{"title":"Efficacy of Lung Ultrasound vs Chest X-Ray in Detecting Lung Consolidation and Edema in Premature Infants in the NICU.","authors":"Lin Niu, Zhi-Qun Zhang, Jing Li, Min Zhao","doi":"10.12659/MSM.944426","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BACKGROUND The incidence of lung diseases in premature newborns is significantly higher than in full-term newborns due to their underdeveloped lungs. Ultrasound and X-ray are commonly-used bedside examinations in neonatology. This study primarily compares the efficacy of chest X-ray (CXR) and lung ultrasound (LUS) images in evaluating lung consolidation and edema in premature newborns at Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICU). MATERIAL AND METHODS A retrospective analysis was conducted on LUS and CXR examination results, along with clinical records of premature newborns admitted to our hospital's NICU from November 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. CXR and LUS scans were performed on the same newborn within a day. We evaluated the consolidations and edema by interpreting the CXR and LUS images, then compared the findings. RESULTS Out of 75 cases, 34 showed lung consolidations on LUS (45%), while only 14 exhibited consolidations on CXR (19%). The detection rate of consolidations by LUS was significantly higher compared to CXR (34/75 vs 14/75, P<0.001). Differences were observed between the 2 bedside examinations in identifying consolidations, with some cases seen only on LUS. CXR struggled to accurately assess the severity of lung edema visible on LUS, showing significant disparity in detecting interstitial edema (53/75 vs 21/75, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS LUS outperforms chest CXR for bedside assessment of lung consolidation and edema in premature newborns.</p>","PeriodicalId":48888,"journal":{"name":"Medical Science Monitor","volume":"30 ","pages":"e944426"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11395904/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Science Monitor","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.944426","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BACKGROUND The incidence of lung diseases in premature newborns is significantly higher than in full-term newborns due to their underdeveloped lungs. Ultrasound and X-ray are commonly-used bedside examinations in neonatology. This study primarily compares the efficacy of chest X-ray (CXR) and lung ultrasound (LUS) images in evaluating lung consolidation and edema in premature newborns at Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICU). MATERIAL AND METHODS A retrospective analysis was conducted on LUS and CXR examination results, along with clinical records of premature newborns admitted to our hospital's NICU from November 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. CXR and LUS scans were performed on the same newborn within a day. We evaluated the consolidations and edema by interpreting the CXR and LUS images, then compared the findings. RESULTS Out of 75 cases, 34 showed lung consolidations on LUS (45%), while only 14 exhibited consolidations on CXR (19%). The detection rate of consolidations by LUS was significantly higher compared to CXR (34/75 vs 14/75, P<0.001). Differences were observed between the 2 bedside examinations in identifying consolidations, with some cases seen only on LUS. CXR struggled to accurately assess the severity of lung edema visible on LUS, showing significant disparity in detecting interstitial edema (53/75 vs 21/75, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS LUS outperforms chest CXR for bedside assessment of lung consolidation and edema in premature newborns.
期刊介绍:
Medical Science Monitor (MSM) established in 1995 is an international, peer-reviewed scientific journal which publishes original articles in Clinical Medicine and related disciplines such as Epidemiology and Population Studies, Product Investigations, Development of Laboratory Techniques :: Diagnostics and Medical Technology which enable presentation of research or review works in overlapping areas of medicine and technology such us (but not limited to): medical diagnostics, medical imaging systems, computer simulation of health and disease processes, new medical devices, etc. Reviews and Special Reports - papers may be accepted on the basis that they provide a systematic, critical and up-to-date overview of literature pertaining to research or clinical topics. Meta-analyses are considered as reviews. A special attention will be paid to a teaching value of a review paper.
Medical Science Monitor is internationally indexed in Thomson-Reuters Web of Science, Journals Citation Report (JCR), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI), Index Medicus MEDLINE, PubMed, PMC, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, Chemical Abstracts CAS and Index Copernicus.