4.7 Article

Usefulness of Cardiothoracic Chest Ultrasound in the Management of Acute Respiratory Failure in Critical Care Practice

期刊

CHEST
卷 144, 期 3, 页码 859-865

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1378/chest.13-0167

关键词

-

资金

  1. Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse, Toulouse, France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This study investigated the clinical relevance of early general chest ultrasonography (ie, heart and lung recordings) in patients in the ICU with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Methods: We prospectively compared this diagnostic approach (ultrasound) to a routine evaluation established from clinical, radiologic, and biologic data (standard). Subjects were patients consecutively admitted to the ICU of a university teaching hospital during a 1-year period. Inclusion criteria were age >= 18 years and the presence of severe ARF criteria to justify ICU admission. We compared the diagnostic approaches and the final diagnosis determined by a panel of experts. Results: Seventy-eight patients were included (age, 70 +/- 18 years; sex ratio, 1). Three patients given two or more simultaneous diagnoses were subsequently excluded. The ultrasound approach was more accurate than the standard approach (83% vs 63%, respectively; P<.02). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed greater diagnostic performance of ultrasound in cases of pneumonia (standard, 0.74 +/- 0.12; ultrasound, 0.87 +/- 0.14; P<.02), acute hemodynamic pulmonary edema (standard, 0.79 +/- 0.11; ultrasound, 0.93 +/- 0.08; P<.007), decompensated COPD (standard, 0.8 +/- 0.09; ultrasound, 0.92 +/- 0.15; P<.05), and pulmonary embolism (standard, 0.65 +/- 0.12; ultrasound, 0.81 +/- 0.17; P<.04). Furthermore, we found that the use of ultrasound data could have significantly improved the initial treatment. Conclusions: The use of cardiothoracic ultrasound appears to be an attractive complementary diagnostic tool and seems able to contribute to an early therapeutic decision based on reproducible physiopathologic data.

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