Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2016 Sep;150(3):640-51.
doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2016.04.013. Epub 2016 Apr 26.

Computer-Aided Quantitative Ultrasonography for Detection of Pulmonary Edema in Mechanically Ventilated Cardiac Surgery Patients

Affiliations
Observational Study

Computer-Aided Quantitative Ultrasonography for Detection of Pulmonary Edema in Mechanically Ventilated Cardiac Surgery Patients

Francesco Corradi et al. Chest. 2016 Sep.

Abstract

Background: Lung ultrasonography (LUS) has been used for noninvasive detection of pulmonary edema. Semiquantitative LUS visual scores (visual LUS [V-LUS]) based on B lines are moderately correlated with pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) and extravascular lung water (EVLW). A new computer-aided quantitative LUS (Q-LUS) analysis has been recently proposed. This study investigated whether Q-LUS better correlates with PCWP and EVLW than V-LUS and to what extent positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) affects the assessment of pulmonary edema by Q-LUS or V-LUS.

Methods: Forty-eight mechanically ventilated patients with PEEP of 5 or 10 cm H2O and monitored by PCWP (n = 28) or EVLW (n = 20) were studied.

Results: PCWP was significantly and strongly correlated with Q-LUS gray (Gy) unit value (r(2) = 0.70) but weakly correlated with V-LUS B-line score (r(2) = 0.20). EVLW was significantly and more strongly correlated with Q-LUS Gy unit mean value (r(2) = 0.68) than with V-LUS B-line score (r(2) = 0.34). Q-LUS showed a better diagnostic accuracy than V-LUS for the detection of PCWP >18 mm Hg or EVLW ≥ 10 mL/kg. With 5-cm H2O PEEP, the correlations with PCWP or EVLW were stronger for Q-LUS than V-LUS. With 10-cm H2O PEEP, the correlations with PCWP or EVLW were still significant for Q-LUS but insignificant for V-LUS. Interobserver reproducibility was better for Q-LUS than V-LUS.

Conclusions: Both V-LUS and Q-LUS are acceptable indicators of pulmonary edema in mechanically ventilated patients. However, at high PEEP only Q-LUS provides data that are significantly correlated with PCWP and EVLW. Computer-aided Q-LUS has the advantages of being not only independent of operator perception but also of PEEP.

Keywords: cardiology monitoring; chest imaging; chest ultrasonography; congestive heart failure.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types