Accuracy of Resident-Performed Point-of-Care Lung Ultrasound Examinations Versus Chest Radiography in Pneumothorax Follow-up After Tube Thoracostomy in Rwanda.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and timeliness of resident-performed point-of-care lung ultrasound (LUS) examinations for the follow-up of pneumothorax (PTX) after tube thoracostomy.

METHODS

After brief training, Rwandan surgical residents blinded to chest radiography (CXR) performed and interpreted LUS examinations for PTX in participants undergoing CXR for PTX follow-up. Treating clinicians interpreted CXR for the presence of PTX for therapeutic decisions. Lung ultrasound was later reviewed by ultrasound experts, and CXR was reviewed by a radiologist. We defined expert LUS interpretation as the reference standard. The sensitivity and specificity of resident-performed LUS examinations for diagnosing PTX were calculated. We assessed agreement between trained resident versus expert LUS and clinician versus radiology CXR using the Cohen κ coefficient. We compared the time to results between LUS and CXR.

RESULTS

Over an 8-month period, 51 participants were enrolled. Compared to expert LUS interpretation, the sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence intervals) of resident LUS were 100% (85%-100%) and 96% (82%-100%), respectively, whereas the sensitivity and specificity of clinician-interpreted CXR were 48% (27%-69%) and 100% (88%-100%). The agreement between resident and expert LUS was excellent (κ = 0.96), whereas the agreement between clinician and radiologist CXR was only moderate (κ = 0.60). The time to results was significantly longer for CXR than LUS (mean, 1335 versus 396 minutes; P = .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

A resident-performed LUS examination was a quicker imaging modality with superior sensitivity compared to clinician-interpreted CXR for PTX follow-up after tube thoracostomy in this Rwandan study. Lung ultrasound can be a valuable imaging tool for PTX follow-up, especially in resource-limited settings.