultrasonography in lung contusion
Chest
Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure
N Engl J Med
Diagnostic value of chest radiographs in bedridden patients suspected of having pneumonia
Am J Med
Lung ultrasound is an accurate diagnostic tool for the diagnosis of pneumonia in the emergency department
Emerg Med J
Ultrasound diagnosis of alveolar consolidation in the critically ill
Intensive Care Med
Cited by (162)
Point-of-care ultrasonography: Present and future in infectious diseases
2024, Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiologia ClinicaDiagnostic accuracy of Point Of Care UltraSound (POCUS) in clinical practice: A retrospective, emergency department based study
2024, Journal of Clinical Ultrasound
- ☆
Author contributions: Dr. Nazerian is the guarantor of the manuscript.
Dr Nazerian: contributed to study conception and design and data acquisition, analysis and interpretation, drafted the manuscript, edit the manuscript for important intellectual and scientific content; served as the principal author; edited the revision; and approved the final draft.
Dr Volpicelli: contributed to study design, drafted and edited for important intellectual and scientific content, edit the revision and approved the final draft.
Dr Vanni: contributed to study conception and design, conduct statistical analysis, drafted the manuscript, edited the revision and approved the final draft.
Dr Betti: contributed to data acquisition, conducted statistical analysis, edited the revision and approved the final draft.
Dr Gigli: contributed to data acquisition, conducted statistical analysis, edited the revision, and approved the final draft.
Dr Bartolucci: contributed to data acquisition, and approved the final draft.
Dr Zanobetti: contributed to data acquisition, analysis and interpretation, drafted and edited for important intellectual and scientific content and approved the final draft.
Dr. Ermini: contributed to data acquisition, edited the revision, and approved the final draft.
Dr. Iannello: edited the revision and approved the final draft.
Dr Grifoni: contributed to data analysis and interpretation and approved the final draft.
- ☆☆
All the authors have participated in the preparation of and read and approved the final manuscript.
- ★
Funding Sources: none.
- ★★
Disclosures: the authors have no potential conflict of interest to disclose
The article has never been presented.