Lung ultrasound compared with chest X-ray in diagnosing postoperative pulmonary complications following cardiothoracic surgery: a prospective observational study.

Postoperative pulmonary complications are common after cardiothoracic surgery and are associated with adverse outcomes. The ability to detect postoperative pulmonary complications using chest X-rays is limited, and this technique requires radiation exposure. Little is known about the diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound for the detection of postoperative pulmonary complications after cardiothoracic surgery, and we therefore aimed to compare lung ultrasound with chest X-ray to detect postoperative pulmonary complications in this group of patients. We performed this prospective, observational, single-centre study in a tertiary intensive care unit treating adult patients who had undergone cardiothoracic surgery. We recorded chest X-ray findings upon admission and on postoperative days 2 and 3, as well as rates of postoperative pulmonary complications and clinically-relevant postoperative pulmonary complications that required therapy according to the treating physician as part of their standard clinical practice. Lung ultrasound was performed by an independent researcher at the time of chest X-ray. We compared lung ultrasound with chest X-ray for the detection of postoperative pulmonary complications and clinically-relevant postoperative pulmonary complications. We also assessed inter-observer agreement for lung ultrasound, and the time to perform both imaging techniques. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare the time to detection of clinically-relevant postoperative pulmonary complications by both modalities. We recruited a total of 177 patients in whom both lung ultrasound and chest X-ray imaging were performed. Lung ultrasound identified 159 (90%) postoperative pulmonary complications on the day of admission compared with 107 (61%) identified with chest X-ray (p < 0.001). Lung ultrasound identified 11 out of 17 patients (65%) and chest X-ray 7 out of 17 patients (41%) with clinically-relevant postoperative pulmonary complications (p < 0.001). The clinically-relevant postoperative pulmonary complications were detected earlier using lung ultrasound compared with chest X-ray (p = 0.024). Overall inter-observer agreement for lung ultrasound was excellent (κ = 0.907, p < 0.001). Following cardiothoracic surgery, lung ultrasound detected more postoperative pulmonary complications and clinically-relevant postoperative pulmonary complications than chest X-ray, and at an earlier time-point. Our results suggest lung ultrasound may be used as the primary imaging technique to search for postoperative pulmonary complications after cardiothoracic surgery, and will enhance bedside decision making.

Routine lung ultrasound to detect postoperative pulmonary complications following major abdominal surgery: a prospective observational feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery are associated with adverse outcome. The diagnostic accuracy of chest X-rays (CXR) to detect pulmonary disorders is limited. Alternatively, lung ultrasound (LUS) is an established evidence-based point-of-care diagnostic modality which outperforms CXR in critical care. However, its feasibility and diagnostic ability for postoperative pulmonary complications following abdominal surgery are unknown. In this prospective observational feasibility study, we included consecutive patients undergoing major abdominal surgery with an intermediate or high risk developing postoperative pulmonary complications according to the Assess Respiratory risk In Surgical patients in CATalonia (ARISCAT) score. LUS was routinely performed on postoperative days 0-3 by a researcher blinded for CXR or other clinical findings. Then, reports were drawn up for LUS concerning feasibility and detection rates of postoperative pulmonary complications. CXRs were performed on demand according to daily clinical practice. Subsequently, we compared LUS and CXR findings. RESULTS: A total of 98 consecutive patients with an ARISCAT score of 41 (34-49) were included in the study. LUS was feasible in all patients. In 94 (95%) patients, LUS detected one or more postoperative pulmonary complications during the first four postoperative days. On day 0, LUS detected 31 out of 43 patients (72.1%) with one or more postoperative pulmonary complications, compared to 13 out of 36 patients (36.1%) with 1 or more postoperative pulmonary complications detected with CXR RR 2.0 (95 CI [1.24-3.20]) (p = 0.004). The number of discordant observations between both modalities was high for atelectasis 23 (43%) and pleural effusion 29 (54%), but not for pneumothorax, respiratory infection and pulmonary edema 8 (15%), 3 (5%), and 5 (9%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that LUS is highly feasible and frequently detects postoperative pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery. Discordant observations in atelectasis and pleural effusions for LUS and CXR can be explained by a superior diagnostic ability of LUS in detecting these conditions. The effects of LUS as primary imaging modality on patient outcome should be evaluated in future studies.

Lung ultrasound: routine practice for the next generation of internists.

BACKGROUND: The lung is at the crossroads of ventilation and circulation and can provide a wealth of diagnostic information. In the past, lung ultrasound (LUS) was considered impossible. However, the interplay between air, fluid and pleurae creates distinctive artefacts. Combinations of these artefacts can help differentiate between various pathological processes, including pulmonary oedema, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, obstructive airway disease and pneumothorax. LUS, when used by experienced physicians, is superior to chest X-ray and comparable to computed tomography for establishing a diagnosis in acutely dyspnoeic patients. LUS allows for rapid, non-invasive and bedside patient assessment. It is therefore unfortunate that unlike many other medical specialists in the Netherlands, internists have not yet incorporated LUS into their daily practice. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to be the starting point for internists wanting to acquire competence in LUS. REVIEW CONTENT: This narrative review describes the principles of ultrasound equipment, LUS artefacts, gives practical guidance to perform LUS and provides a road map towards LUS competence. Furthermore, it presents a decision tree to differentiate between causes of acute dyspnoea. AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS: LUS is a promising diagnostic technique that can be of great help for the internist. It can be applied directly at the bedside and can also be used to follow up on disease progression and therapy. It is our belief that it will replace the stethoscope and that it will be the most used imaging technique in the near future, especially in dyspnoeic patients.