Intern Emerg Med. 2023 Sep 25. doi: 10.1007/s11739-023-03433-2. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
There is no strong evidence that one of the B-line quantification approaches is clinically superior to the others, as the use of lung ultrasound (LUS) protocol becomes more commonplace in the treatment of heart failure (HF). This study, thus, aimed to evaluate to the prognostic value, feasibility, and reproducibility for selecting optimal B-line quantification methods. We enrolled patients with HF admitted to the emergency intensive care unit (EICU) in a single-center, prospective, observational study. LUS were performed before EICU discharge, and six B-line quantification methods were used to calculate scores. A total of 71 patients were enrolled. There was a moderately good discriminative value between six quantification methods and the composite outcome. The calibration curve of six B-line quantification methods for the probability of the composite outcome showed good agreement between prediction and observation. Decision curve presented that six B-line quantification methods presented similar net benefits at the entire range of threshold probabilities. Image interpretation time of Quantitative methods 1 and 2 was significantly less than that of other methods. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for B-pattern scoring systems (Quantitative methods 1 and 2) between two experts demonstrated the excellent level of clinical significance. Despite the similar discrimination, calibration and clinical usefulness, pattern-B scoring systems have the benefit of the feasibility and reproducibility over other methods.
PMID:37747589 | DOI:10.1007/s11739-023-03433-2