Multicentre study on the accuracy of lung ultrasound in the diagnosis and monitoring of respiratory sequelae in the medium and long term in patients with COVID-19.

Introduction: Lung ultrasound (LUS) has proven to be a more sensitive tool than radiography (X-ray) to detect alveolar-interstitial involvement in COVID-19 pneumonia. However, its usefulness in the detection of possible pulmonary alterations after overcoming the acute phase of COVID-19 is unknown. In this study we proposed studying the utility of LUS in the medium- and long-term follow-up of a cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. Materials and methods: This was a prospective, multicentre study that included patients, aged over 18 years, at 3 ± 1 and 12 ± 1 months after discharge after treatment for COVID-19 pneumonia. Demographic variables, the disease severity, and analytical, radiographic, and functional clinical details were collected. LUS was performed at each visit and 14 areas were evaluated and classified with a scoring system whose global sum was referred to as the "lung score." Two-dimensional shear wave elastography (2D-SWE) was performed in 2 anterior areas and in 2 posterior areas in a subgroup of patients. The results were compared with high-resolution computed tomography (CT) images reported by an expert radiologist. Results: A total of 233 patients were included, of whom 76 (32.6%) required Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission; 58 (24.9%) of them were intubated and non-invasive respiratory support was also necessary in 58 cases (24.9%). Compared with the results from CT images, when performed in the medium term, LUS showed a sensitivity (S) of 89.7%, specificity (E) 50%, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 78.8%, while the diagnostic usefulness of X-ray showed an S of 78% and E of 47%. Most of the patients improved in the long-term evaluation, with LUS showing an efficacy with an S of 76% and E of 74%, while the X-ray presented an S of 71% and E of 50%. 2D-SWE data were available in 108 (61.7%) patients, in whom we found a non-significant tendency toward the presentation of a higher shear wave velocity among those who developed interstitial alterations, with a median kPa of 22.76 ± 15.49) versus 19.45 ± 11.39; p = 0.1). Conclusion: Lung ultrasound could be implemented as a first-line procedure in the evaluation of interstitial lung sequelae after COVID-19 pneumonia.

Validity of Lung Ultrasound: Is an Image Worth More Than a Thousand Sounds?

INTRODUCTION: There is debate as to whether lung-ultrasound (LUS) can replace lung-auscultation (LA) in the assessment of respiratory diseases. METHODOLOGY: The diagnostic validity, safety, and reliability of LA and LUS were analyzed in patients admitted in a pulmonary ward due to decompensated obstructive airway diseases, decompensated interstitial diseases, and pulmonary infections, in a prospective study. Standard formulas were used to calculate the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. The interobserver agreement with respect to the LA and LUS findings was evaluated based on the Kappa coefficient (ᴋ). RESULTS: A total of 115 patients were studied. LUS was more sensitive than the LA in evaluating pulmonary infections (93.59% vs. 77.02%; p = 0.001) and more specifically in the case of decompensated obstructive airway diseases (95.6% vs. 19.10%; p = 0.001). The diagnostic accuracy of LUS was also greater in the case of pulmonary infections (75.65% vs. 60.90%; p = 0.02). The sensitivity and specificity of the combination of LA and LUS was 95.95%, 50% in pulmonary infections, 76.19%, 100% in case of decompensated obstructive airway diseases, and (100%, 88.54%) in case of interstitial diseases. (ᴋ) was 0.71 for an A-pattern, 0.73 for pathological B-lines, 0.94 for condensations, 0.89 for pleural-effusion, 0.63 for wheezes, 0.38 for rhonchi, 0.68 for fine crackles, 0.18 for coarse crackles, and 0.29 for a normal LA. CONCLUSIONS: There is a greater interobserver agreement in the interpretation of LUS-findings compared to that of LA-noises, their combined use improves diagnostic performance in all diseases examined.

[Lung Ultrasound to Predict Unfavorable Progress in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19]. / Predicción de evolución desfavorable en pacientes hospitalizados por COVID-19 mediante ecografía pulmonar.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic ultrasound has been shown to be useful in the diagnosis of COVID-19 pulmonary involvement. Several scores for quantifying the degree of involvement have been described, although there is no evidence to show that they have any capacity for predicting unfavorable progress. METHODOLOGY: Prospective cohort study of patients hospitalized for COVID-19. The sample was stratified according to clinical course, and patients requiring invasive or non-invasive respiratory support were classified as having unfavorable progress. Biomarkers were analyzed at admission and on the same day that thoracic ultrasound was performed. Prognostic scales were also determined at admission. The ultrasound score was obtained in 8 or 14 areas, depending on the patient's ability to sit. RESULTS: We included 44 patients, 13 (29,5%) of whom subsequently needed ventilatory support. Eight areas were explored in all patients and 14 areas in 35 (79.5%). The most affected areas were the posterior lower lobes. Significant differences were found between the 2 groups on the SOFA and quick SOFA multidimensional scales, and PCR and LDH on the same day as thoracic ultrasound, and the ultrasound scores. The best area under the ROC curve (AUC) was obtained with the 14-area score, with a result of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.75-0.99). Its sensitivity and specificity for a cut-off score of 13.5 were 100% and 61.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of scores to quantify lung involvement measured by thoracic ultrasound provides useful information, facilitating risk stratification in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.