Journal of ultrasound · 2022
Lung ultrasound (LUS) in pulmonary tuberculosis: correlation with chest CT and X-ray findings.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
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.
Giannelli Federico, Cozzi Diletta, Cavigli Edoardo, Campolmi Irene, Rinaldi Francesca, Giachè Susanna, Rogasi Pier Giorgio, Miele Vittorio, Bartolucci Maurizio
Аннотация
AIMS: The aim is to describe lung ultrasound (LUS) findings in a cohort of patients with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) and compare them with computed tomography (CT) and chest x-ray (CXR) findings in order to evaluate the potentiality of LUS in TB diagnosis.
METHODS: In this prospective study, 82 subjects with suspected TB were enrolled after being evaluated with CXR and chest CT. LUS was performed by blinded radiologists within 3 days after admission. A semiquantitative index was used: score 1 (lesions that extend for about 1-15% of the affected zone), score 2 (15-40%) and score 3 (40-100%).
RESULTS: Microbiological analysis confirmed TB diagnosis in 58/82 (70.7%). CT was positive in all patients, LUS in 79/82 (96.3%) CXR in 78/82 (95.1%) and adding LUS and CXR in 100%. In PTB patients we found a great number of lungs zones with micronodules and with total findings than non-TPB patients (p < 0.05). Overall LUS sensitivity was 80%, greater for micronodules (82%) and nodules (95%), lower for consolidation with air bronchogram (72%) and cavitations (33%). We reported 5 complicated pleural effusion at LUS, only 1 in CT. CXR overall sensitivity was 81%. Adding CXR and LUS findings we reported a sensitivity of 90%.
CONCLUSIONS: LUS could be considered a valid, non-invasive and cost-effective diagnostic tool especially in world regions where CT were not available, also in addiction with CXR.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of our University Hospital (rif. CEAVC 14,816).
METHODS: In this prospective study, 82 subjects with suspected TB were enrolled after being evaluated with CXR and chest CT. LUS was performed by blinded radiologists within 3 days after admission. A semiquantitative index was used: score 1 (lesions that extend for about 1-15% of the affected zone), score 2 (15-40%) and score 3 (40-100%).
RESULTS: Microbiological analysis confirmed TB diagnosis in 58/82 (70.7%). CT was positive in all patients, LUS in 79/82 (96.3%) CXR in 78/82 (95.1%) and adding LUS and CXR in 100%. In PTB patients we found a great number of lungs zones with micronodules and with total findings than non-TPB patients (p < 0.05). Overall LUS sensitivity was 80%, greater for micronodules (82%) and nodules (95%), lower for consolidation with air bronchogram (72%) and cavitations (33%). We reported 5 complicated pleural effusion at LUS, only 1 in CT. CXR overall sensitivity was 81%. Adding CXR and LUS findings we reported a sensitivity of 90%.
CONCLUSIONS: LUS could be considered a valid, non-invasive and cost-effective diagnostic tool especially in world regions where CT were not available, also in addiction with CXR.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of our University Hospital (rif. CEAVC 14,816).