Lung ultrasound (LU)

No abstract

No abstract

Background The efficacy and safety of high flow nasal therapy (HFNT) in patients with acute hypercapnic exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are unclear. Our aim was to evaluate the short-term effect of HFNT versus NIV in patients with mild-to-moderate AECOPD, with the hypothesis that HFNT is non-inferior to NIV on CO2 clearance after 2 h of treatment. Methods We performed a multicenter, non-inferiority randomized trial comparing HFNT and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in nine centers in Italy. Patients were eligible if presented with mild-to-moderate AECOPD (arterial pH 7.25–7.35, PaCO2 ≥ 55 mmHg before ventilator support). Primary endpoint was the mean difference of PaCO2 from baseline to 2 h (non-inferiority margin 10 mmHg) in the per-protocol analysis. Main secondary endpoints were non-inferiority of HFNT to NIV in reducing PaCO2 at 6 h in the per-protocol and intention-to-treat analysis and rate of treatment changes. Results Seventy-nine patients were analyzed (80 patients randomized). Mean differences for PaCO2 reduction from baseline to 2 h were − 6.8 mmHg (± 8.7) in the HFNT and − 9.5 mmHg (± 8.5) in the NIV group (p = 0.404). By 6 h, 32% of patients (13 out of 40) in the HFNT group switched to NIV and one to invasive ventilation. HFNT was statistically non-inferior to NIV since the 95% confidence interval (CI) upper boundary of absolute difference in mean PaCO2 reduction did not reach the non-inferiority margin of 10 mmHg (absolute difference 2.7 mmHg; 1-sided 95% CI 6.1; p = 0.0003). Both treatments had a significant effect on PaCO2 reductions over time, and trends were similar between groups. Similar results were found in both per-protocol at 6 h and intention-to-treat analysis. Conclusions HFNT was statistically non-inferior to NIV as initial ventilatory support in decreasing PaCO2 after 2 h of treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate AECOPD, considering a non-inferiority margin of 10 mmHg. However, 32% of patients receiving HFNT required NIV by 6 h. Further trials with superiority design should evaluate efficacy toward stronger patient-related outcomes and safety of HFNT in AECOPD. Trial registration: The study was prospectively registered on December 12, 2017, in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03370666).

Lung ultrasound (LU) has a multitude of features and capacities that make it a useful medical tool to assist physicians contending with the pandemic spread of novel coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) caused by coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Thus, an LU approach to patients with suspected COVID-19 is being implemented worldwide. In noncritical COVID-19 patients, 2 new LU signs have been described and proposed, the "waterfall" and the "light beam" signs. Both signs have been hypothesized to increase the diagnostic accuracy of LU for COVID-19 interstitial pneumonia. In critically ill patients, a distinct pattern of LU changes seems to follow the disease's progression, and this information can be used to guide decisions about when a patient needs to be ventilated, as occurs in other disease states similar to COVID-19. Furthermore, a new algorithm has been published, which enables the automatic detection of B-lines as well as quantification of the percentage of the pleural line associated with lung disease. In COVID-19 patients, a direct involvement of cardiac function has been demonstrated, and ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction might be present due to the prolonged mechanical ventilation often involved, as reported for similar diseases. For this reason, cardiac and diaphragm ultrasound evaluation are highly important. Last but not least, due to the thrombotic tendency of COVID-19 patients, particular attention also should be paid to vascular ultrasound. This review is primarily devoted to the study of LU in COVID-19 patients. The authors explain the significance of its "light and shadows," bearing in mind the context in which LU is being used-the emergency department and the intensive care setting. The use of cardiac, vascular, and diaphragm ultrasound is also discussed, as a comprehensive approach to patient care.

BackgroundLung ultrasound can be used as an alternative to chest radiography (CXR) for the diagnosis and follow-up of various lung diseases in the intensive care unit (ICU). Our aim was to evaluate the influence that introducing a routine daily use of lung ultrasound in critically ill patients may have on the number of CXRs and as a consequence, on medical costs and radiation exposure.MethodsData were collected by conducting a retrospective evaluation of the medical records of adult patients who needed thoracic imaging and were admitted to our academic polyvalent ICU. We compared the number of CXRs and relative costs before and after the introduction of lung ultrasound in our ICU.ResultsA total of 4134 medical records were collected from January 2010 to December 2014. We divided our population into two groups, before (Group A, 1869 patients) and after (Group B, 2265 patients) the introduction of a routine use of LUS in July 2012. Group A performed a higher number of CXRs compared to Group B (1810 vs 961, P = 0.012), at an average of 0.97 vs 0.42 exams per patient. The estimated reduction of costs between Groups A and B obtained after the introduction of LUS, was 57%. No statistically significant difference between the outcome parameters of the two groups was observed.ConclusionsLung ultrasound was effective in reducing the number of CXRs and relative medical costs and radiation exposure in ICU, without affecting patient outcome.

Pleural effusion (PLEFF), mostly caused by volume overload, congestive heart failure, and pleuropulmonary infection, is a common condition in critical care patients. Thoracic ultrasound (TUS) helps clinicians not only to visualize pleural effusion, but also to distinguish between the different types. Furthermore, TUS is essential during thoracentesis and chest tube drainage as it increases safety and decreases life-threatening complications. It is crucial not only during needle or tube drainage insertion, but also to monitor the volume of the drained PLEFF. Moreover, TUS can help diagnose co-existing lung diseases, often with a higher specificity and sensitivity than chest radiography and without the need for X-ray exposure. We review data regarding the diagnosis and management of pleural effusion, paying particular attention to the impact of ultrasound. Technical data concerning thoracentesis and chest tube drainage are also provided.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1897-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract