Key Points Question How does the accuracy of lung ultrasound compare with chest radiography for diagnosing cardiogenic pulmonary edema in patients presenting to any clinical setting with dyspnea? Findings In this systematic review with meta-analysis of 6 prospective cohort studies representing 1827 patients, lung ultrasonography was found to be more sensitive than chest radiography for the detection of cardiogenic pulmonary edema and had comparable specificity. Meaning Lung ultrasonography appeared to be useful as an adjunct imaging study in patients presenting with dyspnea at risk for heart failure.

Ultrasound contrast-enhanced stress echocardiography improves endocardial visualization, but diagnostic test rates versus stress myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) have not been studied. A prospective randomized trial was performed between April 2012 and October 2014 at a single-center, safety net hospital. Hospitalized patients referred for noninvasive stress imaging were randomized 1:1 to stress echocardiography or stress MPI. The primary outcome was diagnostic test rate defined as interpretable images and achievement of >85% of age-predicted maximal heart rate (for dobutamine and exercise). Rates were assessed among those completing testing and then based solely on image interpretability. Charges and length of stay were secondary outcomes. A total of 240 patients were randomized, and 229 completed testing. Diagnostic test rates were similar for stress echocardiography versus MPI {89.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 82.2–94.4] vs. 94.8% [95% CI, 89.1–98.1], P = 0.13} and did not differ with multivariable adjustment. Modalities requiring a diagnostic heart rate criteria were more frequently ordered with stress echocardiography (100% vs. 26%; P < 0.001). Therefore, an imaging-based analysis without the 12 individuals who failed to achieve target heart rate (n = 217) was evaluated with diagnostic test rates of 100% versus 94.8% (95% CI, 89.1%–98.1%; P = 0.03) for stress echocardiography and MPI, respectively. Median length of stay did not differ. Median (interquartile range) test-related charges were lower with stress echocardiography: $2,424 ($2400–$2508) versus $3619 ($3584–$3728), P < 0.0001. Overall, tests were positive for ischemia in 8% of patients. In conclusion, contrast-enhanced stress echocardiography provides comparable diagnostic test rates to MPI with lower associated charges.