An introduction to lung ultrasound

Hernandez-Morgan, Marisa; Disque, Andrew; Poorsattar, Sophia P.; Neelankavil, Jacques

doi:10.1097/aia.0000000000000366

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Clinical guidelines for HF management vary in their recommendations on the use of LUS-guided management for patients with HF, which reflects the conflicting evidence in this area of research ( 20 – 22 ). Our study aimed to remove this uncertainty by recruiting more participants to detect a significant difference in the clinically meaningful endpoint of MACEs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, only three RCTs and 493 patients were included in this meta-analysis, and the study sample was too small to explain the other clinical outcomes. In addition, the study did not perform meta-regression and/or subgroup analyses or analyze other parameters, such as cardiac function, quality of life, and length of hospital stay ( 19 ), which should be evaluated in other studies ( 20 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lung ultrasound-guided treatment for heart failure: An updated meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

et al. 2022

Front. Cardiovasc. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe usefulness of lung ultrasound (LUS) in guiding heart failure (HF) treatment is still controversial.PurposeWe aimed to evaluate the usefulness of LUS-guided treatment vs. usual care in reducing the major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate in patients with HF.Materials and methodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified through systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database, Google Scholar, and SinoMed. The primary outcome was MACEs (a composite of all-cause mortality, HF-related rehospitalization, and symptomatic HF). The required information size was calculated by trial sequential analysis (TSA).ResultsIn total, ten RCTs involving 1,203 patients were included. Overall, after a mean follow-up period of 4.7 months, LUS-guided treatment was associated with a significantly lower risk of MACEs than usual care [relative risk (RR), 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.48–0.71]. Moreover, the rate of HF-related rehospitalization (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40–0.99) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentration (standardized mean difference, –2.28; 95% CI, –4.34 to –0.22) were markedly lower in the LUS-guided treatment group. The meta-regression analysis showed a significant correlation between MACEs and the change in B-line count (p < 0.05). The subgroup analysis revealed that the risk of MACEs was markedly lower in patients aged up to 70 years (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44–0.67), with a lower rate of atrial fibrillation (< 27.2%) (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43–0.67), and with a lower NT-proBNP concentration (< 3,433 pg/ml) (RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.40–0.64). TSA indicated a lower risk of MACEs with LUS-guided treatment than with usual care among patients with HF (p < 0.05).ConclusionLung ultrasound seems to be a safe and effective method to guide HF treatment.Systematic review registration[https://inplasy.com/], identifier [INPLASY202220124].

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%