ABSTRACT
Background: Point of care lung ultrasound (POCUS) has been recently used to assess prognosis in COVID-19 patients. However, there are no data comparing POCUS and chest-X ray, a technique widely used. Patients and methods: Retrospective analysis in stable COVID-19 patients. Schalekamp radiological lung scale and LUZ-Score ultrasound scale were compared. Primary end-point was in-hospital death and/or need for Intensive Care Unit admission. Results: A total of 138 patients were included. Median Schalekamp scale was 2 (2) and median LUZ-Score scale was 21 (10). No significant correlation was observed between both techniques. Patients with a LUZ-Score ≥ 21 points at admission had worse lung function and higher concentrations of LDH, CRP and Interleuquine-6. Schalekamp scale failed to identify patients at a higher risk at admission for the primary end-point. Addition of POCUS to a previous clinical model, improved risk prediction (AUC 0.805 [95% CI: 0.662-0.948]; P = <0.001). Conclusions: Chest X-ray and POCUS showed no correlation at admission in this analysis. Only POCUS identified a group of patients with greater clinical and analytical involvement. POCUS improved, previous clinical model, while chest X-ray did not add relevant predictive information for the primary endpoint.
Antecedentes: La ecografía torácica es una técnica novedosa para estratificar el riesgo de los pacientes COVID-19. Sin embargo, no existen datos que comparen dicha técnica con la radiografía de tórax, una técnica ampliamente utilizada en esta enfermedad. Pacientes y métodos: Análisis retrospectivo en pacientes estables COVID-19. Se compararon la escala de daño pulmonar radiológica de Schalekamp y ecográfica de LUZ-Score. El objetivo primario fue la muerte intrahospitalaria o la necesidad de ingreso en la UCI para tratamiento con ventilación mecánica. Resultados: Se reclutaron 138 pacientes. La mediana de la escala de Schalekamp fue de 2 (2) y la del LUZ-Score de 21 (10). No se objetivó una correlación significativa entre ambas escalas. Los pacientes con un LUZ-Score ≥ 21 puntos al ingreso presentaron peor función pulmonar y mayores concentraciones de LDH, PCR e interleucina-6. La escala radiológica de Schalekamp no logró identificar a una población de mayor riesgo. Únicamente la adición de la ecografía pulmonar a un modelo de valoración clínica mejoró de manera significativa el área bajo la curva para el objetivo primario (ABC 0,805 [IC 95%: 0,662−0,948]; p ≤ 0,001). Conclusiones: No se objetivó una correlación entre la afectación radiológica y la ecográfica. Únicamente la ecografía pulmonar identificó un subgrupo de pacientes con una mayor afectación clínico-analítica. La ecografía pulmonar mejoró el modelo de predicción clínico, mientras que la radiografía de tórax no añadió información relevante.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Point of care lung ultrasound (POCUS) has been recently used to assess prognosis in COVID-19 patients. However, there are no data comparing POCUS and chest-X ray, a technique widely used. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis in stable COVID-19 patients. Schalekamp radiological lung scale and LUZ-Score ultrasound scale were compared. Primary end-point was in-hospital death and/or need for Intensive Care Unit admission. RESULTS: A total of 138 patients were included. Median Schalekamp scale was 2 (2) and median LUZ-Score scale was 21 (10). No significant correlation was observed between both techniques. Patients with a LUZ-Score ≥21points at admission had worse lung function and higher concentrations of LDH, CRP and Interleuquine-6. Schalekamp scale failed to identify patients at a higher risk at admission for the primary end-point. Addition of POCUS to a previous clinical model, improved risk prediction (AUC 0.805 [95%CI: 0.662-0.948]; P=<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Chest X-ray and POCUS showed no correlation at admission in this analysis. Only POCUS identified a group of patients with greater clinical and analytical involvement. POCUS improved, previous clinical model, while chest X-ray did not add relevant predictive information for the primary endpoint.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Retrospective Studies , Hospital Mortality , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Radiography , Prognosis , HospitalsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Lung ultrasound is feasible for assessing lung injury caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the prognostic meaning and time-line changes of lung injury assessed by lung ultrasound in COVID-19 hospitalised patients are unknown. METHODS: Prospective cohort study designed to analyse prognostic value of lung ultrasound in COVID-19 patients by using a quantitative scale (lung ultrasound Zaragoza (LUZ)-score) during the first 72â h after admission. The primary end-point was in-hospital death and/or admission to the intensive care unit. Total length of hospital stay, increase of oxygen flow and escalation of medical treatment during the first 72â h were secondary end-points. RESULTS: 130 patients were included in the final analysis; mean±sd age was 56.7±13.5â years. Median (interquartile range) time from the beginning of symptoms to admission was 6 (4-9) days. Lung injury assessed by LUZ-score did not differ during the first 72â h (21 (16-26) points at admission versus 20 (16-27) points at 72â h; p=0.183). In univariable logistic regression analysis, estimated arterial oxygen tension/inspiratory oxygen fraction ratio (PAFI) (hazard ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.98-0.99; p=0.027) and LUZ-score >22 points (5.45, 1.42-20.90; p=0.013) were predictors for the primary end-point. CONCLUSIONS: LUZ-score is an easy, simple and fast point-of-care ultrasound tool to identify patients with severe lung injury due to COVID-19, upon admission. Baseline score is predictive of severity along the whole period of hospitalisation. The score facilitates early implementation or intensification of treatment for COVID-19 infection. LUZ-score may be combined with clinical variables (as estimated by PAFI) to further refine risk stratification.