Tunis Med. 2022 Aug-Sep;100(8-9):642-646.
Lung ultrasound (LUS) has been recommended by the British Thoracic Society as a standard of care before performing pleural procedures since 2010. Indeed, the choice of the puncture site based only on physical examination and chest x-ray can lead to complications. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of pleural puncture sites using LUS as opposed to clinical examination.
An evaluative prospective study including 43 patients hospitalized in the pneumology department at the Military Hospital of Tunis was conducted between January and November 2021.Pleural puncture sites were proposed by two groups involving 'senior' and 'junior' physicians, classified according to their experience and grades, based on the clinical examination and the chest x-ray findings. The accuracy of the proposed sites was then verified by an ultrasound-qualified "expert" using LUS.
The mean age was 60 ± 17 years. LUS revealed the presence of pleural effusion in 88% of the cases (n=38). Differential diagnosis was therefore excluded in 12% of the cases (n=5), including pleural thickening (5%, n=2) and atelectasis (7%, n=3). Compared to LUS, clinical examination and chest x-ray had lower sensitivities, estimated at 74% and 83%, respectively. The clinical identification error rate was significantly higher in junior (77%) compared to senior physicians (49%) (p<0.05). LUS prevented possible accidental organ puncture in 36% of the cases (n=31). The risk factors associated with inaccurate clinical site selection included right-sided effusion and minimal pleural effusion on chest radiography, with an estimated relative risk (RR) of 1.44 [CI95%:0.56-3.72] and 1.82 [CI95%:0.52-6.40], respectively. The experience of the senior physicians influenced the choice of the clinical sites with moderate agreement (Kappa index: 0.4-0.6).
Compared to the ACPA- group, the ACPA+ one had more lung-hyperinflation and OVI, and comparative percentages of RVI, MVI, and NSVI.
LUS significantly improves the accuracy of pleural puncture sites, thus minimizing the risk of complications regardless of the operator's level of clinical experience.
自 2010 年以来,英国胸科学会已将肺部超声(LUS)推荐为进行胸腔操作前的常规护理标准。事实上,仅根据体格检查和胸部 X 线检查选择穿刺部位可能会导致并发症。本研究旨在比较使用 LUS 与临床检查确定胸腔穿刺部位的准确性。
这是一项评估性前瞻性研究,纳入了 2021 年 1 月至 11 月期间在突尼斯军事医院呼吸科住院的 43 名患者。根据经验和级别,将参与的“资深”和“初级”医生分成两组,根据临床检查和胸部 X 线检查结果提出胸腔穿刺部位。然后,由一位具有超声资质的“专家”使用 LUS 验证所提出的部位的准确性。
患者平均年龄为 60±17 岁。LUS 显示 88%(n=38)的病例存在胸腔积液。因此,在 12%的病例(n=5)中排除了鉴别诊断,包括胸腔增厚(5%,n=2)和肺不张(7%,n=3)。与 LUS 相比,临床检查和胸部 X 线检查的敏感性较低,分别为 74%和 83%。初级医生的临床识别错误率明显高于高级医生(77%比 49%)(p<0.05)。LUS 防止了 36%(n=31)的可能意外器官穿刺。与临床部位选择不准确相关的危险因素包括右侧胸腔积液和胸部 X 线检查中少量胸腔积液,估计相对风险(RR)分别为 1.44(95%CI95%:0.56-3.72)和 1.82(95%CI95%:0.52-6.40)。高级医生的经验影响了临床部位的选择,一致性中等(Kappa 指数:0.4-0.6)。
与 ACPA-组相比,ACPA+组的肺过度充气和 OVI 更多,RVI、MVI 和 NSVI 的比例相似。
无论操作者的临床经验水平如何,LUS 都能显著提高胸腔穿刺部位的准确性,从而最大限度地降低并发症的风险。