Recommendations for Lung Ultrasound in Internal Medicine

A growing amount of evidence prompts us to update the first version of recommendations for lung ultrasound in internal medicine (POLLUS-IM) that was published in 2018. The recommendations were established in several stages, consisting of: literature review, assessment of literature data quality (with the application of QUADAS, QUADAS-2 and GRADE criteria) and expert evaluation carried out consistently with the modified Delphi method (three rounds of on-line discussions, followed by a secret ballot by the panel of experts after each completed discussion). Publications to be analyzed were selected from the following databases: Pubmed, Medline, OVID, and Embase. New reports published as of October 2019 were added to the existing POLLUS-IM database used for the original publication of 2018. Altogether, 528 publications were systematically reviewed, including 253 new reports published between September 2017 and October 2019. The new recommendations concern the following conditions and issues: pneumonia, heart failure, monitoring dialyzed patients' hydration status, assessment of pleural effusion, pulmonary embolism and diaphragm function assessment. POLLUS-IM 2020 recommendations were established primarily for clinicians who utilize lung ultrasound in their everyday clinical work.

The value of the new scoring system for predicting neoplastic pericarditis in the patients with large pericardial effusion.

PURPOSE: Early recognition of neoplastic pericarditis (npe) is crucial for the planning of subsequent therapy. The aim of the present study was to construct the scoring system assessing the probability of npe, in the patients requiring pericardial fluid (pf) drainage due to large pericardial effusion. METHODS: One hundred forty-six patients, 74 males and 72 females, entered the study. Npe based on positive pf cytology and/or pericardial biopsy specimen was recognised in 66 patients, non-npe in 80. Original scoring system was constructed based on parameters with the highest diagnostic value: mediastinal lymphadenopathy on chest CT scan, increased concentration of tumour markers (cytokeratin 19 fragments-Cyfra 21-1 and carcinoembryonic antigen-CEA) in pf, bloody character of pf, signs of imminent cardiac tamponade on echocardiography and tachycardia exceeding 90 beats/min on ECG. Each parameter was scored with positive or negative points depending on the positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV). RESULTS: The area under curve (AUC) for the scoring system was 0.926 (95%CI 0.852-0.963) and it was higher than AUC for Cyfra 21-1 0.789 (95%CI 0.684-0.893) or CEA 0.758 (95%CI 0.652-0.864). The score optimally discriminating between npe and non-npe was 0 points (sensitivity 0.84, specificity 0.91, PPV 0.9, NPV 0.85). CONCLUSION: Despite chest CT and tumour marker evaluation in pericardial fluid were good discriminators between npe and non-npe, the applied scoring system further improved the predicting of neoplastic disease in the studied population.