Using the lung ultrasound score to monitor disease progression for COVID-19-associated ARDS.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Nguyen M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8483171 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Using the lung ultrasound score to monitor disease progression for COVID-19-associated ARDS.
Nguyen Maxime M Gaujard Guillaume G Guinot Pierre-Grégoire PG Bouhemad Belaid B
Intensive care medicine 20210930 11
Similar Datasets
Project description:COVID-19 pneumonia typically begins with subpleural ground glass opacities with progressive extension on computerized tomography studies. Lung ultrasound is well suited to this interstitial, subpleural involvement, and it is now broadly used in intensive care units (ICUs). The extension and severity of lung infiltrates can be described numerically with a reproducible and validated lung ultrasound score (LUSS). We hypothesized that LUSS might be useful as a tool to non-invasively monitor the evolution of COVID-19 pneumonia at the bedside. LUSS monitoring was rapidly implemented in the management of our COVID-19 patients with RT-PCR-documented COVID-19. The LUSS was evaluated repeatedly at the bedside. We present a graphic description of the course of LUSS during COVID-19 in 10 consecutive patients admitted in our intensive care unit with moderate to severe ARDS between March 15 and 30th. LUSS appeared to be closely related to the disease progression. In successfully extubated patients, LUSS decreased and was lower than at the time of intubation. LUSS increased inexorably in a patient who died from refractory hypoxemia. LUSS helped with the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), showing an increased score and the presence of new lung consolidations in all 5 patients with VAPs. There was also a good agreement between CT-scans and LUSS as for the presence of lung consolidations. In conclusion, our early experience suggests that LUSS monitoring accurately reflect disease progression and indicates potential usefulness for the management of COVID-19 patients with ARDS. It might help with early VAP diagnosis, mechanical ventilation weaning management, and potentially reduce the need for X-ray and CT exams. LUSS evaluation is easy to use and readily available in ICUs throughout the world, and might be a safe, cheap and simple tool to optimize critically ill COVID-19 patients care during the pandemic.
| S-EPMC7373285 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLung ultrasound can accurately detect pandemic coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pulmonary lesions. A lung ultrasound score (LUS) was developed to improve reproducibility of the technique.ObjectivesTo evaluate the clinical value of LUS monitoring to guide COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) management.MethodsWe conducted a single center, prospective observational study, including all patients admitted with COVID-19-associated ARDS between March and April 2020. A systematic daily LUS evaluation was performed.ResultsThirty-three consecutive patients were included. LUS was significantly and negatively correlated to PaO2/FIO2. LUS increased significantly over time in non-survivors compared to survivors. LUS increased in 83% of ventilatory associated pneumonia (VAP) episodes, when compared to the previous LUS evaluation. LUS was not significantly higher in patients presenting post-extubation respiratory failure.ConclusionsIn conclusion, our study demonstrates that LUS variations are correlated to disease severity and progression, and LUS monitoring could contribute to the early diagnosis of VAPs.
| S-EPMC8165084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLung ultrasound (LUS) can be used to monitor critically ill patients with COVID-19, but the optimal number of examined lung zones is disputed.MethodsThis was a prospective observational study. The objective was to investigate whether concise (6 zones) and extended (12 zones) LUS scoring protocols are clinically equivalent in critically ill ICU subjects with COVID-19. The primary outcome of this study was (statistical) agreement between concise and extended LUS score index evaluated in both supine and prone position. Agreement was determined using correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots to detect systematic differences between protocols. Secondary outcomes were difference between LUS score index in supine and prone position using similar methods.ResultsWe included 130 LUS examinations in 40 subjects (mean age 69.0 ± 8.5y, 75% male). Agreement between concise and extended LUS score index had no clinically relevant constant or proportional bias and limits of agreement were below the smallest detectable change. Across position changes, supine LUS score index was 8% higher than prone LUS score index and had limits above the smallest detectable change, indicating true LUS score index differences between protocols may occur due to the position change itself. Lastly, inter-rater and intra-rater agreement were very good.ConclusionsConcise LUS was equally informative as extended LUS for monitoring critically ill subjects with COVID-19 in supine or prone position. Clinicians can monitor patients undergoing position changes but must be wary that LUS score index alterations may result from the position change itself rather than disease progression or clinical improvement.
| S-EPMC10027145 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAs lung ultrasound (LUS) has emerged as a diagnostic tool in patients with COVID-19, we sought to investigate the association between LUS findings and the composite in-hospital outcome of ARDS incidence, ICU admission, and all-cause mortality.MethodsIn this prospective, multi-center, observational study, adults with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled from non-ICU in-patient units. Subjects underwent an LUS evaluating a total of 8 zones. Images were analyzed off-line, blinded to clinical variables and outcomes. A LUS score was developed to integrate LUS findings: ≥ 3 B-lines corresponded to a score of 1, confluent B-lines to a score of 2, and subpleural or lobar consolidation to a score of 3. The total LUS score ranged from 0-24 per subject.ResultsAmong 215 enrolled subjects, 168 with LUS data and no current signs of ARDS or ICU admission (mean age 59 y, 56% male) were included. One hundred thirty-six (81%) subjects had pathologic LUS findings in ≥ 1 zone (≥ 3 B-lines, confluent B-lines, or consolidations). Markers of disease severity at baseline were higher in subjects with the composite outcome (n = 31, 18%), including higher median C-reactive protein (90 mg/L vs 55, P < .001) and procalcitonin levels (0.35 μg/L vs 0.13, P = .033) and higher supplemental oxygen requirements (median 4 L/min vs 2, P = .001). However, LUS findings and score did not differ significantly between subjects with the composite outcome and those without, and were not associated with outcomes in unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression analyses.ConclusionsPathologic findings on LUS were common a median of 3 d after admission in this cohort of non-ICU hospitalized subjects with COVID-19 and did not differ among subjects who experienced the composite outcome of incident ARDS, ICU admission, and all-cause mortality compared to subjects who did not. These findings should be confirmed in future investigations. The study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04377035).
| S-EPMC10408365 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesPoint-of-care lung ultrasound (LU) is an established tool in the first assessment of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). To assess the progression or regression of respiratory failure in critically ill patients with COVID-19 on Intensive Care Unit (ICU) by using LU.Materials and methodsWe analyzed all patients admitted to Internal Intensive Care Unit, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU) of Munich, from March 2020 to December 2020 suffering lung failure caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2). LU was performed according to a standardized protocol at baseline and at follow up every other day for the first 15 days using a lung ultrasound score (LUSS). Ventilation data were collected simultaneously.ResultsOur study included 42 patients. At admission to ICU, 19 of them (45%) were mechanically ventilated. Of the non-invasive ventilated ones (n = 23, 55%), eleven patients required invasive ventilation over the course. While LUS did not differ at admission to ICU between the invasive ventilated ones (at baseline or during ICU stay) compared to the non-invasive ventilated ones (12±4 vs 11±2 points, p = 0.2497), LUS was significantly lower at d7 for those, who had no need for invasive ventilation over the course (13±5 vs 7±4 points, p = 0.0046). Median time of invasive ventilation counted 18 days; the 90-day mortality was 24% (n = 10) in our cohort. In case of increasing LUS between day 1 (d1) and day 7 (d7), 92% (n = 12/13) required invasive ventilation, while it was 57% (n = 10/17) in case of decreasing LUS. At d7 we found significant correlation between LU and FiO2 (Pearson 0.591; p = 0.033), p/F ratio (Pearson -0.723; p = 0.005), PEEP (Pearson 0.495; p = 0.043), pplat (Pearson 0.617; p = 0.008) and compliance (Pearson -0.572; p = 0.016).ConclusionLUS can be a useful tool in monitoring of progression and regression of respiratory failure and in indicating intubation in patients with COVID-19 in the ICU.
| S-EPMC9282475 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The aim of this retrospective analysis was to assess if serial lung ultrasound assessments in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, including a novel simplified scoring system, correlate with PaO2:FiO2 ratio, as a marker of disease severity, and patient outcomes. Methods: Patients treated for COVID-19 pneumonia in a tertiary intensive care unit who had a lung ultrasound assessment were included. Standardised assessments of anterior and lateral lung regions were prospectively recorded. A validated lung ultrasound score-of-aeration and a simplified scoring system based on the number of disease-free lung regions were correlated with: PaO2:FiO2 ratio, successful weaning from mechanical ventilation, and status (alive or dead) at discharge. MedCalc© statistical software was used for statistical analysis. Results: 28 patients (109 assessments) were included. Correlation was seen between score-of-aeration and PaO2:FiO2 ratio (r = -0.61, p<0.0001) and between the simplified scoring system and PaO2:FiO2 ratio (r = 0.52 p<0.0001). Achieving a score-of-aeration of ≤9/24 or ≥2 disease-free regions was associated with successful weaning from mechanical ventilation and survival to ICU discharge (accuracy of 94% and 97% respectively). Conclusion: Retrospective analysis from this small cohort of patients demonstrates that scores-of-aeration and a simplified scoring system based on the number of disease-free antero-lateral regions from serial LUS assessments correlate with PaO2:FiO2 ratio as a marker of disease severity in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. In addition, lung ultrasound may help identify patients who will have favourable outcomes.
| S-EPMC9979905 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBedside lung ultrasound (LUS) has emerged as a useful and non-invasive tool to detect lung involvement and monitor changes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the clinical significance of the LUS score in patients with COVID-19 remains unknown. We aimed to investigate the prognostic value of the LUS score in patients with COVID-19.MethodThe LUS protocol consisted of 12 scanning zones and was performed in 280 consecutive patients with COVID-19. The LUS score based on B-lines, lung consolidation and pleural line abnormalities was evaluated.ResultsThe median time from admission to LUS examinations was 7 days (interquartile range [IQR] 3-10). Patients in the highest LUS score group were more likely to have a lower lymphocyte percentage (LYM%); higher levels of D-dimer, C-reactive protein, hypersensitive troponin I and creatine kinase muscle-brain; more invasive mechanical ventilation therapy; higher incidence of ARDS; and higher mortality than patients in the lowest LUS score group. After a median follow-up of 14 days [IQR, 10-20 days], 37 patients developed ARDS, and 13 died. Patients with adverse outcomes presented a higher rate of bilateral involvement; more involved zones and B-lines, pleural line abnormalities and consolidation; and a higher LUS score than event-free survivors. The Cox models adding the LUS score as a continuous variable (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.05, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.02 ~ 1.08; P < 0.001; Akaike information criterion [AIC] = 272; C-index = 0.903) or as a categorical variable (HR 10.76, 95% CI 2.75 ~ 42.05; P = 0.001; AIC = 272; C-index = 0.902) were found to predict poor outcomes more accurately than the basic model (AIC = 286; C-index = 0.866). An LUS score cut-off > 12 predicted adverse outcomes with a specificity and sensitivity of 90.5% and 91.9%, respectively.ConclusionsThe LUS score devised by our group performs well at predicting adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and is important for risk stratification in COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC7754180 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose A 4-step lung ultrasound (LUS) score has been previously used to quantify lung density. We compared 2 versions of this scoring system for distinguishing severe from moderate loss of aeration in ARDS: coalescence-based score (cLUS) vs. quantitative-based score (qLUS - >50% pleura occupied by artefacts). Materials and Methods We compared qLUS and cLUS to lung density measured by quantitative CT scan in 12 standard thoracic regions. A simplified approach (1 scan per region) was compared to an extensive one (regional score computed as the mean of all relevant intercostal space scores). Results We examined 13 conditions in 7 ARDS patients (7 at PEEP 5, 6 at PEEP 15 cmH2O-156 regions, 398 clips). Switching from cLUS to qLUS resulted in a change in interpretation in 117 clips (29.4%, 1-point reduction) and in 41.7% of the regions (64 decreases (range 0.2-1), 1 increase (0.2 points)). Regional qLUS showed very strong correlation with lung density (rs=0.85), higher than cLUS (rs=0.79; p=0.010). The agreement with CT classification in well aerated, poorly aerated, and not aerated tissue was moderate for cLUS (agreement 65.4%; Cohen's K coefficient 0.475 (95%CI 0.391-0.547); p<0.0001) and substantial for qLUS (agreement 81.4%; Cohen's K coefficient 0.701 (95%CI 0.653-0.765), p<0.0001). The agreement between single spot and extensive approaches was almost perfect (cLUS: agreement 89.1%, Cohen's kappa coefficient 0.840 (95%CI 0.811-0.911), p<0.0001; qLUS: agreement 86.5%, Cohen's kappa coefficient 0.819 (95%CI 0.761-0.848), p<0.0001). Conclusion A LUS score based on the percentage of occupied pleura performs better than a coalescence-based approach for quantifying lung density. A simplified approach performs as well as an extensive one.
| S-EPMC11497101 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesOne of the major challenges in treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is predicting the severity of disease. We aimed to develop a new score for predicting progression from mild/moderate to severe COVID-19.MethodsA total of 239 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 from two medical centers in China between February 6 and April 6, 2020 were retrospectively included. The prognostic abilities of variables, including clinical data and laboratory findings from the electronic medical records of each hospital, were analysed using the Cox proportional hazards model and Kaplan-Meier methods. A prognostic score was developed to predict progression from mild/moderate to severe COVID-19.ResultsAmong the 239 patients, 216 (90.38%) patients had mild/moderate disease, and 23 (9.62%) progressed to severe disease. After adjusting for multiple confounding factors, pulmonary disease, age > 75, IgM, CD16+/CD56+ NK cells and aspartate aminotransferase were independent predictors of progression to severe COVID-19. Based on these five factors, a new predictive score (the 'PAINT score') was established and showed a high predictive value (C-index = 0.91, 0.902 ± 0.021, p < 0.001). The PAINT score was validated using a nomogram, bootstrap analysis, calibration curves, decision curves and clinical impact curves, all of which confirmed its high predictive value.ConclusionsThe PAINT score for progression from mild/moderate to severe COVID-19 may be helpful in identifying patients at high risk of progression.
| S-EPMC9134988 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Lung injury is a common condition among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, whether lung ultrasound (LUS) score predicts all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 is unknown. The aim of the present study was to explore the predictive value of lung ultrasound score for mortality in patients with COVID-19. Methods: Patients with COVID-19 who underwent lung ultrasound were prospectively enrolled from three hospitals in Wuhan, China between February 2020 and March 2020. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected from digital patient records. Lung ultrasound scores were analyzed offline by two observers. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results: Of the 402 patients, 318 (79.1%) had abnormal lung ultrasound. Compared with survivors (n = 360), non-survivors (n = 42) presented with more B2 lines, pleural line abnormalities, pulmonary consolidation, and pleural effusion (all p < 0.05). Moreover, non-survivors had higher global and anterolateral lung ultrasound score than survivors. In the receiver operating characteristic analysis, areas under the curve were 0.936 and 0.913 for global and anterolateral lung ultrasound score, respectively. A cutoff value of 15 for global lung ultrasound score had a sensitivity of 92.9% and specificity of 85.3%, and 9 for anterolateral score had a sensitivity of 88.1% and specificity of 83.3% for prediction of death. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that both global and anterolateral scores were strong predictors of death (both p < 0.001). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that global lung ultrasound score was an independent predictor (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.16; p = 0.03) of death together with age, male sex, C-reactive protein, and creatine kinase-myocardial band. Conclusion: Lung ultrasound score as a semiquantitative tool can be easily measured by bedside lung ultrasound. It is a powerful predictor of in-hospital mortality and may play a crucial role in risk stratification of patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8185027 | biostudies-literature