Diaphragm and Lung Ultrasound to Predict Weaning Outcome: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Deciding the optimal timing for extubation in patients who are mechanically ventilated can be challenging, and traditional weaning predictor tools are not very accurate. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the accuracy of lung and diaphragm ultrasound for predicting weaning outcomes in critically ill adults. METHODS: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, Teseo, Tesis Doctorales en Red, and OpenGrey were searched, and the bibliographies of relevant studies were reviewed. Two researchers independently selected studies that met the inclusion criteria and assessed study quality in accordance with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. The summary receiver-operating characteristic curve and pooled diagnostic OR (DOR) were estimated by using a bivariate random effects analysis. Sources of heterogeneity were explored by using predefined subgroup analyses and bivariate meta-regression. RESULTS: Nineteen studies involving 1,071 people were included in the study. For diaphragm thickening fraction, the area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.87, and DOR was 21 (95% CI, 11-40). Regarding diaphragmatic excursion, pooled sensitivity was 75% (95% CI, 65-85); pooled specificity, 75% (95% CI, 60-85); and DOR, 10 (95% CI, 4-24). For lung ultrasound, the area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.77, and DOR was 38 (95% CI, 7-198). Based on bivariate meta-regression analysis, a significantly higher specificity for diaphragm thickening fraction and higher sensitivity for diaphragmatic excursion was detected in studies with applicability concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Lung and diaphragm ultrasound can help predict weaning outcome, but its accuracy may vary depending on the patient subpopulation.

Accuracy of Lung Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis of Pneumonia in Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Some studies suggest that lung ultrasonography could be useful for diagnosing pneumonia; moreover, it has a more favorable safety profile and lower cost than chest radiography and CT. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of bedside lung ultrasonography for diagnosing pneumonia in adults through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, DARE, HTA Database, Google Scholar, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, TESEO, and OpenGrey. In addition, we reviewed the bibliographies of relevant studies. Two researchers independently selected studies that met the inclusion criteria. Quality of the studies was assessed in accordance with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. The summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve and a pooled estimation of the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was estimated using a bivariate random-effects analysis. The sources of heterogeneity were explored using predefined subgroup analyses and bivariate meta-regression. RESULTS: Sixteen studies (2,359 participants) were included. There was significant heterogeneity of both sensitivity and specificity according to the Q test, without clear evidence of threshold effect. The area under the SROC curve was 0.93, with a DOR at the optimal cutpoint of 50 (95% CI, 21-120). A tendency toward a higher area under the SROC curve in high-quality studies was detected; however, these differences were not significant after applying the bivariate meta-regression. CONCLUSIONS: Lung ultrasonography can help accurately diagnose pneumonia, and it may be promising as an adjuvant resource to traditional approaches.

Correction of systematic set-up error in breast and head and neck irradiation through a no-action level (NAL) protocol.

PURPOSE: To quantify systematic and random patient set-up errors in breast and head and neck conventional irradiation and to evaluate a no-action level (NAL) protocol for systematic set-up error off-line correction in head and neck cancer and breast cancer patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Verification electronic portal images of orthogonal set-up fields were obtained daily for the initial four consecutive fractions for 20 patients treated for breast cancer and for 20 head and neck cancer patients. The calculated systematic error was used to shift the isocentre accordingly on the fifth treatment day. From then until the end of the treatment course, pair orthogonal portal images of set-up fields were obtained weekly. To assess the impact of the protocol, pre- and post-correction systematic errors were compared and PTV margins were estimated before and after correction using published margin recipes. RESULTS: Population systematic set-up error decreased in the breast cancer patient group after the implementation of NAL protocol from 4.0 to 1.7 mm on the x-axis, from 4.7 to 2.1 mm on the y-axis and from 2.8 to 0.9 mm on the z axis. The percentage of patients with individual systematic set-up error reduction was 80%, 90% and 80% on the x-, y and z-axes respectively. Population systematic set-up error decreased also in the head and neck cancer patient group from 2.3 to 1.1 mm on the x-axis, from 1.6 to 1.4 mm on the y-axis and from 1.7 to 0.7 mm on the z-axis. The percentage of patients with individual systematic set-up error reduction was 70%, 65% and 85% on the x-, y- and z-axes respectively. Margin reduction achievable with NAL protocol implementation on the x-, y- and z-axes was 6.3, 7.2 and 4.8 mm for breast cancer patients and 3.3, 0.6 and 2.8 mm for head and neck cancer patients. CONCLUSION: NAL off-line protocol is useful for systematic set-up error correction and PTV margin reduction in conventional breast and head and neck irradiation.