用于评估 ARDS 患者肺通气情况的肺部超声波评分:两种方法的比较。

IF 1.3 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Ultrasound International Open Pub Date : 2024-10-21 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1055/a-2421-8709
Silvia Mongodi, Davide Chiumello, Francesco Mojoli
{"title":"用于评估 ARDS 患者肺通气情况的肺部超声波评分:两种方法的比较。","authors":"Silvia Mongodi, Davide Chiumello, Francesco Mojoli","doi":"10.1055/a-2421-8709","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose</b>  A 4-step lung ultrasound (LUS) score has been previously used to quantify lung density. We compared 2 versions of this scoring system for distinguishing severe from moderate loss of aeration in ARDS: coalescence-based score (cLUS) vs. quantitative-based score (qLUS - >50% pleura occupied by artefacts). <b>Materials and Methods</b>   We compared qLUS and cLUS to lung density measured by quantitative CT scan in 12 standard thoracic regions. A simplified approach (1 scan per region) was compared to an extensive one (regional score computed as the mean of all relevant intercostal space scores). <b>Results</b>   We examined 13 conditions in 7 ARDS patients (7 at PEEP 5, 6 at PEEP 15 cmH2O-156 regions, 398 clips). Switching from cLUS to qLUS resulted in a change in interpretation in 117 clips (29.4%, 1-point reduction) and in 41.7% of the regions (64 decreases (range 0.2-1), 1 increase (0.2 points)). Regional qLUS showed very strong correlation with lung density (rs=0.85), higher than cLUS (rs=0.79; p=0.010). The agreement with CT classification in well aerated, poorly aerated, and not aerated tissue was moderate for cLUS (agreement 65.4%; Cohen's K coefficient 0.475 (95%CI 0.391-0.547); p<0.0001) and substantial for qLUS (agreement 81.4%; Cohen's K coefficient 0.701 (95%CI 0.653-0.765), p<0.0001). The agreement between single spot and extensive approaches was almost perfect (cLUS: agreement 89.1%, Cohen's kappa coefficient 0.840 (95%CI 0.811-0.911), p<0.0001; qLUS: agreement 86.5%, Cohen's kappa coefficient 0.819 (95%CI 0.761-0.848), p<0.0001). <b>Conclusion</b>   A LUS score based on the percentage of occupied pleura performs better than a coalescence-based approach for quantifying lung density. A simplified approach performs as well as an extensive one.</p>","PeriodicalId":44852,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound International Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11497101/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lung ultrasound score for the assessment of lung aeration in ARDS patients: comparison of two approaches.\",\"authors\":\"Silvia Mongodi, Davide Chiumello, Francesco Mojoli\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2421-8709\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Purpose</b>  A 4-step lung ultrasound (LUS) score has been previously used to quantify lung density. We compared 2 versions of this scoring system for distinguishing severe from moderate loss of aeration in ARDS: coalescence-based score (cLUS) vs. quantitative-based score (qLUS - >50% pleura occupied by artefacts). <b>Materials and Methods</b>   We compared qLUS and cLUS to lung density measured by quantitative CT scan in 12 standard thoracic regions. A simplified approach (1 scan per region) was compared to an extensive one (regional score computed as the mean of all relevant intercostal space scores). <b>Results</b>   We examined 13 conditions in 7 ARDS patients (7 at PEEP 5, 6 at PEEP 15 cmH2O-156 regions, 398 clips). Switching from cLUS to qLUS resulted in a change in interpretation in 117 clips (29.4%, 1-point reduction) and in 41.7% of the regions (64 decreases (range 0.2-1), 1 increase (0.2 points)). Regional qLUS showed very strong correlation with lung density (rs=0.85), higher than cLUS (rs=0.79; p=0.010). The agreement with CT classification in well aerated, poorly aerated, and not aerated tissue was moderate for cLUS (agreement 65.4%; Cohen's K coefficient 0.475 (95%CI 0.391-0.547); p<0.0001) and substantial for qLUS (agreement 81.4%; Cohen's K coefficient 0.701 (95%CI 0.653-0.765), p<0.0001). The agreement between single spot and extensive approaches was almost perfect (cLUS: agreement 89.1%, Cohen's kappa coefficient 0.840 (95%CI 0.811-0.911), p<0.0001; qLUS: agreement 86.5%, Cohen's kappa coefficient 0.819 (95%CI 0.761-0.848), p<0.0001). <b>Conclusion</b>   A LUS score based on the percentage of occupied pleura performs better than a coalescence-based approach for quantifying lung density. A simplified approach performs as well as an extensive one.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44852,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ultrasound International Open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11497101/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ultrasound International Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2421-8709\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasound International Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2421-8709","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 以前曾使用四步肺超声(LUS)评分来量化肺密度。我们比较了该评分系统的两个版本,以区分 ARDS 通气严重丧失和中度丧失:基于凝聚的评分(cLUS)与基于定量的评分(qLUS - >50% 胸膜被伪影占据)。材料和方法 我们将 qLUS 和 cLUS 与通过定量 CT 扫描测量的 12 个标准胸腔区域的肺密度进行了比较。我们将简化方法(每个区域扫描 1 次)与广泛方法(区域评分计算为所有相关肋间隙评分的平均值)进行了比较。结果 我们对 7 例 ARDS 患者的 13 种情况进行了检查(7 例 PEEP 为 5,6 例 PEEP 为 15 cmH2O-156 个区域,398 个片段)。从 cLUS 到 qLUS 的转换导致 117 个片段(29.4%,减少 1 分)和 41.7% 的区域(64 个减少(范围 0.2-1),1 个增加(0.2 分))的解释发生变化。区域 qLUS 与肺密度的相关性非常强(rs=0.85),高于 cLUS(rs=0.79;p=0.010)。cLUS 与 CT 对通气良好、通气不良和不通气组织分类的一致性为中等(一致性 65.4%;Cohen's K 系数 0.475 (95%CI 0.391-0.547);p 结论 在量化肺密度方面,基于胸膜占位百分比的 LUS 评分优于基于凝聚的方法。简化方法和广泛方法的效果一样好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Lung ultrasound score for the assessment of lung aeration in ARDS patients: comparison of two approaches.

Purpose  A 4-step lung ultrasound (LUS) score has been previously used to quantify lung density. We compared 2 versions of this scoring system for distinguishing severe from moderate loss of aeration in ARDS: coalescence-based score (cLUS) vs. quantitative-based score (qLUS - >50% pleura occupied by artefacts). Materials and Methods   We compared qLUS and cLUS to lung density measured by quantitative CT scan in 12 standard thoracic regions. A simplified approach (1 scan per region) was compared to an extensive one (regional score computed as the mean of all relevant intercostal space scores). Results   We examined 13 conditions in 7 ARDS patients (7 at PEEP 5, 6 at PEEP 15 cmH2O-156 regions, 398 clips). Switching from cLUS to qLUS resulted in a change in interpretation in 117 clips (29.4%, 1-point reduction) and in 41.7% of the regions (64 decreases (range 0.2-1), 1 increase (0.2 points)). Regional qLUS showed very strong correlation with lung density (rs=0.85), higher than cLUS (rs=0.79; p=0.010). The agreement with CT classification in well aerated, poorly aerated, and not aerated tissue was moderate for cLUS (agreement 65.4%; Cohen's K coefficient 0.475 (95%CI 0.391-0.547); p<0.0001) and substantial for qLUS (agreement 81.4%; Cohen's K coefficient 0.701 (95%CI 0.653-0.765), p<0.0001). The agreement between single spot and extensive approaches was almost perfect (cLUS: agreement 89.1%, Cohen's kappa coefficient 0.840 (95%CI 0.811-0.911), p<0.0001; qLUS: agreement 86.5%, Cohen's kappa coefficient 0.819 (95%CI 0.761-0.848), p<0.0001). Conclusion   A LUS score based on the percentage of occupied pleura performs better than a coalescence-based approach for quantifying lung density. A simplified approach performs as well as an extensive one.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ultrasound International Open
Ultrasound International Open RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Congenital coarctation of the aorta: Role of peripheral vascular ultrasound in young hypertensive patients. Lung ultrasound score for the assessment of lung aeration in ARDS patients: comparison of two approaches. Pancreatic ultrasound: An update of measurements, reference values, and variations of the pancreas. Insights Into Modern Undergraduate Ultrasound Education: Prospective Comparison of Digital and Analog Teaching Resources in a Flipped Classroom Concept - The DIvAN Study. Ultrasound elastography: a brief clinical history of an evolving technique.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1