Impacto de la ecografía pulmonar Durante la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2: distinción entre la neumonía viral y la bacteriana / Impact of Lung Ultrasound dUring the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: Distinction Between Viral and Bacterial Pneumonia

Introducción: La ecografía pulmonar es una técnica accesible, de bajo costo y que ha demostrado su utilidad en la estratificación pronóstica en pacientes con COVID-19. Además, según estudios previos, nos puede orientar hacia la potencial etiología, especialmente en situaciones epidémicas como la actual. Pacientes y métodos: Se reclutaron prospectivamente 40 pacientes, 30 con neumonía por SARS-CoV-2 y 10 por neumonía adquirida en la comunidad. A los pacientes incluidos, se les realizó tanto una radiografía como ecografía de tórax. Resultados: No hubo diferencias en los 2 grupos en cuanto a las características clínicas y analíticas. Los principales hallazgos ecográficos fueron en el grupo de SARS-CoV-2 la presencia de líneas B confluyentes y consolidaciones subpleurales y la hepatinización en el grupo de neumonía adquirida en la comunidad. El derrame pleural fue más frecuente en el grupo de neumonía adquirida en la comunidad. En ningún caso la ecografía pulmonar fue normal. El análisis de las curvas ROC mostró un área bajo la curva para la ecografía pulmonar del 89,2% (IC 95%: 75,0- 100%, p <0,001) en la identificación de la neumonía por SARS-CoV-2. El valor de corte para la puntuación del puntaje pulmonar de 10 tuvo una sensibilidad del 93,3% y especificidad del 80,0% (p <0,001). Discusión: La combinación de los hallazgos de la ecografía pulmonar, con un puntaje pulmonar mayor de 10, complementando el resto de las pruebas complementarias, puede ser una excelente herramienta para predecir la etiología de la neumonía.(AU)

Introduction: Lung ultrasound is an accessible, low-cost technique that has demonstrated its usefulness in the prognostic stratification of COVID-19 patients. In addition, according to previous studies, it can guide us towards the potential aetiology, especially in epidemic situations such as the current one. Patients and methods: 40 patients were prospectively recruited, 30 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and 10 with community-acquired pneumonia. The patients included underwent both a chest X-ray and ultrasound. Results: There were no differences in the 2 groups in terms of clinical and laboratory characteristics. The main ultrasound findings in the SARS-CoV-2 group were the presence of confluent B lines and subpleural consolidations and hepatinization in the community-acquired pneumonia group. Pleural effusion was more frequent in the community-acquired pneumonia group. There were no normal lung ultrasound exams. Analysis of the area under the curve curves showed an area under the curve for lung ultrasound of 89.2% (95% CI: 75.0-100%, p <.001) in the identification of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. The cut-off value for the lung score of 10 had a sensitivity of 93.3% and a specificity of 80.0% (p <.001). Discussion: The combination of the findings of the lung ultrasound, with a lung score greater than 10, added to the rest of the additional tests, can be an excellent tool to predict the aetiology of the pneumonia.(AU)

Impact of lung ultrasound during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: Distinction between viral and bacterial pneumonia.

INTRODUCTION: Lung Ultrasound is an accessible, low-cost technique that has demonstrated its usefulness in the prognostic stratification of COVID-19 patients. In addition, according to previous studies, it can guide us towards the potential aetiology, especially in epidemic situations such as the current one. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 40 patients were prospectively recruited, 30 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and 10 with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The patients included underwent both a chest X-ray and ultrasound. RESULTS: There were no differences in the 2 groups in terms of clinical and laboratory characteristics. The main ultrasound findings in the SARS-CoV-2 group were the presence of confluent B lines and subpleural consolidations and hepatinization in the CAP group. Pleural effusion was more frequent in the CAP group. There were no normal lung ultrasound exams. Analysis of the area under the curve (AUC) curves showed an area under the curve for Lung Ultrasound of 89.2% (95% CI: 75%.0-100%, p < .001) in the identification of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. The cut-off value for the lung score of 10 had a sensitivity of 93.3% and a specificity of 80.0% (p < .001). DISCUSSION: The combination of the findings of the Lung Ultrasound, with a Lung Score greater than 10, added to the rest of the additional tests, can be an excellent tool to predict the aetiology of the pneumonia.

[Impact of Lung Ultrasound dUring the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: Distinction Between Viral and Bacterial Pneumonia]. / Impacto de la ecografía pulmonar Durante la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2: distinción entre la neumonía viral y la bacteriana.

Introduction: Lung ultrasound is an accessible, low-cost technique that has demonstrated its usefulness in the prognostic stratification of COVID-19 patients. In addition, according to previous studies, it can guide us towards the potential aetiology, especially in epidemic situations such as the current one. Patients and methods: 40 patients were prospectively recruited, 30 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and 10 with community-acquired pneumonia. The patients included underwent both a chest X-ray and ultrasound. Results: There were no differences in the 2 groups in terms of clinical and laboratory characteristics. The main ultrasound findings in the SARS-CoV-2 group were the presence of confluent B lines and subpleural consolidations and hepatinization in the community-acquired pneumonia group. Pleural effusion was more frequent in the community-acquired pneumonia group. There were no normal lung ultrasound exams. Analysis of the area under the curve curves showed an area under the curve for lung ultrasound of 89.2% (95% CI: 75.0-100%, p < .001) in the identification of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. The cut-off value for the lung score of 10 had a sensitivity of 93.3% and a specificity of 80.0% (p < .001). Discussion: The combination of the findings of the lung ultrasound, with a lung score greater than 10, added to the rest of the additional tests, can be an excellent tool to predict the aetiology of the pneumonia.