The Impact of Different Lung Ultrasound Protocols in the Assessment of Lung Lesions in COVID-19 Patients: Is There an Ideal Lung Ultrasound Protocol?.

Background In the past months, several lung ultrasonography (LUS) protocols have been proposed, mainly on previously validated schemes independent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objectives The main purpose of this study was to determine the impact and accuracy of different LUS protocols proposed in COVID-19. Methods Patients were evaluated with a standard sequence of LUS scans in 72 intercostal spaces along 14 anatomic lines in the chest. A scoring system of LUS findings was reported and then analyzed separately according to each proposed LUS protocol zones. This score was then correlated to a validated Pulmonary Inflammation Index (PII) on chest Computed Tomography (CT). Results Thirty-two patients were enrolled. The most frequent pattern was ground-glass opacities in the chest X-ray (53.1%), chest CT (59.1%) and subpleural or lobar consolidations (40.8%) in the posteroinferior areas (p < 0.001) on LUS. The Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was significantly correlated with almost every protocol analyzed except the 8-zone (p = 0.119) and the 10-zone protocol that only included one posterior point (p = 0.052). The highest ICC was obtained with a 12-zone protocol (ICC 0.500; p = 0.027) and decreased as more points were included. Conclusions In conclusion, our study results suggest that performing an ultrasound protocol with 12-zone scanning, including the superior and inferior areas of the anterior, lateral and posterior regions of the chest was consistent with higher ICC and higher degree of concordance with CT. We emphasize the need of a more standardization technique to further implement and develop this imaging modality in COVID-19post-print1035 K

Evolution over Time of Ventilatory Management and Outcome of Patients with Neurologic Disease∗

OBJECTIVES: To describe the changes in ventilator management over time in patients with neurologic disease at ICU admission and to estimate factors associated with 28-day hospital mortality. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of three prospective, observational, multicenter studies. SETTING: Cohort studies conducted in 2004, 2010, and 2016. PATIENTS: Adult patients who received mechanical ventilation for more than 12 hours. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among the 20,929 patients enrolled, we included 4,152 (20%) mechanically ventilated patients due to different neurologic diseases. Hemorrhagic stroke and brain trauma were the most common pathologies associated with the need for mechanical ventilation. Although volume-cycled ventilation remained the preferred ventilation mode, there was a significant (p &lt; 0.001) increment in the use of pressure support ventilation. The proportion of patients receiving a protective lung ventilation strategy was increased over time: 47% in 2004, 63% in 2010, and 65% in 2016 (p &lt; 0.001), as well as the duration of protective ventilation strategies: 406 days per 1,000 mechanical ventilation days in 2004, 523 days per 1,000 mechanical ventilation days in 2010, and 585 days per 1,000 mechanical ventilation days in 2016 (p &lt; 0.001). There were no differences in the length of stay in the ICU, mortality in the ICU, and mortality in hospital from 2004 to 2016. Independent risk factors for 28-day mortality were age greater than 75 years, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II greater than 50, the occurrence of organ dysfunction within first 48 hours after brain injury, and specific neurologic diseases such as hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic stroke, and brain trauma. CONCLUSIONS: More lung-protective ventilatory strategies have been implemented over years in neurologic patients with no effect on pulmonary complications or on survival. We found several prognostic factors on mortality such as advanced age, the severity of the disease, organ dysfunctions, and the etiology of neurologic disease