|
?:abstract
|
-
Study Objectives: The viral illness severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), more commonly known as coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), has become a global pandemic infecting over 2 million individuals worldwide Symptoms are often vague and physical exam findings have proven unreliable as indicators of infection Therefore, diagnosis typically relies on imaging or nasopharyngeal swabs The objective of this study was to compare point-of-care lung ultrasound (LUS) with chest x-ray (CXR) to determine which is the more accurate diagnostic imaging modality for diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia Methods: This was a single-center, prospective, cohort study at an urban university hospital with >105,000 patient visits annually Patients >18 years old, who presented to the emergency department (ED) with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, were eligible for enrollment Each patient received a LUS, performed by an emergency medicine resident or emergency physician (EP), using a portable, handheld ultrasound and a portable AP CXR after the LUS was completed High-risk patients or those with an abnormal imaging finding underwent a non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography (NCCT) as the diagnostic standard The primary outcome was the sensitivity of LUS and of CXR at identifying COVID-19 pneumonia against NCCT as the reference standard Using a power analysis of 80%, our sample size calculation of 98 patients was based on previous data demonstrating a 20% difference in sensitivities between LUS and CXR at diagnosing pneumonia Data are presented as proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) Data analysis included the chi-square and t tests Results: 143 consecutive patients with signs and symptoms of COVID-19 were approached and enrolled 27 patients were considered low risk by the attending EP per ED guidelines, and 6 patients were admitted for alternate diagnoses without advanced imaging 110 patients underwent LUS, CXR, and NCCT 99 LUS and 73 CXRs were interpreted as positive 81 NCCT were interpreted as positive providing a prevalence of COVID-19 pneumonia of 75% (95% CI 66 0-83 2) in our study population Sensitivity of LUS was 97 6% (95% CI 91 6-99 7) vs 69 9% (95% CI 58 8-79 5) for CXR Specificity was 33 3% (95% CI 16 5-54 0) for LUS and 44 4% (95% CI 25 5-64 7) for CXR LUS positive and negative likelihood ratios were 1 46 (95% CI 1 12-1 92) and 0 0723 (95% CI 0 01-0 31), respectively vs 1 26 (95% CI 0 87-1 81) and 0 67 (95% CI 0 39-1 16) for CXR PPV and NPV for LUS were 81 8% (95% CI 72 8-88 9) and 81 8% (95% CI 48 2-97 7) compared to 79 5% (95% CI 68 4-88 0) and 32 4% (95% CI 18 0-49 8) for CXR Conclusions: LUS was more sensitive than CXR at identifying COVID-19 pneumonia LUS using a portable, handheld ultrasound can be a valuable triage screening modality for patients with suspected COVID-19 pneumonia in diverse clinical settings
|
![[This page as RDF]](https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}