Background Lung ultrasound can adequately monitor disease severity in pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome. We hypothesize lung ultrasound can adequately monitor COVID-19 pneumonia in critically ill patients. Methods Adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to the intensive care unit of two academic hospitals who underwent a 12-zone lung ultrasound and a chest CT examination were included. Baseline characteristics, and outcomes including composite endpoint death or ICU stay > 30 days were recorded. Lung ultrasound and CT images were quantified as a lung ultrasound score involvement index (LUSI) and CT severity involvement index (CTSI). Primary outcome was the correlation, agreement, and concordance between LUSI and CTSI. Secondary outcome was the association of LUSI and CTSI with the composite endpoints. Results We included 55 ultrasound examinations in 34 patients, which were 88% were male, with a mean age of 63 years and mean P/F ratio of 151. The correlation between LUSI and CTSI was strong (r = 0.795), with an overall 15% bias, and limits of agreement ranging − 40 to 9.7. Concordance between changes in sequentially measured LUSI and CTSI was 81%. In the univariate model, high involvement on LUSI and CTSI were associated with a composite endpoint. In the multivariate model, LUSI was the only remaining independent predictor. Conclusions Lung ultrasound can be used as an alternative for chest CT in monitoring COVID-19 pneumonia in critically ill patients as it can quantify pulmonary involvement, register changes over the course of the disease, and predict death or ICU stay > 30 days. Trial registration: NTR, NL8584. Registered 01 May 2020—retrospectively registered, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8584

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.

Background Lung ultrasound has established itself as an accurate diagnostic tool in different clinical settings. However, its effects on clinical-decision making are insufficiently described. This systematic review aims to investigate the impact of lung ultrasound, exclusively or as part of an integrated thoracic ultrasound examination, on clinical-decision making in different departments, especially the emergency department (ED), intensive care unit (ICU), and general ward (GW). Methods This systematic review was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021242977). PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched for original studies reporting changes in clinical-decision making (e.g. diagnosis, management, or therapy) after using lung ultrasound. Inclusion criteria were a recorded change of management (in percentage of cases) and with a clinical presentation to the ED, ICU, or GW. Studies were excluded if examinations were beyond the scope of thoracic ultrasound or to guide procedures. Mean changes with range (%) in clinical-decision making were reported. Methodological data on lung ultrasound were also collected. Study quality was scored using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Results A total of 13 studies were included: five studies on the ED (546 patients), five studies on the ICU (504 patients), two studies on the GW (1150 patients), and one study across all three wards (41 patients). Lung ultrasound changed the diagnosis in mean 33% (15–44%) and 44% (34–58%) of patients in the ED and ICU, respectively. Lung ultrasound changed the management in mean 48% (20–80%), 42% (30–68%) and 48% (48–48%) of patients in the ED, in the ICU and in the GW, respectively. Changes in management were non-invasive in 92% and 51% of patients in the ED and ICU, respectively. Lung ultrasound methodology was heterogeneous across studies. Risk of bias was moderate to high in all studies. Conclusions Lung ultrasound, exclusively or as a part of thoracic ultrasound, has substantial impact on clinical-decision making by changing diagnosis and management in the EDs, ICUs, and GWs. The current evidence level and methodological heterogeneity underline the necessity for well-designed trials and standardization of methodology.

No abstract