Extended Lung Ultrasound to Differentiate Between Pneumonia and Atelectasis in Critically Ill Patients: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of extended lung ultrasonographic assessment, including evaluation of dynamic air bronchograms and color Doppler imaging to differentiate pneumonia and atelectasis in patients with consolidation on chest radiograph. Compare this approach to the Simplified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score, Lung Ultrasound Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score, and the Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Emergency protocol. DESIGN: Prospective diagnostic accuracy study. SETTING: Adult ICU applying selective digestive decontamination. PATIENTS: Adult patients that underwent a chest radiograph for any indication at any time during admission. Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, coronavirus disease 2019, severe thoracic trauma, and infectious isolation measures were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Lung ultrasound was performed within 24 hours of chest radiograph. Consolidated tissue was assessed for presence of dynamic air bronchograms and with color Doppler imaging for presence of flow. Clinical data were recorded after ultrasonographic assessment. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of dynamic air bronchogram and color Doppler imaging alone and within a decision tree to differentiate pneumonia from atelectasis. Of 120 patients included, 51 (42.5%) were diagnosed with pneumonia. The dynamic air bronchogram had a 45% (95% CI, 31-60%) sensitivity and 99% (95% CI, 92-100%) specificity. Color Doppler imaging had a 90% (95% CI, 79-97%) sensitivity and 68% (95% CI, 56-79%) specificity. The combined decision tree had an 86% (95% CI, 74-94%) sensitivity and an 86% (95% CI, 75-93%) specificity. The Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Emergency protocol had a 100% (95% CI, 93-100%) sensitivity and 0% (95% CI, 0-5%) specificity, while the Simplified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score and Lung Ultrasound Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score had a 41% (95% CI, 28-56%) sensitivity, 84% (95% CI, 73-92%) specificity and 68% (95% CI, 54-81%) sensitivity, 81% (95% CI, 70-90%) specificity, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with pulmonary consolidation on chest radiograph, an extended lung ultrasound protocol is an accurate and directly bedside available tool to differentiate pneumonia from atelectasis. It outperforms standard lung ultrasound and clinical scores.

Lung- and Diaphragm-Protective Ventilation by Titrating Inspiratory Support to Diaphragm Effort: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Lung- and diaphragm-protective ventilation is a novel concept that aims to limit the detrimental effects of mechanical ventilation on the diaphragm while remaining within limits of lung-protective ventilation. The premise is that low breathing effort under mechanical ventilation causes diaphragm atrophy, whereas excessive breathing effort induces diaphragm and lung injury. In a proof-of-concept study, we aimed to assess whether titration of inspiratory support based on diaphragm effort increases the time that patients have effort in a predefined "diaphragm-protective" range, without compromising lung-protective ventilation. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Mixed medical-surgical ICU in a tertiary academic hospital in the Netherlands. PATIENTS: Patients (n = 40) with respiratory failure ventilated in a partially-supported mode. INTERVENTIONS: In the intervention group, inspiratory support was titrated hourly to obtain transdiaphragmatic pressure swings in the predefined "diaphragm-protective" range (3-12 cm H2O). The control group received standard-of-care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Transdiaphragmatic pressure, transpulmonary pressure, and tidal volume were monitored continuously for 24 hours in both groups. In the intervention group, more breaths were within "diaphragm-protective" range compared with the control group (median 81%; interquartile range [64-86%] vs 35% [16-60%], respectively; p < 0.001). Dynamic transpulmonary pressures (20.5 ± 7.1 vs 18.5 ± 7.0 cm H2O; p = 0.321) and tidal volumes (7.56 ± 1.47 vs 7.54 ± 1.22 mL/kg; p = 0.961) were not different in the intervention and control group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Titration of inspiratory support based on patient breathing effort greatly increased the time that patients had diaphragm effort in the predefined "diaphragm-protective" range without compromising tidal volumes and transpulmonary pressures. This study provides a strong rationale for further studies powered on patient-centered outcomes.