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.

Objective The aim of this study was to establish recommendations for the use of lung ultrasound in internal medicine, based on reliable data and expert opinions. Methods The bibliography from the databases (Pubmed, Medline, OVID, Embase) has been fully reviewed up to August 2017. Members of the expert group assessed the credibility of the literature data. Then, in three rounds, a discussion was held on individual recommendations (in accordance with the Delphi procedure) followed by secret voting. Results Thirty-eight recommendations for the use of lung ultrasound in internal medicine were established as well as discussed and subjected to secret voting in three rounds. The first 31 recommendations concerned the use of ultrasound in the diagnosis of the following conditions: pneumothorax, pulmonary consolidation, pneumonia, atelectasis, pulmonary embolism, malignant neoplastic lesions, interstitial lung lesions, cardiogenic pulmonary edema, interstitial lung diseases with fibrosis, dyspnea, pleural pain and acute cough. Furthermore, seven additional statements were made regarding the technical conditions of lung ultrasound examination and the need for training in the basics of lung ultrasound in a group of doctors during their specialization programs and medical students. The panel of experts established a consensus on all 38 recommendations.

Moreover, the method is easy to learn even for inexperienced clinicians. 3 Ultrasound assessment of the inferior vena cava Method (equipment, technique) An ultrasound device to assess fluid status should be equipped with a convex or phased array probe. The selection of an adequate probe depends on the patient's physique. Convex and phased array probes are effective for in-depth examination of tissues (about 25-30 cm). This enables an assessment of the inferior vena cava (IVC) and aorta (Ao) when the probe is placed over the epigastric region and over the right lateral abdominal wall. The standard placement of the probe to visualize both vessels is in the anterior median line over the epigastrium (inferior to the xiphoid process). In cases when the assessment over the epigastrium is difficult (eg, due to substantial amounts of intestinal gas, large dressings or wounds in the median line), the probe should be placed over the lateral abdominal wall, in the right anterior axillary line.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has, by necessity, contributed to rapid advancements in medicine. Owing to the necessity of following strict anti-epidemic sanitary measures when taking care of infected patients, the accessibility of standard diagnostic methods may be limited. Consequently, the significance and potential of bedside diagnostic modalities increase, including lung ultrasound (LUS). Method: Multicenter registry study involving adult patients with confirmed COVID-19, for whom LUS was performed. Results: A total of 228 patients (61% males) qualified for the study. The average age was 60 years (±14), 40% were older than 65 years of age. In 130 from 173 hospitalized patients, HRCT (high-resolution computed tomography) was performed. In 80% of patients, LUS findings indicated interstitial pneumonia. In hospitalized patients multifocally located single B-lines, symmetrical B-lines, and areas of white lung were significantly more frequent as compared to ambulatory patients. LUS findings, both those indicating interstitial syndrome and consolidations, were positively correlated with HRCT images. As compared to HRCT, the sensitivity and specificity of LUS in detecting interstitial pneumonia were 97% and 100%, respectively. Conclusions: As compared to HRCT, LUS is characterized by a very high sensitivity and specificity in detecting interstitial pneumonia in COVID-19 patients. Potentially, LUS can be a particularly useful diagnostic modality for COVID-19 patients pneumonia.