Selected article for: "additional testing and lung heart"

Author: Brenner, Daniel S.; Liu, Gigi Y.; Omron, Rodney; Tang, Olive; Garibaldi, Brian T.; Fong, Tiffany C.
Title: Diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound for SARS-CoV-2: a retrospective cohort study
  • Cord-id: 2n949ctb
  • Document date: 2021_3_1
  • ID: 2n949ctb
    Snippet: BACKGROUND: As medical infrastructures are strained by SARS-CoV-2, rapid and accurate screening tools are essential. In portions of the world, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing remains slow and in limited supply, and computed tomography is expensive, inefficient, and involves exposure to ionizing radiation. Multiple studies evaluating the efficiency of lung point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) have been published recently, but include relatively small cohorts and often
    Document: BACKGROUND: As medical infrastructures are strained by SARS-CoV-2, rapid and accurate screening tools are essential. In portions of the world, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing remains slow and in limited supply, and computed tomography is expensive, inefficient, and involves exposure to ionizing radiation. Multiple studies evaluating the efficiency of lung point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) have been published recently, but include relatively small cohorts and often focus on characteristics associated with severe illness rather than screening efficacy. This study utilizes a retrospective cohort to evaluate the test characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, predictive values) of lung POCUS in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, and to determine lung score cutoffs that maximize performance for use as a screening tool. RESULTS: Lung POCUS examinations had sensitivity 86%, specificity 71.6%, NPV 81.7%, and PPV 77.7%. The Lung Ultrasound Score had an area under the curve of 0.84 (95% CI 0.78, 0.90). When including only complete examinations visualizing 12 lung fields, lung POCUS had sensitivity 90.9% and specificity 75.6%, with NPV 87.2% and PPV 82.0% and an area under the curve of 0.89 (95% CI 0.83, 0.96). Lung POCUS was less accurate in patients with a history of interstitial lung disease, severe emphysema, and heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: When applied in the appropriate patient population, lung POCUS is an inexpensive and reliable tool for rapid screening and diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic patients with influenza-like illness. Adoption of lung POCUS screening for SARS-CoV-2 may identify patients who do not require additional testing and reduce the need for RT-PCR testing in resource-limited environments and during surge periods. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13089-021-00217-7.

    Search related documents:
    Co phrase search for related documents
    • academic tertiary care center and additional study: 1, 2
    • acute cough and lung disease: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    • acute cough fever and lung disease: 1, 2
    • additional file and lung disease: 1, 2, 3
    • additional study and low prevalence: 1, 2
    • additional study and lung disease: 1, 2, 3, 4
    • additional testing and low prevalence: 1, 2, 3
    • additional testing and lung disease: 1
    • low prevalence and lung disease: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
    • lr negative likelihood ratio and lr positive likelihood ratio: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
    • lr negative likelihood ratio and lung disease: 1