Lung ultrasound in critically ill patients: comparison with bedside chest radiography. Academic Article uri icon

Overview

abstract

  • PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of lung ultrasound and bedside chest radiography (CXR) for the detection of various pathologic abnormalities in unselected critically ill patients, using thoracic computed tomography (CT) as a gold standard. METHODS: Forty-two mechanically ventilated patients scheduled for CT were prospectively studied with a modified lung ultrasound protocol. Four pathologic entities were evaluated: consolidation, interstitial syndrome, pneumothorax, and pleural effusion. Each hemithorax was evaluated for the presence or absence of each abnormality. RESULTS: Eighty-four hemithoraces were evaluated by the three imaging techniques. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of CXR were 38, 89, and 49% for consolidation, 46, 80, and 58% for interstitial syndrome, 0, 99, and 89% for pneumothorax, and 65, 81, and 69% for pleural effusion, respectively. The corresponding values for lung ultrasound were 100, 78, and 95% for consolidation, 94, 93, and 94% for interstitial syndrome, 75, 93, and 92% for pneumothorax, and 100, 100, and 100% for pleural effusion, respectively. The relatively low sensitivity of lung ultrasound for pneumothorax could be due to small number of cases (n = 8) and/or suboptimal methodology. CONCLUSIONS: In our unselected general ICU population lung ultrasound has a considerably better diagnostic performance than CXR for the diagnosis of common pathologic conditions and may be used as an alternative to thoracic CT.

publication date

  • August 2, 2011

Research

keywords

  • Critical Illness
  • Lung
  • Point-of-Care Systems
  • Radiography, Thoracic

Identity

Scopus Document Identifier

  • 80054771663

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1007/s00134-011-2317-y

PubMed ID

  • 21809107

Additional Document Info

volume

  • 37

issue

  • 9