• Nu S-Au Găsit Rezultate

Sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound for the diagnosis of acute pulmonary edema: a systematic review and meta-analysis

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Share "Sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound for the diagnosis of acute pulmonary edema: a systematic review and meta-analysis"

Copied!
5
0
0

Text complet

(1)

DOI:

Original papers

DOI: 10.11152/mu-1223

Sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound for the diagnosis of acute pulmonary edema: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yan Wang, Zhiyang Shen, Xuefeng Lu, Yanhua Zhen, Huixia Li

Ultrasound Department, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan 450014, China

Received 17.08.2017 Accepted 22.10.2017 Med Ultrason

2018, Vol. 20, No 1, 32-36

Corresponding author: Dr. Zhiyang Shen

Ultrasound Department, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University,

2 Jingba Road, Jinshui, Zhengzhou, Henan 450014, China

Phone: +86-0371-63921691 E-mail: [email protected]

Introduction

Understanding the microvascular fluid exchange in the lung is important for knowing the causes of acute pulmonary edema (PE). In a normal lung the outflow of fluid occurs though gaps between the capillary endothe- lial cells. A sudden increase of hydrostatic pressure in the pulmonary capillaries leads to edema [1]. The common causes of PE include arterial hypertension, severe coro- nary occlusion, cerebral diseases, pulmonary and heart diseases, infections, and shock [2].

Acute PE is produced by accumulation of the fluid in alveoli and pulmonary interstitial spaces, impairing in this way the diffusion of gases [3]. PE is one of the

common causes of acute dyspnea. Selection of more sensitive and specific diagnostic approach of acute PE is a critical issue that continues to gain attention from medical staff. Accurate and rapid determination of the nature of acute dyspnea is an important and challenging issue in the intensive care unit (ICU) and the emergency department (ED) [4]. The common diagnostic methods that are used to determine the cause of acute dyspnea includes B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) test, N-termi- nal (NT) proBNP test, X-ray, ultrasound, and thoracic computed tomography (CT) scan. Although chest radi- ography is the routine examination, CT scan remains the gold standard examination for pulmonary diseases.

The chest radiography has some disadvantages, includ- ing inapplicability to pregnant women, the non-specific findings, the difficulties in acquiring the posteroanterior and laterolateral projections [4]. On the other hand, CT scan also has limitations such as high dosage of radia- tion that is required, lack of CT scan facility in certain hospitals, and patient the needs for moving the patient in the radiology room [5].

Diagnosis of acute PE with the non-invasive ultra- sound method has been gaining popularity in the past Abstract

Aims: This study aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound for the diagnosis of acute pulmonary edema by meta-analysis. Materials and methods: A systematic search was conducted through the following databases:

Cochrane, PubMed, EMBASE and Ovid MEDLINE. Prospective cohort and prospective case-control studies that reported sensitivity and specificity of lung ultrasound in diagnosis of acute pulmonary edema were selected. An independent review of citations was carried out for inclusion and data extraction. Quality assessment was conducted using the QUADAS-2 tool.

Sensitivity and specificity were taken from the studied articles and then calculated with the contingency tables. A total of 984 articles were identified but only eight studies (1301 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. One study was a case-control study and seven studies were prospective cohort study. Results: The overall sensitivity of ultrasound for the diagnosis of acute pulmonary edema is 97% (95% CI: 96%–98%) and the overall specificity was 98% (95% CI: 97%–99%). Conclusion: The diagnostic test accuracy suggests that lung ultrasound using B-lines is a useful and reliable diagnostic tool for critically ill patients with acute pulmonary edema.

Keywords: acute pulmonary edema; diagnosis; dyspnea; lung; ultrasound

(2)

decades. Lung ultrasound is a useful diagnosis imaging technique, particularly in a situation when a CT scan can- not be used, and allows a rapid bedside examination and immediate interpretation of scanning report by trained physicians [6]. Besides, the patient will not subject to any form of radiation. The main purpose of this study is to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of lung ultrasound from up-to-date studies regarding the diagnosis of acute pulmonary edema.

Materials and methods Search strategy

This meta-analysis was carried out by following the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews [7,8]. Systematic search of published literature was carried out for dates prior to 17th July 2016 without limitation of start time in the following databases: Cochrane, PubMed, EMBASE and Ovid MEDLINE. Keywords that used to search in titles and abstracts were included “lung ultrasonogra- phy” or “lung ultrasound” and “acute pulmonary ede- ma”. Endnote software (version 7) was used to manage the literature.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for article selection

Our outcome of interest in this study was the diagno- sis of acute PE using the lung ultrasound with B-lines.

Prospective case-control and prospective cohort stud- ies that involved lung ultrasound B-lines in diagnosis of acute PE were included in this study. Commentaries, letters, reviews, and case reports were excluded from this analysis. Studies that enrolled patients with clinical suspicion of acute PE and acute dyspnea were included.

Studies without acute PE and asymptomatic pulmonary diseases were excluded. No restriction was applied to the ultrasound scanning protocol that was used for diagno- sis. Lung ultrasound procedure has to be performed by trained personnel at the patient’s bed-side.

Titles and abstracts of the literature that were identi- fied were independently reviewed by 2 reviewers. Then, the full-texts in the filtered list of references were re- viewed by the same reviewers. If both reviewers had dis- agreements, a discussion was carried out. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were followed to find out suitable studies for the meta-analysis. All data were extracted by the same reviewers. For quality assessment, the same reviewers independently reviewed the included studies using the QUADAS-2 tool [9]. The QUADAS-2 qual- ity assessment was structured to evaluate the four key points, including patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing.

Data analysis

Data analyses were performed by using the Stata (version 14) statistical software. Results for sensitivity and specificity of all the included studies were plotted on a forest plot for heterogeneity assessment.

Results

A total of 984 studies were retrieved from PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases (fig 1). After removing the duplicate studies and the studies that did not fulfill the inclusion criteria, 8 studies were included in the meta-analysis (1301 patients; Table I) [10-17]. Two studies were performed in the ICU, three studies in the ED, two studies in the ward and one study in a pre-hospital setting and ED. The ultrasonographers of all studies were blinded to the results of the reference standard. Only one study was a case-control study, while the others were prospective cohort studies. Four stud- ies followed the procedure reported by Volpicelli et al [10,14-16,18]. Two studies diagnosed the PE by detect- ing B-line in anterior and lateral chest and three or more B-lines in at least two zones on each hemithorax [12,13].

Another two studies followed comet-score scanning protocol for diagnosis of PE [11,17]. The QUADAS-2 quality assessment revealed that quality of the included studies was from moderate to high (Table II). Low risk of bias showed that the quality evaluation of the studies is high.

The ultrasound examinations were carried out by trained physicians from the ED and ICU, nurses and medical students (Table III). In three studies the inter- rater reliability was reported. Sensitivity and specificity of included studies are presented in a forest plot (fig 2).

The overall sensitivity of lung ultrasound using B-lines for the diagnosis of acute pulmonary edema is 97% (95%

CI: 96%–98%), and 98% overall specificity (95% CI:

97%–99%).

Fig 1. Study selection flow diagram.

(3)

Table I. Characteristics of the included studies in the meta-analysis First au-

thor, year of publication

Lichten- stein, 1998 [12]

Lichten- stein, 2008 [13]

Gargani, 2008 [11]

Liteplo, 2009 [14]

Prosen, 2011 [16]

Vitturi, 2011 [17]

Cibinel, 2012 [10]

Mumoli, 2016 [15]

Journal Intens Care

Med Chest Eur J Heart

Fail Acad Emerg

Med Crit Care J Ultras Intern Emerg

Med Medicine

Study coun-

try France France Italy USA Slovenia Italy Italy Italy

Place of

study ICU ICU CPD ED Prehospital

and ED Internal medicine ward

ED ED

Number of

patients 146 260 149 94 218 152 56 226

Ultrasound

machine Hitachi-405,

ADR 400 Hitachi-405 Philips Sonos

7500 Sonosite Sonosite Toshiba

Aplio XV GE Electric

LOGIQ 3 GE Vivid S5 Probe type 3.5 MHz

cardiac 5.0 MHz micro-con- vex

2.5–3.5 MHz

cardiac 2.5 MHz

curved-array Not specified 3.5 MHz

convex 3.5 MHz

convex 2.0–5.5 MHz curved-array

Protocol Lichtenstein Lichtenstein Comet score Volpicelli Volpicelli Comet score Volpicelli Volpicelli Reference

standard Blinded Blinded Blinded Blinded Final hospital

diagnostic Blinded Final hospital

diagnostic Final hospital diagnostic Examination

time <1 min <3 min <5 min <5 min <1 min <3 min <5 min <6 min

Study type Case-control Cohort Cohort Cohort Cohort Cohort Cohort Cohort

Sensitivity,

% (95% CI) 100 97 76.2 58 (36–77) 100

(98–100) 97 93.6 95.3

(92.6–98.1) Specificity,

% (95% CI) 97 95 88 85 (69–95) 95 (91–100) 79 84 88.2

(84.0–92.4) Conflict of

interest Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear None None None None

ICU – intensive care unit; ED – emergency department; CPD – cardiology and pneumology division; CI – confidence interval

Table II. QUADAS-2 assessment of methodologic quality of the included studies

Study Risk of bias Applicability concerns

Patient

selection Index test Criterion

standard Flow and

timing Patient

selection Index test Criterion standard

Lichtenstein, 1998 [12] High Unknown Unknown High Low Low Low

Lichtenstein, 2008 [13] Unknown Low Low Unknown Low Low Low

Gargani, 2008 [11] Low Unknown Low Low Low Low Low

Liteplo, 2009 [14] Unknown Low Low Low Low Low Low

Prosen, 2011 [16] Unknown Low Low Low Low Low Low

Vitturi, 2011 [17] Low Low Low Unknown High High Low

Cibinel, 2012 [10] Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Mumoli, 2016 [15] Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

(4)

Discussions

A rapid diagnosis using non-invasive methods en- sures an appropriate and timely treatment. In the present study, the lung ultrasound using B-lines were evaluated for sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of acute PE. Three studies that employed scanning protocol of Volpicelli et al [18] showed different values of sensitivity and specificity as different methodologies were applied in the mentioned studies. The ultrasound scanning in the Liteplo et al study was performed by trained medical stu- dents, Mumoli et al study was conducted by trained nurs- es, and Cibinel et al study was implemented by attending physicians [10,14,15]. Operation of scanning by different methodologies and people with different training levels leads to inconsistent results.

The comet tail artifacts B-line was used for the detec- tion of extravascular lung water and it enables differen- tiation of acute PE from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [12]. The ultrasound scanning protocol described by Volpicelli et al involved a single scan on eight zones at anterior and lateral of each lung [18] and they were interpreted as abnormal when two or more zones pre- sented B-lines in both hemithoraces. The protocol of Li- chtenstein et al involved scanning of comet-tail artifact produced from pleural line [12]. Comet score scanning

protocol as described by Picano et al [19] was applied by Vitturi et al [17] and Gargani et al [11] in determination of extravascular lung water; the test was considered as abnormal when the number of B-lines was greater than five [11] or eight [17]. Subgroup analysis was not carried out in these studies and this contributed to the heteroge- neity of our data.

The sensitivity of chest radiography, BNP, and NT proBNP tests in the diagnosis of acute dyspnea ranged from 56%–93%, 86%–99% and 92%–97%, respectively, while the specificity ranged from 51%–98%, 74%–99%

and 44%–93%, respectively [11,15-17,20-25]. Although high sensitivity and specificity of the mentioned diagnos- tic methods were reported, real-time valuation of the out- come is almost impossible and the assessments are not available in the pre-hospital setting. Besides, the BNP test is not accessible to all clinicians in hospitals.

Limitations in this study included incomplete retriev- al of identified research, publishing bias, reporting bias, and inconsistencies of the ultrasonic inspection method.

Besides, patients included in analysis were from different populations. A larger number of patients presenting with acute PE should be included in future studies. In addi- tion, standardization of ultrasound scanning protocol and qualification of ultrasonographers should be applied to minimize heterogeneity of the analysis.

Fig 2. Forest plot of sensitivity and specificity of the included studies. CI: confidence interval.

Table III. Characteristics of ultrasonographers in the included studies

Study Number of ultra-

sonographer Training level of ultrasonographer Inter-rater reliability

Lichtenstein, 1998 [12] 2 ICU physicians Not reported

Lichtenstein, 2008 [13] 2 ICU physicians Not reported

Gargani, 2008 [11] Not reported Not reported Not reported

Liteplo, 2009 [14] 7 2 Emergency physicians, 5 trained medical students 0.82

Prosen, 2011 [16] 10 Emergency physicians Not reported

Vitturi, 2011 [17] 2 Not reported 0.98

Cibinel, 2012 [10] Not reported Emergency physicians 0.92

Mumoli, 2016 [15] 5 Trained nurses Not reported

(5)

Conclusions

The diagnostic test accuracy suggests that lung ultra- sound using B-lines is one of the best tools for the diag- nosis of acute PE especially for the critically ill patients.

Lung ultrasound provides high sensitivity and specificity diagnosis for moderate to severe acute PE. In addition, negative lung ultrasound helps to exclude the PE.

Conflict of interest: none

References

1. Ware LB, Matthay MA. Clinical practice. Acute pulmonary edema. New Engl J Med 2005;353:2788-2796.

2. Luisada AA, Cardi L. Acute pulmonary edema; pathol- ogy, physiology and clinical management. Circulation 1956;13:113-135.

3. Sciscione AC, Ivester T, Largoza M, Manley J, Shlossman P, Colmorgen GH. Acute pulmonary edema in pregnancy.

Obstet Gynecol 2003;101:511-515.

4. Nielsen LS, Svanegaard J, Wiggers P, Egeblad H. The yield of a diagnostic hospital dyspnoea clinic for the primary health care section. J Intern Med 2001;250:422-428.

5. Lee CI, Haims AH, Monico EP, Brink JA, Forman HP. Di- agnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks.

Radiology 2004;231:393-398.

6. Yu CJ, Yang PC, Chang DB, Luh KT. Diagnostic and thera- peutic use of chest sonography: value in critically ill pa- tients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;159:695-701.

7. Macaskill P, Gatsonis P, Deeks JJ, Harbord R, Takwoingi Y.

Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Ac- curacy: The Cochrane Collaboration 2010.

8. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010;8:336-341.

9. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2:

a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic ac- curacy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529-536.

10. Cibinel GA, Casoli G, Elia F, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility of pleural and lung ultrasound in discrimi- nating cardiogenic causes of acute dyspnea in the emergen- cy department. Intern Emerg Med 2012;7:65-70.

11. Gargani L, Frassi F, Soldati G, Tesorio P, Gheorghiade M, Picano E. Ultrasound lung comets for the differential di- agnosis of acute cardiogenic dyspnoea: A comparison with natriuretic peptides. Eur J Heart Fail 2008;10:70-77.

12. Lichtenstein DA, Meziere GA. A lung ultrasound sign al- lowing bedside distinction between pulmonary edema and COPD: the comet-tail artifact. Intensive Care Med 1998;24:1331-1334.

13. Lichtenstein DA, Mezière GA. Relevance of lung ultra- sound in the diagnosis of acute respiratory failure: The BLUE Protocol. Chest 2008;134:117-125.

14. Liteplo AS, Marill KA, Villen T, et al. Emergency thoracic ultrasound in the differentiation of the etiology of shortness of breath (ETUDES): sonographic B-lines and N-terminal pro-brain-type natriuretic peptide in diagnosing congestive heart failure. Acad Emerg Med 2009;16:201-210.

15. Mumoli N, Vitale J, Giorgi-Pierfranceschi M, et al. Accu- racy of nurse-performed lung ultrasound in patients with acute dyspnea: A prospective observational study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e2925.

16. Prosen G, Klemen P, Strnad M, Grmec S. Combination of lung ultrasound (a comet-tail sign) and N-terminal pro- brain natriuretic peptide in differentiating acute heart fail- ure from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma as cause of acute dyspnea in prehospital emergency setting.

Crit Care 2011;15:R114.

17. Vitturi N, Soattin M, Allemand E Simoni F, Realdi G. Tho- racic ultrasonography: A new method for the work-up of patients with dyspnea. J Ultrasound 2011;14:147-151.

18. Volpicelli G, Mussa A, Garofalo G, et al. Bedside lung ultrasound in the assessment of alveolar-interstitial syn- drome. Am J Emerg Med 2006;24:689-696.

19. Picano E, Frassi F, Agricola E, Gligorova S, Gargani L, Mottola G. Ultrasound lung comets: a clinically useful sign of extravascular lung water. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2006;19:356-363.

20. Baker K, Mitchell G, Thompson AG, Stieler G. Compari- son of a basic lung scanning protocol against formally re- ported chest x-ray in the diagnosis of pulmonary oedema.

Australas J Ultrasound Med 2013;16:183-189.

21. Brown LM, Calfee CS, Howard JP, Craig TR, Matthay MA, McAuley DF. Comparison of thermodilution measured ex- travascular lung water with chest radiographic assessment of pulmonary oedema in patients with acute lung injury.

Ann Intensive Care 2013;3:25.

22. Cardinale L, Priola AM, Moretti F, Volpicelli G. Effective- ness of chest radiography, lung ultrasound and thoracic computed tomography in the diagnosis of congestive heart failure. World J Radiol 2014;6:230-237.

23. Fonseca C, Mota T, Morais H, et al. The value of the elec- trocardiogram and chest X-ray for confirming or refuting a suspected diagnosis of heart failure in the community. Eur J Heart Fail 2004;6:807-812.

24. Mant J, Doust J, Roalfe A, et al. Systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of diagnosis of heart failure, with modelling of implications of different diag- nostic strategies in primary care. Health Technol Assess 2009;13:1-207.

25. Morrison LK, Harrison A, Krishnaswamy P, Kazanegra R, Clopton P, Maisel A. Utility of a rapid B-natriuretic peptide assay in differentiating congestive heart failure from lung disease in patients presenting with dyspnea. J Am Coll Car- diol 2002;39:202-209.

Referințe

DOCUMENTE SIMILARE

Aims: In the present study, a meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic value of endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) elastography for differentiating benign and

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-anal- ysis is to assess the accuracy of chest US for the early diagnosis of pneumothorax in adult trauma patients.. Summary

Descriptive evaluation of parotid gland tumours following CEUS administration showed overlap characteristics in benign and malignancies.. Two publications assessed AUC and MTT in

Aims: The present study investigated and evaluated the accuracy of thoracic ultrasonography (TUS) in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) by conducting a systematic review

For eligible studies, the following items were ex- tracted: last name of the first author, year of publication, country, study type, study setting, blinding method, US

Accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated to show the diagnostic performance of S- Detect, the

Systematic review and meta- analysis of magnetic resonance imaging features for di- agnosis of adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder.. Determination of magnetic resonance

We calculated the summary statistics for sensitivity (Sen), specificity (Spe), positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR + /LR − ), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and receiver operating