Lung Ultrasound-Implemented Diagnosis of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure in the ED: A SIMEU Multicenter Study.

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.

The combined low-dose dexamethasone suppression corticotropin-releasing hormone test as a tool to rule out Cushing's syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: It remains to be evaluated whether the combined low-dose dexamethasone suppression corticotropin-releasing hormone test (LDDST-CRH test) may add to the diagnostic approach of patients suspected to have Cushing's syndrome (CS). The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether the LDDST-CRH test may have a place in the diagnostic strategy of CS. DESIGN: Prospective evaluation of a consecutive series of patients with suspected CS from 2004 to 2006. METHODS: All the subjects underwent the same screening protocol including 1 mg dexamethasone suppression test, 24-h urinary free cortisol (UFC), and midnight serum cortisol, followed by the LDDST-CRH test whose results were not used to establish a definitive diagnosis. Plasma dexamethasone concentration was measured 2 h after the last dose of dexamethasone. Patients qualified for CS when at least two screening tests were positive. RESULTS: Sixteen patients had CS while in the remaining 15 subjects CS was excluded. Even if not statistically significant, the sensitivity and the negative predictive value of the cortisol 15 min after CRH were better than the other tests; on the other hand, the test specificity was lower. All of the patients classified as indeterminate were correctly diagnosed by the LDDST-CRH test. Nevertheless, the repeated assessment of the screening tests and the active follow-up gave the same correct results. In all of the patients misclassified by the LDDST-CRH test, the plasma dexamethasone concentrations were in the normal range. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, we suggest that the LDDST-CRH test may still find a place as a rule-out procedure in patients who present with indeterminate results after screening and may be unavailable to repeat testing during follow-up.