Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
2.
Intern Emerg Med ; 16(2): 471-476, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33011929

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to explore the role of lung ultrasound (LUS) in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and to verify its utility in the prediction of lung disease's severity and outcome. Fifty-three consecutive patients presenting to the Emergency Department of Santa Maria delle Grazie Hospital with high suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 on samples obtained from nasopharyngeal swab as well as complete proper diagnostic work-up that included clinical evaluation, laboratory tests, blood gas analyses, chest CT and LUS. A semiquantitative analysis of B-lines distribution was performed to calculate the LUS score. Patients were divided into two groups according to the results of both SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test and other exams (Group A = pneumonia due to SARS-CoV2 infection vs Group B = no SARS-CoV2 infection and another definite diagnosis). LUS showed an excellent accuracy in predicting the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection (area under the ROC curve of 0.92 with a sensibility of 73% and a specificity of 89% a the cut-off of 12.5). LUS score was more impaired in SARS-CoV-2 patients (18.1 ± 6.0 vs 7.6 ± 5.9, p < 0.00001) and it is significantly negatively correlated with PF ratio values (r = - 0.719, p < 0.0001). An intrahospital mortality rate of 46% was found; patients with adverse outcome had significant higher value of LUS, PF, LDH, and APACHE II score. None of these parameters was predictive of mortality. LUS is a useful tool for the early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection and for the evaluation of the disease severity, but does not predict mortality. Further studies with repeated evaluations of LUS score are needed to further explore the role of LUS in the assessment of severity in SARS-CoV-2 disease and in the monitoring of the response to treatments.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnostic imaging , Ultrasonography/methods , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
3.
Future Sci OA ; 7(1): FSO635, 2020 Nov 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33432268

ABSTRACT

AIM: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus-specific reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) represents the diagnostic gold standard. We explored the value of chest ultrasonography to predict positivity to SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR in suspected COVID-19 cases. PATIENTS & METHODS: Consecutive patients with suspect COVID-19 were included if they had fever and/or history of cough and/or dyspnea. Lung ultrasound score (LUSS) was computed according to published methods. RESULTS: A total of 76 patients were included. A 3-variable model based on aspartate transaminase (AST) > upper limit of normal, LUSS >12 and body temperature >37.5°C yielded an overall accuracy of 91%. CONCLUSION: A simple LUSS-based model may represent a powerful tool for initial assessment in suspected cases of COVID-19.

4.
Respirology ; 25(5): 535-542, 2020 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31373748

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the role of lung ultrasound (LUS) in a diagnostic algorithm of respiratory diseases, and to establish the accuracy of LUS compared with chest radiography (CXR). METHODS: Over a period of 2 years, 509 consecutive patients admitted for respiratory-related symptoms to both emergency and general medicine wards were enrolled and evaluated using LUS and CXR. LUS was conducted by expert operators who were blinded to the medical history and laboratory data. Computed tomography (CT) of the chest was performed in case of discordance between the CXR and LUS, suspected lung cancer and an inconclusive diagnosis. Diagnosis made by CT was considered the gold standard. RESULTS: The difference in sensitivity and specificity between LUS and CXR as demonstrated by ROC curve analyses (LUS-AUROC: 0.853; specificity: 81.6%; sensitivity: 93.9% vs CXR-AUROC: 0.763; specificity: 57.4%; sensitivity: 96.3%) was significant (P = 0.001). Final diagnosis included 240 cases (47.2%) of pneumonia, 44 patients with cancer (8.6%), 20 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, 3.9%), 24 patients with heart failure (4.7%) and others (6.1%). In 108 patients (21.2%) with any lung pathology, a CT scan was performed with a positive diagnosis in 96 cases (88.9%); we found that CXR and LUS detected no abnormality in 24 (25%) and 5 (5.2%) cases, respectively. LUS was concordant with the final diagnosis (P < 0.0001), and in healthy patients, there was a low percentage of false positives (5.9%). CONCLUSION: The results support the routine use of LUS in the clinical context.


Subject(s)
Lung/diagnostic imaging , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , Radiography, Thoracic/methods , Respiration Disorders , Ultrasonography , Aged , Algorithms , Diagnostic Services/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Procedures and Techniques Utilization , Prospective Studies , Respiration Disorders/classification , Respiration Disorders/diagnosis , Respiration Disorders/epidemiology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Ultrasonography/methods , Ultrasonography/standards , Ultrasonography/statistics & numerical data
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...