The use of lung ultrasound during the COVID-19 pandemic: A narrative review with specific focus on its role in pregnancy.

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a challenge to every health system. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that this pandemic will disappear soon. No health system, with its present resources and workflow, is capable enough to deal with a full-blown wave of this pandemic. Acquisition of specific new skills may be fundamental in delivering appropriate health care for our patients. The gold standard for diagnosis of the COVID-19 infection is real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Radiological investigations (chest X-ray or high-resolution computerized tomography [CT]) can be helpful both for diagnosis and management, but they have many limitations. Ultrasound has been suggested as a reliable and accurate tool for assessing the lungs in COVID-19 patients. Lung ultrasound (LUS) can show specific signs of interstitial pneumonia, which is characteristic of COVID-19 pulmonary infection. In addition, nonradiologist specialists with experience in ultrasound can be trained on LUS with a relatively rapid learning curve. In pregnancy, LUS can be particularly useful due to the avoidance of exposure to ionizing radiation. In this review, we present the advantages, techniques, and limitations of the use of LUS during the COVID-19 pandemic, with specific focus on pregnancy.

Coronavirus disease 2019 during pregnancy: a systematic review of reported cases.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the clinical outcomes reported for pregnant patients with coronavirus disease 2019. DATA SOURCES: The PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus databases were searched using a combination of key words such as "Coronavirus and/or pregnancy," "COVID and/or pregnancy," "COVID disease and/or pregnancy," and "COVID pneumonia and/or pregnancy." There was no restriction of language to allow collection of as many cases as possible. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All studies of pregnant women who received a coronavirus disease 2019 diagnosis using acid nucleic test, with reported data about pregnancy, and, in case of delivery, reported outcomes, were included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: All the studies included have been evaluated according to the tool for evaluating the methodological quality of case reports and case series described by Murad et al. RESULTS: Six studies that involved 51 pregnant women were eligible for the systematic review. At the time of the report, 3 pregnancies were ongoing; of the remaining 48 pregnant women, 46 gave birth by cesarean delivery, and 2 gave birth vaginally; in this study, 1 stillbirth and 1 neonatal death were reported. CONCLUSION: Although vertical transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection has been excluded thus far and the outcome for mothers and neonates has been generally good, the high rate of preterm delivery by cesarean delivery is a reason for concern. Cesarean delivery was typically an elective surgical intervention, and it is reasonable to question whether cesarean delivery for pregnant patients with coronavirus disease 2019 was warranted. Coronavirus disease 2019 associated with respiratory insufficiency in late pregnancies certainly creates a complex clinical scenario.