The Impact of Different Lung Ultrasound Protocols in the Assessment of Lung Lesions in COVID-19 Patients: Is There an Ideal Lung Ultrasound Protocol?

Abstract

Background In the past months, several lung ultrasonography (LUS) protocols have been proposed, mainly on previously validated schemes independent of coronavirus disease 2019 . Objectives The main purpose of this study was to determine the impact and accuracy of different LUS protocols proposed in COVID-19. Methods Patients were evaluated with a standard sequence of LUS scans in 72 intercostal spaces along 14 anatomic lines in the chest. A scoring system of LUS findings was reported and then analyzed separately according to each proposed LUS protocol zones. This score was then correlated to a validated Pulmonary Inflammation Index (PII) on chest Computed Tomography (CT). Results Thirty-two patients were enrolled. The most frequent pattern was ground-glass opacities in the chest X-ray (53.1%), chest CT (59.1%) and subpleural or lobar consolidations (40.8%) in the posteroinferior areas (p < 0.001) on LUS. The Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was significantly correlated with almost every protocol analyzed except the 8-zone (p = 0.119) and the 10-zone protocol that only included one posterior point (p = 0.052). The highest ICC was obtained with a 12-zone protocol (ICC 0.500; p = 0.027) and decreased as more points were included. Conclusions In conclusion, our study results suggest that performing an ultrasound protocol with 12-zone scanning, including the superior and inferior areas of the anterior, lateral and posterior regions of the chest was consistent with higher ICC and higher degree of concordance with CT. We emphasize the need of a more standardization technique to further implement and develop this imaging modality in COVID-19. KeywordsPoint-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) • Lung ultrasonography (LUS) • Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) • Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) * Yale Tung-Chen

Thoracic UltrasONOgraphy Reporting: The TUONO Consensus

“…Compared to the 8-zone protocol and the 6-zone protocol, the use of a 12-zone protocol has the advantage of considering the posterior areas. Since the introduction of the Bedside Lung Ultrasound in emergency (BLUE) protocol [15], the 12-zone protocol has emerged as one of the most routinely used approaches in the critically ill. As shown by Tung-Chen et al, a 12-zone protocol is consistent with a higher degree of concordance with a CT scan, is more reproducible and facilitates inter-operator comparison [16].…”

Exploring the Use of Lung Ultrasonography to Assess Cardiac Surgery Patients: A Scoping Review

“…While an eight-region LUS examination is recommended for general patients with interstitial syndrome, a two-region approach is recommended for the critically ill. Other recommendations suggest what region to begin scanning and which direction to travel in without specifying a number of zones, for example, the technique for lung consolidation should begin at the area of interest and progress to the entire lung as needed. The BLUE-protocol 8 is specifically for patients with acute respiratory failure and consists of six regions, or “points.” Literature in other populations suggest otherwise: a prospective cohort study evaluating the impact of different LUS protocols in the assessment of lung lesions in COVID-19 patients found a 12-region method to improve diagnostic power compared with a 10- or an eight-region method; 131 a retrospective cohort found similar results in their secondary analysis finding a 12-region method to be superior to an eight- or six-region method. 132 The protocol used by Acosta et al 108 does consist of a 12-region method for children with anesthesia-induced atelectasis; this method was used solely by studies with a pediatric population in this review, but only two were assessing for atelectasis.…”

Usefulness of Systemic Venous Ultrasound Protocols in the Prognosis of Heart Failure Patients: Results from a Prospective Multicentric Study

“…Number of areas with pulmonary B-lines and pleural effusion (scored through the Lung Score, a lung involvement score that evaluates six areas per lung with a maximum score of 36) [ 7 ].…”