Author: Quarato, Carla Maria Irene; Mirijello, Antonio; Lacedonia, Donato; Russo, Raffaele; Maggi, Michele Maria; Rea, Gaetano; Simeone, Annalisa; Borelli, Cristina; Feragalli, Beatrice; Scioscia, Giulia; Barbaro, Maria Pia Foschino; Massa, Valentina; De Cosmo, Salvatore; Sperandeo, Marco
Title: Low Sensitivity of Admission Lung US Compared to Chest CT for Diagnosis of Lung Involvement in a Cohort of 82 Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia Cord-id: 001dyqir Document date: 2021_3_4
ID: 001dyqir
Snippet: Background and Objectives: The potential role of lung ultrasound (LUS) in characterizing lung involvement in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still debated. The aim of the study was to estimate sensitivity of admission LUS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 lung involvement using Chest-CT (Computed Tomography) as reference standard in order to assess LUS usefulness in ruling out COVID-19 pneumonia in the Emergency Department (ED). Methods: Eighty-two patients with confirmed COVID-19 and signs
Document: Background and Objectives: The potential role of lung ultrasound (LUS) in characterizing lung involvement in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still debated. The aim of the study was to estimate sensitivity of admission LUS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 lung involvement using Chest-CT (Computed Tomography) as reference standard in order to assess LUS usefulness in ruling out COVID-19 pneumonia in the Emergency Department (ED). Methods: Eighty-two patients with confirmed COVID-19 and signs of lung involvement on Chest-CT were consecutively admitted to our hospital and recruited in the study. Chest-CT and LUS examination were concurrently performed within the first 6–12h from admission. Sensitivity of LUS was calculated using CT findings as a reference standard. Results: Global LUS sensitivity in detecting COVID-19 pulmonary lesions was 52%. LUS sensitivity ranged from 8% in case of focal and sporadic ground-glass opacities (mild disease), to 52% for a crazy-paving pattern (moderate disease) and up to 100% in case of extensive subpleural consolidations (severe disease), although LUS was not always able to detect all the consolidations assessed at Chest-CT. LUS sensitivity was higher in detecting a typical Chest-CT pattern (60%) and abnormalities showing a middle-lower zone predominance (79%). Conclusions: As admission LUS may result falsely negative in most cases, it should not be considered as a reliable imaging tool in ruling out COVID-19 pneumonia in patients presenting in ED. It may at least represent an expanded clinical evaluation that needs integration with other diagnostic tests (e.g., nasopharyngeal swab, Chest-CT).
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- lung disease and lus detect: 1, 2, 3
- lung disease and lus diagnostic accuracy: 1
- lung disease and lus finding: 1
- lung disease and lus identify: 1
- lung disease and lus lung ultrasound: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35
- lung disease and lus pattern: 1, 2
- lung disease and lus sensitivity: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
- lung disease and lus specificity: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
- lung examination and lus detect: 1, 2, 3, 4
- lung examination and lus identify: 1
- lung examination and lus lung ultrasound: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
- lung examination and lus sensitivity: 1
- lung lesion and lus detect: 1
- lung lesion and lus lung ultrasound: 1
- lung parenchyma and lus identify: 1
- lung parenchyma and lus lung ultrasound: 1, 2, 3
- lung parenchyma and lus sensitivity: 1
- lung parenchyma and lus specificity: 1
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date