Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Prognostic value of bedside lung ultrasound score in patients with COVID-19

2020; BioMed Central; Volume: 24; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1186/s13054-020-03416-1

1466-609X

Ji Li, Chunyan Cao, Ying Gao, Wen Zhang, Yuji Xie, Yilian Duan, Shuangshuang Kong, Manjie You, Rong Ma, Lili Jiang, Jie Liu, Zhenxing Sun, Ziming Zhang, Jing Wang, Yali Yang, Qing Lv, Li Zhang, Yuman Li, Jinxiang Zhang, Mingxing Xie,

Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment

Abstract Background Bedside lung ultrasound (LUS) has emerged as a useful and non-invasive tool to detect lung involvement and monitor changes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the clinical significance of the LUS score in patients with COVID-19 remains unknown. We aimed to investigate the prognostic value of the LUS score in patients with COVID-19. Method The LUS protocol consisted of 12 scanning zones and was performed in 280 consecutive patients with COVID-19. The LUS score based on B-lines, lung consolidation and pleural line abnormalities was evaluated. Results The median time from admission to LUS examinations was 7 days (interquartile range [IQR] 3–10). Patients in the highest LUS score group were more likely to have a lower lymphocyte percentage (LYM%); higher levels of D-dimer, C-reactive protein, hypersensitive troponin I and creatine kinase muscle-brain; more invasive mechanical ventilation therapy; higher incidence of ARDS; and higher mortality than patients in the lowest LUS score group. After a median follow-up of 14 days [IQR, 10–20 days], 37 patients developed ARDS, and 13 died. Patients with adverse outcomes presented a higher rate of bilateral involvement; more involved zones and B-lines, pleural line abnormalities and consolidation; and a higher LUS score than event-free survivors. The Cox models adding the LUS score as a continuous variable (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.05, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.02 ~ 1.08; P < 0.001; Akaike information criterion [AIC] = 272; C-index = 0.903) or as a categorical variable (HR 10.76, 95% CI 2.75 ~ 42.05; P = 0.001; AIC = 272; C-index = 0.902) were found to predict poor outcomes more accurately than the basic model (AIC = 286; C-index = 0.866). An LUS score cut-off > 12 predicted adverse outcomes with a specificity and sensitivity of 90.5% and 91.9%, respectively. Conclusions The LUS score devised by our group performs well at predicting adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and is important for risk stratification in COVID-19 patients.