Open Access

Accuracy of Critical Care Ultrasonography Plus Arterial Blood Gas Analysis Based Algorithm in Diagnosing Aetiology of Acute Respiratory Failure


Cite

Fig. 1

Critical Care Ultrasonography plus arterial blood gas analysis based algorithm
Critical Care Ultrasonography plus arterial blood gas analysis based algorithm

Fig. 2

Chest X ray based algorithm
Chest X ray based algorithm

Distribution of participants by their demographic and other characteristics

Characteristic N = 174
Age (mean+SD, years)
53.0 (37.0-64.0)
Gender n (%)
F -n (%) 67 (38.5%)
M -n (%)
107 (61.5%)
Source n(%)
CCU (Coronary care unit) 4 (2.3%)
CTVS surgery) (Cardiothoracic ward vascular 2 (1.1%)
ED (Emergency department) 105 (60.3%)
ENT (Ear nose throat) ward 1 (0.6%)
EW (Eye ward) 1 (0.6%)
MW (Medicine ward) 51 (29.3%)
PW (Pulmonary ward)
10 (5.7%)
Mode of ventilation n (%)
Facemask/NRBM/HFNO 11 (6.3%)
NIV 74 (42.5%)
INVASIVE
89 (51.1%)
SOFA on DOA to ICU Median (IQR)
6.0 (4.0-9.8)
CCUS based DX n (%)
Alveolar (lung) defect 69 (39.7%)
Alveolar (cardiac) defect 60 (34.5%)
Ventilation plus alveolar defect 19 (10.9%)
Perfusion defect 4 (2.3%)
Metabolic defect
22 (12.6%)
CXR based DX n (%)
Alveolar (lung) defect 71 (40.8%)
Alveolar(cardiac) defect 69 (39.7%)
Ventilation plus alveolar defect 5 (2.9%)
Perfusion defect 24 (13.8%)
Metabolic defect 5 (2.9%)
Need of vasopressors on day 1 n (%) 137 (78.7%)
LOS in ICU days Median (IQR)
6.0 (4.0, 11.0)
Composite diagnosis n (%)
Alveolar (lung) defect 63 (36.2%)
Alveolar(cardiac) defect 55 (31.6%)
Ventilation plus alveolar defect 18 (10.3%)
Perfusion defect 6 (3.4%)
Metabolic defect
32 (18.4%)
Outcome n (%)
Discharged 115 (66.1%)
Death 59 (33.9%)

Correlation of CCUS based algorithm/ Chest X ray based algorithm vs Composite diagnosis

Sensitivity Specificity PPV Cohn’s Kappa
1 CCUS vs Composite diagnosis (Alveolar- Pneumonia) 85.71% (75.03-92.3) 86.49% (78.9-91.64) 78.26 (67.18-86.36) 0.7074 (0.5593-0.8566)
2 CxR vs Composite diagnosis (Alveolar- Pneumonia) 84.13% (73.91-91.14) 83.78% (75.82-89.94) 74.65 (63.45-83.30) 0.661 (0.5131-0.8088)
3 CCUS vs CxR (Alveolar- Pneumonia) 0.59 (0.44-0.74)
4 CCUS vs Composite diagnosis (Alveolar- Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema) 94.55% (85.15-98.13) 93.28% (87.28-98.55) 86.67 (75.83-93.08) 0.8573 (0.709-1.006)
5 CxR vs Composite diagnosis (Alveolar- Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema) 90.91% (80.42-96.05) 84.03% (76.4-89.53) 72.46 (60.95-81.61) 0.7014 (0.551-0.8477)
6 CCUS vs CxR (Alveolar- Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema) 0.6438 (0.49-0.75)
7 CCUS (Ventilation vs Composite with Alveolar diagnosis defect) (60.7883.33-94.16% ) (93.5997.44-% 99) (56.6778.95 -91.49) (0.13980.7883 -0.9368)
8 CxR vs Composite diagnosis (Ventilation with Alveolar defect) 22.22% (9.001-45.22) 99.36% (96.46-99.89) 80 (37.55-96.38) 0.3171 (0.1973-0.4369)
9 CCUS vs CxR (Ventilation with Alveolar defect) 0.3016 (0.18-0.41)
10 CCUS vs Composite diagnosis ( Perfusion defect) 66.67% (30-90.32) 100% (97.76-100) 100 (51.01-100) 0.7943 (0.6489-0.9397)
11 CxR vs Composite diagnosis ( Perfusion defect) 50% (18.78-81.24) 87.5% (81.65-91.68) 12.5 (4.344-31) 0.1553 (0.0385-0.2681)
12 CCUS vs CxR (Perfusion defect) 0.10 (0.08-0.207)
13 CCUS vs Composite diagnosis (Metabolic defect) 62.65% (45.25-77.07) 98.59% (95.01-99.69) 90.91 (72.98-97.47) 0.695 (0.55-0.840)
14 CxR vs Composite diagnosis (Metabolic defect) 15.63% (6.864-31.75) 100 (97.37-100) 100 (96.55-100) 0.2321 (0.1369-0.3273)
15 CCUS vs CxR (Metabolic defect) 0.28 (0.15-0.37)

Agreement of CCUS with CXR

Characteristic Alveolar (lung) defect N = 69 Alveolar (cardiac) defect N = 60 Ventilation plus alveolar defect N = 19 Perfusion defect N = 4 Metabolic defect N = 22
CXR based DX
Alveolar (lung) defect 53 (76.8%) 8 (13.3%) 8 (42.1%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (9.1%)
Alveolar(cardiac) defect 12 (17.4%) 50 (83.3%) 5 (26.3%) 2 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Ventilation plus alveolar defect 1 (1.4%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (21.1%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Perfusion defect 2 (2.9%) 2 (3.3%) 2 (10.5%) 2 (50.0%) 16 (72.7%)
Metabolic defect 1 (1.4%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (18.2%)

Agreement of CCUS and CXR with Composite Diagnosis

Characteristic Alveolar (lung) defect N = 63 Alveolar (cardiac) defect N = 55 Ventilation plus alveolar defect N = 18 Perfusion defect N = 6 Metabolic defect N = 32
CCUS based DX
Alveolar (lung) defect 54 (85.7%) 3 (5.5%) 3 (16.7%) 0 (0.0%) 9 (28.1%)
Alveolar(cardiac) defect 5 (7.9%) 52 (94.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (9.4%)
Ventilation plus alveolar defect 2 (3.2%) 0 (0.0%) 15 (83.3%) 2 (33.3%) 0 (0.0%)
Perfusion defect 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (66.7%) 0 (0.0%)
Metabolic defect
2 (3.2%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
20 (62.5%)
CXR based DX
Alveolar (lung) defect 53 (84.1%) 5 (9.1%) 10 (55.6%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (9.4%)
Alveolar(cardiac) defect 8 (12.7%) 50 (90.9%) 3 (16.7%) 3 (50.0%) 5 (15.6%)
Ventilation plus alveolar defect 1 (1.6%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (22.2%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Perfusion defect 1 (1.6%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (5.6%) 3 (50.0%) 19 (59.4%)
Metabolic defect 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (15.6%)
eISSN:
2393-1817
Language:
English