MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-25061

Медицинская библиотека · Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025

Comparative Analysis of Lung Ultrasound, Computed Tomography, and X-ray in the Diagnosis of Common Pathologies among Critically Ill Mechanically Ventilated Patients-A Prospective Observational Study.

Al Tayar Ashraf S, Salem Hosni A, Abdelshafey Eslam E, Rashwan Mohamed A, Khalil Mohmed F, Alwafi Hebah A, Alhabashy Walid S, Altayar Shamekh H, Elfakhrany Nazeh E, Zidan Dina H, Nasa Prashant

СтатьяПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Chest X-ray (CXR) and computed tomography (CT) are established imaging modalities for patients in respiratory distress, and lung ultrasound (LUS) has emerged as an efficient point-of-care alternative. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of LUS and CXR in critically ill patients, utilizing CT thorax as the reference standard.

PATIENT AND

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted in a tertiary care intensive care unit (ICU) involving mechanically ventilated adult patients requiring CT thorax. Before the CT, patients underwent portable CXR and LUS. Diagnostic performance metrics were calculated using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and AUC-ROC for pneumothorax, pleural effusion, consolidation, collapse, and pulmonary edema for CXR and LUS compared to CT. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using Cohen's κ.

RESULTS

A total of 110 patients were included in this study. Overall, the performance of LUS was significantly superior to CXR for diagnosing various pathologies. Lung ultrasound exhibited 100% sensitivity and 97% specificity, outperforming CXR (66.7% sensitivity) for the detection of pneumothorax. For pleural effusion, LUS achieved 100% sensitivity and specificity, reflecting perfect concordance with CT, especially for moderate and severe pleural effusions, while CXR had an accuracy of only 68.18%. Lung consolidation and collapse were identified with 100% sensitivity and PPV by LUS. Furthermore, the accuracy of LUS in diagnosing pulmonary edema was 96.4%, with a specificity of 95.3% and an NPV of 100%.

CONCLUSION

Across five pathologies that were evaluated in this study, LUS consistently outperformed CXR in diagnostic accuracy and concordance with CT thorax.

HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Al Tayar AS, Salem HA, Abdelshafey EE, Rashwan MA, Khalil MF, Alwafi HA, et al. Comparative Analysis of Lung Ultrasound, Computed Tomography, and X-ray in the Diagnosis of Common Pathologies among Critically Ill Mechanically Ventilated Patients-A Prospective Observational Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2025;29(10):807-814.

Для цитирования: Al Tayar Ashraf S, Salem Hosni A, Abdelshafey Eslam E, Rashwan Mohamed A, Khalil Mohmed F, Alwafi Hebah A, Alhabashy Walid S, Altayar Shamekh H, Elfakhrany Nazeh E, Zidan Dina H, Nasa Prashant. Comparative Analysis of Lung Ultrasound, Computed Tomography, and X-ray in the Diagnosis of Common Pathologies among Critically Ill Mechanically Ventilated Patients-A Prospective Observational Study.. Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine. 2025. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-25061.
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.