Frontiers in Medicine (Jul 2021)

Lung Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of COVID-19 Pneumonia: Not Always and Not Only What Is COVID-19 “Glitters”

  • Carla Maria Irene Quarato,
  • Carla Maria Irene Quarato,
  • Antonio Mirijello,
  • Michele Maria Maggi,
  • Cristina Borelli,
  • Raffaele Russo,
  • Donato Lacedonia,
  • Donato Lacedonia,
  • Maria Pia Foschino Barbaro,
  • Maria Pia Foschino Barbaro,
  • Giulia Scioscia,
  • Giulia Scioscia,
  • Pasquale Tondo,
  • Pasquale Tondo,
  • Gaetano Rea,
  • Annalisa Simeone,
  • Beatrice Feragalli,
  • Valentina Massa,
  • Antonio Greco,
  • Salvatore De Cosmo,
  • Marco Sperandeo,
  • Marco Sperandeo

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.707602
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 8

Abstract

Read online

Background: In the current coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, lung ultrasound (LUS) has been extensively employed to evaluate lung involvement and proposed as a useful screening tool for early diagnosis in the emergency department (ED), prehospitalization triage, and treatment monitoring of COVID-19 pneumonia. However, the actual effectiveness of LUS in characterizing lung involvement in COVID-19 is still unclear. Our aim was to evaluate LUS diagnostic performance in assessing or ruling out COVID-19 pneumonia when compared with chest CT (gold standard) in a population of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients.Methods: A total of 260 consecutive RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2-infected patients were included in the study. All the patients underwent both chest CT scan and concurrent LUS at admission, within the first 6–12 h of hospital stay.Results: Chest CT scan was considered positive when showing a “typical” or “indeterminate” pattern for COVID-19, according to the RSNA classification system. Disease prevalence for COVID-19 pneumonia was 90.77%. LUS demonstrated a sensitivity of 56.78% in detecting lung alteration. The concordance rate for the assessment of abnormalities by both methods increased in the case of peripheral distribution and middle-lower lung location of lesions and in cases of more severe lung involvement. A total of nine patients had a “false-positive” LUS examination. Alternative diagnosis included chronic heart disease (six cases), bronchiectasis (two cases), and subpleural emphysema (one case). LUS specificity was 62.50%. Collateral findings indicative of overlapping conditions at chest CT were recorded also in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and appeared distributed with increasing frequency passing from the group with mild disease (17 cases) to that with severe disease (40 cases).Conclusions: LUS does not seem to be an adequate tool for screening purposes in the ED, due to the risk of missing some lesions and/or to underestimate the actual extent of the disease. Furthermore, the not specificity of LUS implies the possibility to erroneously classify pre-existing or overlapping conditions as COVID-19 pneumonia. It seems more safe to integrate a positive LUS examination with clinical, epidemiological, laboratory, and radiologic findings to suggest a “virosis.” Viral testing confirmation is always required.

Keywords