Usefulness of Lung Ultrasound in Paediatric Respiratory Diseases

Respiratory infection diseases are among the major causes of morbidity and mortality in children. Diagnosis is focused on clinical presentation, yet signs and symptoms are not specific and there is a need for new non-radiating diagnostic tools. Among these, lung ultrasound (LUS) has recently been included in point-of-care protocols showing interesting results. In comparison to other imaging techniques, such as chest X-ray and computed tomography, ultrasonography does not use ionizing radiations. Therefore, it is particularly suitable for clinical follow-up of paediatric patients. LUS requires only 5–10 min and allows physicians to make quick decisions about the patient’s management. Nowadays, LUS has become an early diagnostic tool to detect pneumonia during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this narrative review, we show the most recent scientific literature about advantages and limits of LUS performance in children. Furthermore, we discuss the major paediatric indications separately, with a paragraph fully dedicated to COVID-19. Finally, we mention potential future perspectives about LUS application in paediatric respiratory diseases

Distinct Mechanical Properties of the Respiratory System Evaluated by Forced Oscillation Technique in Acute Exacerbation of COPD and Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

Discriminating between cardiac and pulmonary dyspnea is essential for patients’ management. We investigated the feasibility and ability of forced oscillation techniques (FOT) in distinguishing between acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD), and acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) in a clinical emergency setting. We enrolled 49 patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) for dyspnea and acute respiratory failure for AECOPD, or ADHF, and 11 healthy subjects. All patients were able to perform bedside FOT measurement. Patients with AECOPD showed a significantly higher inspiratory resistance at 5 Hz, Xrs5 (179% of predicted, interquartile range, IQR 94–224 vs. 100 IQR 67–149; p = 0.019), and a higher inspiratory reactance at 5 Hz (151%, IQR 74–231 vs. 57 IQR 49–99; p = 0.005) than patients with ADHF. Moreover, AECOPD showed higher heterogeneity of ventilation (respiratory system resistance difference at 5 and 19 Hz, Rrs5-19: 1.49 cmH2O/(L/s), IQR 1.03–2.16 vs. 0.44 IQR 0.22–0.76; p = 0.030), and a higher percentage of flow limited breaths compared to ADHF (10%, IQR 0–100 vs. 0 IQR 0–12; p = 0.030). FOT, which resulted in a suitable tool to be used in the ED setting, has the ability to identify distinct mechanical properties of the respiratory system in AECOPD and ADHF

EFFECTS OF AIR STACKING ON DYSPNEA AND LUNG FUNCTION IN NEUROMUSCULAR DISEASES

To investigate whether the decrease in dyspnea in neuromuscular diseases after air stacking (AS) occurs mostly in patients with decreased inspiratory muscles force and ensuing chest wall restriction or heterogeneous ventilation across the lungs

Management of acute respiratory failure in interstitial lung diseases: overview and clinical insights

Abstract Background Interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) are a heterogeneous group of diseases characterized by widespread fibrotic and inflammatory abnormalities of the lung. Respiratory failure is a common complication in advanced stages or following acute worsening of the underlying disease. Aim of this review is to evaluate the current evidence in determining the best management of acute respiratory failure (ARF) in ILDs. Methods A literature search was performed in the Medline/PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify studies that investigated the management of ARF in ILDs (the last search was conducted on November 2017). Results In managing ARF, it is important to establish an adequate diagnostic and therapeutic management depending on whether the patient has an underlying known chronic ILD or ARF is presenting in an unknown or de novo ILD. In the first case both primary causes, such as acute exacerbations of the disease, and secondary causes, including concomitant pulmonary infections, fluid overload and pulmonary embolism need to be investigated. In the second case, a diagnostic work-up that includes investigations in regards to ILD etiology, such as autoimmune screening and bronchoalveolar lavage, should be performed, and possible concomitant causes of ARF have to be ruled out. Oxygen supplementation and ventilatory support need to be titrated according to the severity of ARF and patients’ therapeutic options. High-Flow Nasal oxygen might potentially be an alternative to conventional oxygen therapy in patients requiring both high flows and high oxygen concentrations to correct hypoxemia and control dyspnea, however the evidence is still scarce. Neither Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV) nor Invasive Mechanical Ventilation (IMV) seem to change the poor outcomes associated to advanced stages of ILDs. However, in selected patients, such as those with less severe ARF, a NIV trial might help in the early recognition of NIV-responder patients, who may present a better short-term prognosis. More invasive techniques, including IMV and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation, should be limited to patients listed for lung transplant or with reversible causes of ARF. Conclusions Despite the overall poor prognosis of ARF in ILDs, a personalized approach may positively influence patients’ management, possibly leading to improved outcomes. However, further studies are warranted

Severity grading of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the confounding effect of phenotype and thoracic gas compression

Current guidelines recommend severity of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease be graded by using forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). But this measurement is biased by thoracic gas compression depending on lung volume and airflow resistance. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that the effect of thoracic gas compression on FEV1 is greater in emphysema than chronic bronchitis because of larger lung volumes, and this influences severity classification and prognosis. FEV1 was simultaneously measured by spirometry and body plethysmography (FEV1-pl) in 47 subjects with dominant emphysema and 51 with dominant chronic bronchitis. Subjects with dominant emphysema had larger lung volumes, lower diffusion capacity, and lower FEV1 than those with dominant chronic bronchitis. However, FEV1-pl, patient-centered variables (dyspnea, quality of life, exercise tolerance, exacerbation frequency), arterial blood gases, and respiratory impedance were not significantly different between groups. Using FEV1-pl instead of FEV1 shifted severity distribution toward less severe classes in dominant emphysema more than chronic bronchitis. The body mass, obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise (BODE) index was significantly higher in dominant emphysema than chronic bronchitis, but this difference significantly decreased when FEV1-pl was substituted for FEV1. In conclusion, the FEV1 is biased by thoracic gas compression more in subjects with dominant emphysema than in those with chronic bronchitis. This variably and significantly affects the severity grading systems currently recommended