4.7 Article

Chest ultrasonography for the diagnosis and monitoring of high-altitude pulmonary edema

期刊

CHEST
卷 131, 期 4, 页码 1013-1018

出版社

AMER COLL CHEST PHYSICIANS
DOI: 10.1378/chest.06-1864

关键词

acute mountain sickness; high-altitude pulmonary edema; hypoxia; mountaineering; pulmonary edema; ultrasound

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The comet-tail technique of chest ultrasonography has been described for the diagnosis of cardiogenic pulmonary edema. This is the first report describing its use for the diagnosis and monitoring of high-altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE), the leading cause of death from altitude illness. Methods: Eleven consecutive patients presenting to the Himalayan Rescue Association clinic in Pheriehe, Nepal (4,240 m) with a clinical diagnosis of HAPE underwent one to three chest ultrasound examinations using the comet-tail technique to determine the presence of extravascular lung water (EVLW). Seven patients with no evidence of HAPE or other altitude illness served as control subjects. All examinations were read by a blinded observer. Results: HAFE patients had higher comet-tail score (CTS) [mean +/- SD, 31 +/- 11 vs 0.86 +/- 0.83] and lower oxygen saturation (O(2)Sat) [61 +/- 9.2% vs; 87 +/- 2.8%] than control subjects (p < 0.001 for both). Mean CTS was higher (35 +/- 11 vs 12 +/- 6.8, p < 0.001) and O(2)Sat was lower (60 +/- 11% vs 84 +/- 1.6%, p = 0.002) at hospital admission than at discharge for the HAVE patients with follow-up ultrasound examinations. Regression analysis showed CTS was predictive of O(2)Sat (p < 0.001), and for every 1-point increase in CTS O(2)Sat fell by 0.67% (95% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.93%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: The comet-tail technique effectively recognizes and monitors the degree of pulmonary edema in HAPE. Reduction in CTS parallels improved oxygenation and clinical status in HAPE. The feasibility of this technique in remote locations and rapid correlation with changes in EVLW make it a valuable research tool.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据