Bedside Ultrasound Versus Chest Radiography for Detection of Pulmonary Edema: A Prospective Cohort Study

Objectives Chest radiography has been the preferred imaging study to assess pulmonary congestion. However, chest radiography interpretation is influenced by the level of expertise and high interobserver variability. Lung ultrasound (US) may produce more objective findings through evaluation of verti...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of ultrasound in medicine 2019-04, Vol.38 (4), p.967-973
Hauptverfasser: Wooten, William M., Shaffer, Lynn E. T., Hamilton, Lisa A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 973
container_issue 4
container_start_page 967
container_title Journal of ultrasound in medicine
container_volume 38
creator Wooten, William M.
Shaffer, Lynn E. T.
Hamilton, Lisa A.
description Objectives Chest radiography has been the preferred imaging study to assess pulmonary congestion. However, chest radiography interpretation is influenced by the level of expertise and high interobserver variability. Lung ultrasound (US) may produce more objective findings through evaluation of vertical comet tail artifacts known as B‐lines, which are created by a decrease in the ratio of alveolar air to fluid pulmonary content. Few studies have directly compared chest radiography to bedside US against a reference standard for the diagnosis of pulmonary edema. This study compared the sensitivity and specificity of bedside US and chest radiography in diagnosing pulmonary edema. Methods This prospective observational cohort study involved adult patients presenting to the emergency department of an urban tertiary hospital with dyspnea. The primary outcome was the presence or absence of pulmonary edema, as indicated by B‐lines on a bedside lung US examination or radiologist‐interpreted chest radiography. Patients underwent a US examination within about 1 hour of chest radiography. The final diagnosis from the discharge summary served as the reference standard. Results Ninety‐nine patients were enrolled; 32.3% had congestive heart failure, and 40.4% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Bedside US showed significantly higher sensitivity (96%) compared to chest radiography (65%; P 
doi_str_mv 10.1002/jum.14781
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2116122582</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2116122582</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3251-c76ada0483cbe0f3a418dc36b6a91aa75c716311325ab36f050a66949a8910313</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10L1OwzAUBWALgWgpDLwA8ghDWl87cRK2EsqfiqiAskZO7NBUSR3sBNS3x6WFjekun47uOQidAhkCIXS07Ooh-GEEe6gPQUC8mAPbR31Cw8jzaRz20JG1S0cJhP4h6jFCI-IT6KPFlZK2lArPq9YIq7uVxG_K2M7iZKFsi5-FLPW7Ec1ijQtt8LVqVd6WeoV1gWddVeuVMGs8kaoWl3iMZ0bbZiM-FU70QpsWv7SdXB-jg0JUVp3s7gDNbyavyZ03fbq9T8ZTL2c0AC8PuZCC-BHLM0UKJnyIZM54xkUMQoRBHgJnAA6LjPGCBERwHvuxiGIgDNgAnW9zG6M_OtcgrUubq6oSK6U7m1IADpQGEXX0Yktz97M1qkgbU9auTQok3QybumHTn2GdPdvFdlmt5J_8XdKB0RZ8lZVa_5-UPswft5HfdJyBxw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2116122582</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Bedside Ultrasound Versus Chest Radiography for Detection of Pulmonary Edema: A Prospective Cohort Study</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Wooten, William M. ; Shaffer, Lynn E. T. ; Hamilton, Lisa A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Wooten, William M. ; Shaffer, Lynn E. T. ; Hamilton, Lisa A.</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives Chest radiography has been the preferred imaging study to assess pulmonary congestion. However, chest radiography interpretation is influenced by the level of expertise and high interobserver variability. Lung ultrasound (US) may produce more objective findings through evaluation of vertical comet tail artifacts known as B‐lines, which are created by a decrease in the ratio of alveolar air to fluid pulmonary content. Few studies have directly compared chest radiography to bedside US against a reference standard for the diagnosis of pulmonary edema. This study compared the sensitivity and specificity of bedside US and chest radiography in diagnosing pulmonary edema. Methods This prospective observational cohort study involved adult patients presenting to the emergency department of an urban tertiary hospital with dyspnea. The primary outcome was the presence or absence of pulmonary edema, as indicated by B‐lines on a bedside lung US examination or radiologist‐interpreted chest radiography. Patients underwent a US examination within about 1 hour of chest radiography. The final diagnosis from the discharge summary served as the reference standard. Results Ninety‐nine patients were enrolled; 32.3% had congestive heart failure, and 40.4% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Bedside US showed significantly higher sensitivity (96%) compared to chest radiography (65%; P &lt; .001). Of 18 patients with negative radiographic findings and a discharge diagnosis of pulmonary edema, 16 (89%) had positive US findings (P &lt; .001). Conclusions Bedside US has the potential to identify pulmonary edema more accurately than chest radiography. As current practice within the United States uses chest radiography, reflecting American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association guidelines for management of heart failure, the results of this study warrant further evaluation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0278-4297</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1550-9613</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jum.14781</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30280401</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England</publisher><subject>dyspnea ; heart failure ; lung ultrasound ; point‐of‐care testing ; pulmonary edema ; sensitivity and specificity</subject><ispartof>Journal of ultrasound in medicine, 2019-04, Vol.38 (4), p.967-973</ispartof><rights>2018 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine</rights><rights>2018 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3251-c76ada0483cbe0f3a418dc36b6a91aa75c716311325ab36f050a66949a8910313</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3251-c76ada0483cbe0f3a418dc36b6a91aa75c716311325ab36f050a66949a8910313</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fjum.14781$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fjum.14781$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30280401$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wooten, William M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaffer, Lynn E. T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamilton, Lisa A.</creatorcontrib><title>Bedside Ultrasound Versus Chest Radiography for Detection of Pulmonary Edema: A Prospective Cohort Study</title><title>Journal of ultrasound in medicine</title><addtitle>J Ultrasound Med</addtitle><description>Objectives Chest radiography has been the preferred imaging study to assess pulmonary congestion. However, chest radiography interpretation is influenced by the level of expertise and high interobserver variability. Lung ultrasound (US) may produce more objective findings through evaluation of vertical comet tail artifacts known as B‐lines, which are created by a decrease in the ratio of alveolar air to fluid pulmonary content. Few studies have directly compared chest radiography to bedside US against a reference standard for the diagnosis of pulmonary edema. This study compared the sensitivity and specificity of bedside US and chest radiography in diagnosing pulmonary edema. Methods This prospective observational cohort study involved adult patients presenting to the emergency department of an urban tertiary hospital with dyspnea. The primary outcome was the presence or absence of pulmonary edema, as indicated by B‐lines on a bedside lung US examination or radiologist‐interpreted chest radiography. Patients underwent a US examination within about 1 hour of chest radiography. The final diagnosis from the discharge summary served as the reference standard. Results Ninety‐nine patients were enrolled; 32.3% had congestive heart failure, and 40.4% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Bedside US showed significantly higher sensitivity (96%) compared to chest radiography (65%; P &lt; .001). Of 18 patients with negative radiographic findings and a discharge diagnosis of pulmonary edema, 16 (89%) had positive US findings (P &lt; .001). Conclusions Bedside US has the potential to identify pulmonary edema more accurately than chest radiography. As current practice within the United States uses chest radiography, reflecting American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association guidelines for management of heart failure, the results of this study warrant further evaluation.</description><subject>dyspnea</subject><subject>heart failure</subject><subject>lung ultrasound</subject><subject>point‐of‐care testing</subject><subject>pulmonary edema</subject><subject>sensitivity and specificity</subject><issn>0278-4297</issn><issn>1550-9613</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp10L1OwzAUBWALgWgpDLwA8ghDWl87cRK2EsqfiqiAskZO7NBUSR3sBNS3x6WFjekun47uOQidAhkCIXS07Ooh-GEEe6gPQUC8mAPbR31Cw8jzaRz20JG1S0cJhP4h6jFCI-IT6KPFlZK2lArPq9YIq7uVxG_K2M7iZKFsi5-FLPW7Ec1ijQtt8LVqVd6WeoV1gWddVeuVMGs8kaoWl3iMZ0bbZiM-FU70QpsWv7SdXB-jg0JUVp3s7gDNbyavyZ03fbq9T8ZTL2c0AC8PuZCC-BHLM0UKJnyIZM54xkUMQoRBHgJnAA6LjPGCBERwHvuxiGIgDNgAnW9zG6M_OtcgrUubq6oSK6U7m1IADpQGEXX0Yktz97M1qkgbU9auTQok3QybumHTn2GdPdvFdlmt5J_8XdKB0RZ8lZVa_5-UPswft5HfdJyBxw</recordid><startdate>201904</startdate><enddate>201904</enddate><creator>Wooten, William M.</creator><creator>Shaffer, Lynn E. T.</creator><creator>Hamilton, Lisa A.</creator><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201904</creationdate><title>Bedside Ultrasound Versus Chest Radiography for Detection of Pulmonary Edema: A Prospective Cohort Study</title><author>Wooten, William M. ; Shaffer, Lynn E. T. ; Hamilton, Lisa A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3251-c76ada0483cbe0f3a418dc36b6a91aa75c716311325ab36f050a66949a8910313</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>dyspnea</topic><topic>heart failure</topic><topic>lung ultrasound</topic><topic>point‐of‐care testing</topic><topic>pulmonary edema</topic><topic>sensitivity and specificity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wooten, William M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaffer, Lynn E. T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hamilton, Lisa A.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of ultrasound in medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wooten, William M.</au><au>Shaffer, Lynn E. T.</au><au>Hamilton, Lisa A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Bedside Ultrasound Versus Chest Radiography for Detection of Pulmonary Edema: A Prospective Cohort Study</atitle><jtitle>Journal of ultrasound in medicine</jtitle><addtitle>J Ultrasound Med</addtitle><date>2019-04</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>967</spage><epage>973</epage><pages>967-973</pages><issn>0278-4297</issn><eissn>1550-9613</eissn><abstract>Objectives Chest radiography has been the preferred imaging study to assess pulmonary congestion. However, chest radiography interpretation is influenced by the level of expertise and high interobserver variability. Lung ultrasound (US) may produce more objective findings through evaluation of vertical comet tail artifacts known as B‐lines, which are created by a decrease in the ratio of alveolar air to fluid pulmonary content. Few studies have directly compared chest radiography to bedside US against a reference standard for the diagnosis of pulmonary edema. This study compared the sensitivity and specificity of bedside US and chest radiography in diagnosing pulmonary edema. Methods This prospective observational cohort study involved adult patients presenting to the emergency department of an urban tertiary hospital with dyspnea. The primary outcome was the presence or absence of pulmonary edema, as indicated by B‐lines on a bedside lung US examination or radiologist‐interpreted chest radiography. Patients underwent a US examination within about 1 hour of chest radiography. The final diagnosis from the discharge summary served as the reference standard. Results Ninety‐nine patients were enrolled; 32.3% had congestive heart failure, and 40.4% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Bedside US showed significantly higher sensitivity (96%) compared to chest radiography (65%; P &lt; .001). Of 18 patients with negative radiographic findings and a discharge diagnosis of pulmonary edema, 16 (89%) had positive US findings (P &lt; .001). Conclusions Bedside US has the potential to identify pulmonary edema more accurately than chest radiography. As current practice within the United States uses chest radiography, reflecting American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association guidelines for management of heart failure, the results of this study warrant further evaluation.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pmid>30280401</pmid><doi>10.1002/jum.14781</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0278-4297
ispartof Journal of ultrasound in medicine, 2019-04, Vol.38 (4), p.967-973
issn 0278-4297
1550-9613
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2116122582
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects dyspnea
heart failure
lung ultrasound
point‐of‐care testing
pulmonary edema
sensitivity and specificity
title Bedside Ultrasound Versus Chest Radiography for Detection of Pulmonary Edema: A Prospective Cohort Study
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T05%3A33%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Bedside%20Ultrasound%20Versus%20Chest%20Radiography%20for%20Detection%20of%20Pulmonary%20Edema:%20A%20Prospective%20Cohort%20Study&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20ultrasound%20in%20medicine&rft.au=Wooten,%20William%20M.&rft.date=2019-04&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=967&rft.epage=973&rft.pages=967-973&rft.issn=0278-4297&rft.eissn=1550-9613&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jum.14781&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2116122582%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2116122582&rft_id=info:pmid/30280401&rfr_iscdi=true