Valerio Stefanone

Lung Ultrasound Predicts Well Extravascular Lung Water but Is of Limited Usefulness in the Prediction of Wedge Pressure

Background:Pulmonary congestion is indicated at lung ultrasound by detection of B-lines, but correlation of these ultrasound signs with pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP) and extravascular lung water (EVLW) still remains to be further explored. The aim of the study was to assess whether B-lines, and eventually a combination with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessment, are useful to differentiate low/high PAOP and EVLW in critically ill patients. Methods:The authors enrolled 73 patients requiring invasive monitoring from the intensive care unit of four university-affiliated hospitals. Forty-one patients underwent PAOP measurement by pulmonary artery catheterization and 32 patients had EVLW measured by transpulmonary thermodilution method. Lung and cardiac ultrasound examinations focused to the evaluation of B-lines and gross estimation of LVEF were performed. The absence of diffuse B-lines (A-pattern) versus the pattern showing prevalent B-lines (B-pattern) and the combination with normal or impaired LVEF were correlated with cutoff levels of PAOP and EVLW. Results:PAOP of 18 mmHg or less was predicted by the A-pattern with 85.7% sensitivity (95% CI, 70.5 to 94.1%) and 40.0% specificity (CI, 25.4 to 56.4%), whereas EVLW 10 ml/kg or less with 81.0% sensitivity (CI, 62.6 to 91.9%) and 90.9% specificity (CI, 74.2 to 97.7%). The combination of A-pattern with normal LVEF increased sensitivity to 100% (CI, 84.5 to 100%) and specificity to 72.7% (CI, 52.0 to 87.2%) for the prediction of PAOP 18 mmHg or less. Conclusions:B-lines allow good prediction of pulmonary congestion indicated by EVLW, whereas are of limited usefulness for the prediction of hemodynamic congestion indicated by PAOP. Combining B-lines with estimation of LVEF at transthoracic ultrasound may improve the prediction of PAOP.

Point-of-Care Ultrasonography for Evaluation of Acute Dyspnea in the ED

BACKGROUND: Acute dyspnea is a common symptom in the ED. The standard approach to dyspnea often relies on radiologic and laboratory results, causing excessive delay before adequate therapy is started. Use of an integrated point‐of‐care ultrasonography (PoCUS) approach can shorten the time needed to formulate a diagnosis, while maintaining an acceptable safety profile. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients presenting with dyspnea and admitted after ED evaluation were prospectively enrolled. The gold standard was the final diagnosis assessed by two expert reviewers. Two physicians independently evaluated the patient; a sonographer performed an ultrasound evaluation of the lung, heart, and inferior vena cava, while the treating physician requested traditional tests as needed. Time needed to formulate the ultrasound and the ED diagnoses was recorded and compared. Accuracy and concordance of the ultrasound and the ED diagnoses were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 2,683 patients were enrolled. The average time needed to formulate the ultrasound diagnosis was significantly lower than that required for ED diagnosis (24 ± 10 min vs 186 ± 72 min; P = .025). The ultrasound and the ED diagnoses showed good overall concordance (&kgr; = 0.71). There were no statistically significant differences in the accuracy of PoCUS and the standard ED evaluation for the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome, pneumonia, pleural effusion, pericardial effusion, pneumothorax, and dyspnea from other causes. PoCUS was significantly more sensitive for the diagnosis of heart failure, whereas a standard ED evaluation performed better in the diagnosis of COPD/asthma and pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSIONS: PoCUS represents a feasible and reliable diagnostic approach to the patient with dyspnea, allowing a reduction in time to diagnosis. This protocol could help to stratify patients who should undergo a more detailed evaluation.

Unusual new signs of pneumothorax at lung ultrasound

BackgroundThe diagnosis of pneumothorax with a bedside lung ultrasound is a powerful methodology. The conventional lung ultrasound examination consists of a step-by-step procedure targeted towards the detection of four classic ultrasound signs, the lung sliding, the B lines, the lung point and the lung pulse. In most cases, a combination of these signs allows a safe diagnosis of pneumothorax. However, the widespread application of sonographic methodology in clinical practice has brought out unusual cases which raise new sonographic signs. The purpose of this article was to introduce some of these new signs that are described after the analysis of unusual and complex cases encountered during the clinical daily practice in an emergency department.FindingsThe double lung point consists of the alternating patterns of sliding and non-sliding lung intermittently appearing at the two opposite sides of the scan. The septate pneumothorax allows B lines and lung pulse to be still visible in a condition of pneumothorax with absent sliding. In hydropneumothorax, the air/fluid border is imaged by lung ultrasound as the interposition between an anechoic space and a non-sliding A-pattern, a sign that may be named hydro-point.ConclusionsIn bedside lung ultrasound, the operator should be aware and interpret double lung point, septate pneumothorax and hydro-point. The conventional diagnostic protocol of bedside lung ultrasound for pneumothorax should be occasionally adapted to such complex cases.

Point-of-care ultrasonography for evaluation of acute dyspnea in the emergency department

BACKGROUND: Acute dyspnea is a common symptom in the ED. The standard approach to dyspnea often relies on radiologic and laboratory results, causing excessive delay before adequate therapy is started. Use of an integrated point‐of‐care ultrasonography (PoCUS) approach can shorten the time needed to formulate a diagnosis, while maintaining an acceptable safety profile. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients presenting with dyspnea and admitted after ED evaluation were prospectively enrolled. The gold standard was the final diagnosis assessed by two expert reviewers. Two physicians independently evaluated the patient; a sonographer performed an ultrasound evaluation of the lung, heart, and inferior vena cava, while the treating physician requested traditional tests as needed. Time needed to formulate the ultrasound and the ED diagnoses was recorded and compared. Accuracy and concordance of the ultrasound and the ED diagnoses were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 2,683 patients were enrolled. The average time needed to formulate the ultrasound diagnosis was significantly lower than that required for ED diagnosis (24 ± 10 min vs 186 ± 72 min; P = .025). The ultrasound and the ED diagnoses showed good overall concordance (&kgr; = 0.71). There were no statistically significant differences in the accuracy of PoCUS and the standard ED evaluation for the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome, pneumonia, pleural effusion, pericardial effusion, pneumothorax, and dyspnea from other causes. PoCUS was significantly more sensitive for the diagnosis of heart failure, whereas a standard ED evaluation performed better in the diagnosis of COPD/asthma and pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSIONS: PoCUS represents a feasible and reliable diagnostic approach to the patient with dyspnea, allowing a reduction in time to diagnosis. This protocol could help to stratify patients who should undergo a more detailed evaluation.

Original Research: Pulmonary ProceduresPoint-of-Care Ultrasonography for Evaluation of Acute Dyspnea in the ED

BACKGROUND: Acute dyspnea is a common symptom in the ED. The standard approach to dyspnea often relies on radiologic and laboratory results, causing excessive delay before adequate therapy is started. Use of an integrated point‐of‐care ultrasonography (PoCUS) approach can shorten the time needed to formulate a diagnosis, while maintaining an acceptable safety profile. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients presenting with dyspnea and admitted after ED evaluation were prospectively enrolled. The gold standard was the final diagnosis assessed by two expert reviewers. Two physicians independently evaluated the patient; a sonographer performed an ultrasound evaluation of the lung, heart, and inferior vena cava, while the treating physician requested traditional tests as needed. Time needed to formulate the ultrasound and the ED diagnoses was recorded and compared. Accuracy and concordance of the ultrasound and the ED diagnoses were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 2,683 patients were enrolled. The average time needed to formulate the ultrasound diagnosis was significantly lower than that required for ED diagnosis (24 ± 10 min vs 186 ± 72 min; P = .025). The ultrasound and the ED diagnoses showed good overall concordance (&kgr; = 0.71). There were no statistically significant differences in the accuracy of PoCUS and the standard ED evaluation for the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome, pneumonia, pleural effusion, pericardial effusion, pneumothorax, and dyspnea from other causes. PoCUS was significantly more sensitive for the diagnosis of heart failure, whereas a standard ED evaluation performed better in the diagnosis of COPD/asthma and pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSIONS: PoCUS represents a feasible and reliable diagnostic approach to the patient with dyspnea, allowing a reduction in time to diagnosis. This protocol could help to stratify patients who should undergo a more detailed evaluation.