Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
2.
Chest ; 148(1): 202-210, 2015 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25654562

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Lung ultrasonography (LUS) has emerged as a noninvasive tool for the differential diagnosis of pulmonary diseases. However, its use for the diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) still raises some concerns. We tested the hypothesis that an integrated approach implementing LUS with clinical assessment would have higher diagnostic accuracy than a standard workup in differentiating ADHF from noncardiogenic dyspnea in the ED. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective cohort study in seven Italian EDs. For patients presenting with acute dyspnea, the emergency physician was asked to categorize the diagnosis as ADHF or noncardiogenic dyspnea after (1) the initial clinical assessment and (2) after performing LUS ("LUS-implemented" diagnosis). All patients also underwent chest radiography. After discharge, the cause of each patient's dyspnea was determined by independent review of the entire medical record. The diagnostic accuracy of the different approaches was then compared. RESULTS: The study enrolled 1,005 patients. The LUS-implemented approach had a significantly higher accuracy (sensitivity, 97% [95% CI, 95%-98.3%]; specificity, 97.4% [95% CI, 95.7%-98.6%]) in differentiating ADHF from noncardiac causes of acute dyspnea than the initial clinical workup (sensitivity, 85.3% [95% CI, 81.8%-88.4%]; specificity, 90% [95% CI, 87.2%-92.4%]), chest radiography alone (sensitivity, 69.5% [95% CI, 65.1%-73.7%]; specificity, 82.1% [95% CI, 78.6%-85.2%]), and natriuretic peptides (sensitivity, 85% [95% CI, 80.3%-89%]; specificity, 61.7% [95% CI, 54.6%-68.3%]; n = 486). Net reclassification index of the LUS-implemented approach compared with standard workup was 19.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of LUS with the clinical evaluation may improve accuracy of ADHF diagnosis in patients presenting to the ED. TRIAL REGISTRY: Clinicaltrials.gov; No.: NCT01287429; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.


Asunto(s)
Disnea/diagnóstico por imagen , Disnea/etiología , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/complicaciones , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/diagnóstico , Enfermedades Pulmonares/diagnóstico por imagen , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Protocolos Clínicos , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Humanos , Italia , Enfermedades Pulmonares/complicaciones , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Ultrasonografía
3.
Intern Emerg Med ; 7(1): 65-70, 2012 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22033792

RESUMEN

Dyspnea is a common symptom in patients admitted to the Emergency Department (ED), and discriminating between cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic dyspnea is often a clinical dilemma. The initial diagnostic work-up may be inaccurate in defining the etiology and the underlying pathophysiology. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility of pleural and lung ultrasound (PLUS), performed by emergency physicians at the time of a patient's initial evaluation in the ED, in identifying cardiac causes of acute dyspnea. Between February and July 2007, 56 patients presenting to the ED with acute dyspnea were prospectively enrolled in this study. In all patients, PLUS was performed by emergency physicians with the purpose of identifying the presence of diffuse alveolar-interstitial syndrome (AIS) or pleural effusion. All scans were later reviewed by two other emergency physicians, expert in PLUS and blinded to clinical parameters, who were the ultimate judges of positivity for diffuse AIS and pleural effusion. A random set of 80 recorded scannings were also reviewed by two inexperienced observers to assess inter-observer variability. The entire medical record was independently reviewed by two expert physicians (an emergency medicine physician and a cardiologist) blinded to the ultrasound (US) results, in order to determine whether, for each patient, dyspnea was due to heart failure, or not. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values were obtained; likelihood ratio (LR) test was used. Cohen's kappa was used to assess inter-observer agreement. The presence of diffuse AIS was highly predictive for cardiogenic dyspnea (sensitivity 93.6%, specificity 84%, positive predictive value 87.9%, negative predictive value 91.3%). On the contrary, US detection of pleural effusion was not helpful in the differential diagnosis (sensitivity 83.9%, specificity 52%, positive predictive value 68.4%, negative predictive value 72.2%). Finally, the coexistence of diffuse AIS and pleural effusion is less accurate than diffuse AIS alone for cardiogenic dyspnea (sensitivity 81.5%, specificity 82.8%, positive predictive value 81.5%, negative predictive value 82.8%). The positive LR was 5.8 for AIS [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.8-7.1] and 1.7 (95% CI 1.2-2.6) for pleural effusion, negative LR resulted 0.1 (95% CI 0.0-0.4) for AIS and 0.3 (95% CI 0.1-0.8) for pleural effusion. Agreement between experienced and inexperienced operators was 92.2% (p < 0.01) and 95% (p < 0.01) for diagnosis of AIS and pleural effusion, respectively. In early evaluation of patients presenting to the ED with dyspnea, PLUS, performed with the purpose of identifying diffuse AIS, may represent an accurate and reproducible bedside tool in discriminating between cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic dyspnea. On the contrary, US detection of pleural effusions does not allow reliable discrimination between different causes of acute dyspnea in unselected ED patients.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/diagnóstico por imagen , Disnea/diagnóstico por imagen , Enfermedades Pulmonares/diagnóstico por imagen , Enfermedades Pleurales/diagnóstico por imagen , Enfermedad Aguda , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/diagnóstico , Estudios de Cohortes , Diagnóstico Diferencial , Disnea/diagnóstico , Disnea/etiología , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Femenino , Humanos , Enfermedades Pulmonares/complicaciones , Enfermedades Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Variaciones Dependientes del Observador , Enfermedades Pleurales/complicaciones , Enfermedades Pleurales/diagnóstico , Sistemas de Atención de Punto , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Estudios Prospectivos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Medición de Riesgo , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Ultrasonografía Doppler
5.
Am J Emerg Med ; 24(6): 689-96, 2006 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16984837

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To assess the potential of bedside lung ultrasound to diagnose the radiologic alveolar-interstitial syndrome (AIS) in patients admitted to an emergency medicine unit and to estimate the occurrence of ultrasound pattern of diffuse and multiple comet tail artifacts in diseases involving lung interstitium. METHODS: The ultrasonic feature of multiple and diffuse comet tail artifacts B line was investigated in each of 300 consecutive patients within 48 hours after admission to our emergency medicine unit. Sonographic examination was performed at bedside in a supine position. Eight anterolateral ultrasound chest intercostal scans were obtained for each patient. RESULTS: The artifact showed a sensitivity of 85.7% and a specificity of 97.7% in recognition of radiologic AIS. Corresponding figures in the identification of a disease involving lung interstitium were 85.3% and 96.8%. CONCLUSION: Comet tail artifact B line is a lung ultrasound sign reasonably accurate for diagnosing AIS at bedside.


Asunto(s)
Artefactos , Enfermedades Pulmonares Intersticiales/diagnóstico por imagen , Edema Pulmonar/diagnóstico por imagen , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Sistemas de Atención de Punto , Radiografía Torácica , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Síndrome , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X , Ultrasonografía
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA