回顾性分析肺超声对合并和不合并胸膜炎胸痛患者肺栓塞的诊断准确性。

IF 3.4 Q2 Medicine Ultrasound Journal Pub Date : 2022-08-12 DOI:10.1186/s13089-022-00285-3
Peiman Nazerian, Chiara Gigli, Angelika Reissig, Emanuele Pivetta, Simone Vanni, Thomas Fraccalini, Giordana Ferraris, Alessandra Ricciardolo, Stefano Grifoni, Giovanni Volpicelli
{"title":"回顾性分析肺超声对合并和不合并胸膜炎胸痛患者肺栓塞的诊断准确性。","authors":"Peiman Nazerian,&nbsp;Chiara Gigli,&nbsp;Angelika Reissig,&nbsp;Emanuele Pivetta,&nbsp;Simone Vanni,&nbsp;Thomas Fraccalini,&nbsp;Giordana Ferraris,&nbsp;Alessandra Ricciardolo,&nbsp;Stefano Grifoni,&nbsp;Giovanni Volpicelli","doi":"10.1186/s13089-022-00285-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lung ultrasound (LUS) has a role in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) mainly based on the visualization of pulmonary infarctions. However, examining the whole chest to detect small peripheral infarctions by LUS may be challenging. Pleuritic pain, a frequent presenting symptom in patients with PE, is usually localized in a restricted chest area identified by the patient itself. Our hypothesis is that sensitivity of LUS for PE in patients with pleuritic chest pain may be higher due to the possibility of focusing the examination in the painful area. We combined data from three prospective studies on LUS in patients suspected of PE and extracted data regarding patients with and without pleuritic pain at presentation to compare the performances of LUS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 872 patients suspected of PE, 217 (24.9%) presented with pleuritic pain and 279 patients (32%) were diagnosed with PE. Pooled sensitivity of LUS for PE in patients with and without pleuritic chest pain was 81.5% (95% CI 70-90.1%) and 49.5% (95% CI 42.7-56.4%) (p < 0.001), respectively. Specificity of LUS was similar in the two groups, respectively 95.4% (95% CI 90.7-98.1%) and 94.8% (95% CI 92.3-97.7%) (p = 0.86). In patients with pleuritic pain, a diagnostic strategy combining Wells score with LUS performed better both in terms of sensitivity (93%, 95% CI 80.9-98.5% vs 90.7%, 95% CI 77.9-97.4%) and negative predictive value (96.2%, 95% CI 89.6-98.7% vs 93.3%, 95% CI 84.4-97.3%). Efficiency of Wells score + LUS outperformed the conventional strategy based on Wells score + d-dimer (56.7%, 95% CI 48.5-65% vs 42.5%, 95% CI 34.3-51.2%, p = 0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a population of patients suspected of PE, LUS showed better sensitivity for the diagnosis of PE when applied to the subgroup with pleuritic chest pain. In these patients, a diagnostic strategy based on Wells score and LUS performed better to exclude PE than the conventional strategy combining Wells score and d-dimer.</p>","PeriodicalId":36911,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound Journal","volume":" ","pages":"35"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9374850/pdf/","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Retrospective analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound for pulmonary embolism in patients with and without pleuritic chest pain.\",\"authors\":\"Peiman Nazerian,&nbsp;Chiara Gigli,&nbsp;Angelika Reissig,&nbsp;Emanuele Pivetta,&nbsp;Simone Vanni,&nbsp;Thomas Fraccalini,&nbsp;Giordana Ferraris,&nbsp;Alessandra Ricciardolo,&nbsp;Stefano Grifoni,&nbsp;Giovanni Volpicelli\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13089-022-00285-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lung ultrasound (LUS) has a role in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) mainly based on the visualization of pulmonary infarctions. However, examining the whole chest to detect small peripheral infarctions by LUS may be challenging. Pleuritic pain, a frequent presenting symptom in patients with PE, is usually localized in a restricted chest area identified by the patient itself. Our hypothesis is that sensitivity of LUS for PE in patients with pleuritic chest pain may be higher due to the possibility of focusing the examination in the painful area. We combined data from three prospective studies on LUS in patients suspected of PE and extracted data regarding patients with and without pleuritic pain at presentation to compare the performances of LUS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 872 patients suspected of PE, 217 (24.9%) presented with pleuritic pain and 279 patients (32%) were diagnosed with PE. Pooled sensitivity of LUS for PE in patients with and without pleuritic chest pain was 81.5% (95% CI 70-90.1%) and 49.5% (95% CI 42.7-56.4%) (p < 0.001), respectively. Specificity of LUS was similar in the two groups, respectively 95.4% (95% CI 90.7-98.1%) and 94.8% (95% CI 92.3-97.7%) (p = 0.86). In patients with pleuritic pain, a diagnostic strategy combining Wells score with LUS performed better both in terms of sensitivity (93%, 95% CI 80.9-98.5% vs 90.7%, 95% CI 77.9-97.4%) and negative predictive value (96.2%, 95% CI 89.6-98.7% vs 93.3%, 95% CI 84.4-97.3%). Efficiency of Wells score + LUS outperformed the conventional strategy based on Wells score + d-dimer (56.7%, 95% CI 48.5-65% vs 42.5%, 95% CI 34.3-51.2%, p = 0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a population of patients suspected of PE, LUS showed better sensitivity for the diagnosis of PE when applied to the subgroup with pleuritic chest pain. In these patients, a diagnostic strategy based on Wells score and LUS performed better to exclude PE than the conventional strategy combining Wells score and d-dimer.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36911,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ultrasound Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"35\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9374850/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ultrasound Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-022-00285-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasound Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-022-00285-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

背景:肺超声(LUS)在肺栓塞(PE)诊断中的作用主要基于肺梗死的显像。然而,通过LUS检查整个胸部以发现小的周围梗死可能具有挑战性。胸膜痛是PE患者的常见症状,通常局限于患者自己确定的受限胸部区域。我们的假设是,胸膜性胸痛患者的LUS对PE的敏感性可能更高,因为可以将检查重点放在疼痛区域。我们结合了三项关于疑似PE患者LUS的前瞻性研究的数据,并提取了有胸膜痛和无胸膜痛患者的数据,以比较LUS的表现。结果:872例疑似PE患者中,217例(24.9%)表现为胸膜痛,279例(32%)确诊为PE。LUS在胸膜炎胸痛和非胸膜炎胸痛患者中诊断PE的总敏感性分别为81.5% (95% CI 70-90.1%)和49.5% (95% CI 42.7-56.4%) (p结论:在疑似PE患者中,LUS在胸膜炎胸痛亚组中诊断PE的敏感性更高。在这些患者中,基于Wells评分和LUS的诊断策略比结合Wells评分和d-二聚体的常规策略更能排除PE。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Retrospective analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound for pulmonary embolism in patients with and without pleuritic chest pain.

Background: Lung ultrasound (LUS) has a role in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) mainly based on the visualization of pulmonary infarctions. However, examining the whole chest to detect small peripheral infarctions by LUS may be challenging. Pleuritic pain, a frequent presenting symptom in patients with PE, is usually localized in a restricted chest area identified by the patient itself. Our hypothesis is that sensitivity of LUS for PE in patients with pleuritic chest pain may be higher due to the possibility of focusing the examination in the painful area. We combined data from three prospective studies on LUS in patients suspected of PE and extracted data regarding patients with and without pleuritic pain at presentation to compare the performances of LUS.

Results: Out of 872 patients suspected of PE, 217 (24.9%) presented with pleuritic pain and 279 patients (32%) were diagnosed with PE. Pooled sensitivity of LUS for PE in patients with and without pleuritic chest pain was 81.5% (95% CI 70-90.1%) and 49.5% (95% CI 42.7-56.4%) (p < 0.001), respectively. Specificity of LUS was similar in the two groups, respectively 95.4% (95% CI 90.7-98.1%) and 94.8% (95% CI 92.3-97.7%) (p = 0.86). In patients with pleuritic pain, a diagnostic strategy combining Wells score with LUS performed better both in terms of sensitivity (93%, 95% CI 80.9-98.5% vs 90.7%, 95% CI 77.9-97.4%) and negative predictive value (96.2%, 95% CI 89.6-98.7% vs 93.3%, 95% CI 84.4-97.3%). Efficiency of Wells score + LUS outperformed the conventional strategy based on Wells score + d-dimer (56.7%, 95% CI 48.5-65% vs 42.5%, 95% CI 34.3-51.2%, p = 0.02).

Conclusions: In a population of patients suspected of PE, LUS showed better sensitivity for the diagnosis of PE when applied to the subgroup with pleuritic chest pain. In these patients, a diagnostic strategy based on Wells score and LUS performed better to exclude PE than the conventional strategy combining Wells score and d-dimer.

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 Journal
Ultrasound Journal Health Professions-Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
2.90%
发文量
45
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
VExUS: common misconceptions, clinical use and future directions. Decoding VExUS: a practical guide for excelling in point-of-care ultrasound assessment of venous congestion. Quantitative lung ultrasound findings correlate with radial alveolar count in experimental bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Tele-education in point-of-care ultrasound training. Comparison of 6 handheld ultrasound devices by point-of-care ultrasound experts: a cross-sectional study.
×
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