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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome that occurs when intracardiac pressures are elevated and/or cardiac output is inadequate due to a structural and/or functional abnormality of the heart [1, 2]. HF affects an estimated 26 million people worldwide [3], and has high incidence and mortality rates especially in intensive care units (ICUs) [4, 5], so it confers a substantial burden on individuals, healthcare systems and society around the globe [2]. Pulmonary congestion is a common condition for patients with HF that can be semi-quantified by lung ultrasound (LUS), and correlates with high rates of readmission and death [6, 7]. Decongestive strategies including diuretics and vasodilators are the cornerstone of acute HF treatment [1, 8]. In a prospective, single-center, observational study, patients hospitalized for decompensated HF were enrolled and the Kaplan–Meier analysis found a better event-free survival in the group with B-lines negative at discharge compared with its counterpart [9], while a higher number of B-lines at discharge identified patients at increased risk for hospitalization and death [10,11,12,13,14,15].
The several existing LUS scoring systems differ in the number and designation of thoracic zones scanned, and B-line quantification methods [16]. Recent studies in HF cohorts have reported 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, or 28 chest zones [12, 17,18,19,20,21], and 8‑point and 28-point methods have been recommended to assess cardiogenic pulmonary edema by an international guideline in 2012 [22]. A prospective study conducted in four emergency departments demonstrated that the highest increase in the C-index on top of the clinical diagnosis score was observed with the 8-point method among four methods (4-, 6-, 8-, and 28-point methods) [23]. Meanwhile, it was confirmed that 8‑point and 28-point methods have similar prognostic value in patients with HF [11]. But a single-center, prospective observational study of 20 ICU patients showed that the examination time of 8‑point method is significantly shorter than that of 28-point method with no significant reduction in B-lines detection [24]. Furthermore, a prospective comparative study has found that 8‑point method could be timesaving with similar reproducibility when compared with 28-point method [16]. The simplified 8-zone protocol, therefore, can be recommended for clinicians both in the clinical setting and for research [25].
To our knowledge, there were six approaches of B-line quantification on LUS after scanning 8 zones [26,27,28,29]. Although 8‑point method has been accepted because it has a timesaving benefit over 28-point method, to date, there is no published evidence to demonstrate that one of the B-line quantification approaches is clinically superior to the others, and the prognostic value, feasibility, and reproducibility are not compared among different scoring methods of 8-point LUS protocol.
Accordingly, we aimed to evaluate the associations between each of B-line quantification methods of 8-point LUS protocol and the composite outcome (readmission to the ICUs or death within 180 days) in patients with HF at emergency intensive care unit (EICU), and to compare the prognostic value, feasibility, and reproducibility for selecting optimal methods.
Methods
Study patients
In this single-center, prospective study, we consecutively enrolled patients admitted to EICU for acute HF from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2020. The inclusion criteria were: (1) age ≥ 18 years; (2) acute HF diagnosis, satisfying the European Society of Cardiology guidelines [8]; (3) chest radiography or CT showed central distribution of edema, increased heart size or increased pulmonary blood volume [30], or lung ultrasonography demonstrated bilateral and symmetric distribution of B-lines at EICU admission [31]; and (4) patients did not require mechanical ventilation or underwent ventilator weaning at EICU discharge. Exclusion criteria were: (1) severe diseases hampering image acquisition (pulmonary fibrosis, severe emphysema, pulmonary cancer or metastases, breast prosthesis, pleurisy, previous pneumectomy or lobectomy); (2) pregnancy; and (3) features that would influence follow-up [12, 32].
Biochemical analysis
Blood samples were obtained within 24 h before EICU discharge. D-Dimer was measured using automated coagulation analyzer (Coapresta 2000; Sekisui, Osaka, Japan). Liver and kidney’s function, electrolyte, brain natriuretic peptide, and troponin I were measured using automation solution (APTIO; Siemens, Nuremberg, Germany).
Echocardiography
Echocardiography was performed using the Mindray M7 Diagnostic Ultrasound System (Shenzhen Mindray Bio-Medical Electronics Co., Ltd, Guangdong, China) within 24 h before EICU discharge. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was obtained using the biplane Simpson’s method [33]. Measurements of inferior cava (IVC) diameter and IVC collapsibility index (IVC-CI) using M-mode imaging were measured as recommended [34]. Pulmonary arterial systolic pressure (PASP) was estimated using continuous wave Doppler (CW Doppler) echocardiography via assessment of the peak tricuspid regurgitation velocity (TRV) and taking into account right atrial pressure (RAP), according to recent guidelines [35, 36].
Lung ultrasound
The study physician performed 8-zone LUS examinations using a phased array transducer on commercially available ultrasound machines (Shenzhen Mindray Bio-Medical Electronics Co., Ltd, Guangdong, China) after immediate echocardiography before EICU discharge. Patients were assessed while lying in a semi-supine position (45∘), and each window was recorded for 6–7 s [37]. We evaluated the anterolateral chest, including two parasternal chest scans and two scans of the anterior and lateral basal chest on the right and left hemi thoraxes [33]. To date, six B-line quantification methods to our knowledge have been mentioned in recent studies, which were as follows:
Quantitative method 1: the number of positive zones (positive zone: at least three B-lines on a frozen image) [14].
Quantitative method 2: the number of positive zones (positive zone: in presence of ≥ 3 B-lines simultaneously or pleural effusion on a frozen image) [16].
Quantitative method 3: the total number of B-lines (fused B-lines which cannot be distinguished as separate are counted as a single B-line) [29].
Quantitative method 4: the counting method of single and confluent B-lines was shown in Additional file 1, and the score ranging from 0 to 80 was calculated to summarize the B-lines of 8 zones [28].
Quantitative method 5: the scores of discrete B-lines were determined by B-line counts, and the scores of confluent B-lines were assessed by multiplying the percentage of rib interspace occupied by B-lines by 10; the total B-line count was determined by summing the scores of 8 zones [26].
Quantitative method 6: the scores of discrete B-lines were determined by B-line counts, while the scores of wide, fused, or coalescing B-lines were determined by multiplying the percentage of the intercostal space filled with confluent B-lines by 20; the total score was calculated by summing the scores of 8 zones [27].
According to their characteristics, we divide the six B-line quantification methods into two categories [29]: (1) the B-pattern scoring systems: the number of positive zones (Quantitative methods 1 and 2), (2) the B-line count: the total number of single and confluent B-lines which were regarded as single B-lines (Quantitative method 3), and the total number of single and fused B-lines, which were preliminarily estimated (Quantitative method 4) or more accurately calculated (Quantitative methods 5 and 6) based on the percentage of the rib space.
A single operator performed 8-point LUS protocol and collected ultrasound images in the intercostal space, two experienced emergency physicians were responsible for image interpretation using six B-line quantification methods, and the measured data were averaged. The time spent for interpretation was measured, and all of them were blinded to patient's course and took no part in the clinical management.
Sample size calculation
The sample size in logistic regression analysis was sufficient on the basis of the minimal ten events per variable rule [38, 39]. The minimum sample size in other statistical methods was calculated using power analysis and sample size (PASS) software (version 11.0.7; PASS, NCSS, LLC) [40, 41]. Meanwhile, the power was set to be at least 80%, and the p value was set to be less than 0.05.
Outcomes
The primary outcome was the statistical performance of B-line quantification methods, including discrimination, calibration and clinical usefulness (the applicability of quantification methods to contemporary clinical practice) [42, 43]. Secondary outcomes included the feasibility (the time spent for image interpretation) and reproducibility of diverse B-line quantification methods.
Statistical analysis
Categorical data are presented as numbers with percentages, and continuous variables are represented as means with standard deviations or medians with 25–75% interquartile ranges displayed, depending on whether data distribution was normal or nonnormal. Patient baseline characteristics were recorded, Fisher’s exact tests or Chi-squared tests were used to compare categorical variables, Student t tests were used to compare normally distributed variables, and Wilcoxon rank tests were used to compare continuous variables which were not normally distributed.
Multivariable logistic models were used to estimate odd ratios (ORs) with 95% confidential intervals (95% CIs) of the composite outcome (readmission to the ICUs or death within 180 days). The composite outcome was repeated in the models: (1) Model 1: crude model without adjustment; and (2) Model 2: adjusted for variables with P < 0.1 between the two groups with and without primary outcome.
Discrimination assessed how well these B-line quantification methods differentiates between those patients who experienced the composite outcome (readmission to the ICUs or death within 180 days) and those who did not, and it was measured by the area under the ROC curve (AUC); calibration was assessed graphically using a calibration plot; clinical usefulness was shown by decision curves. According to an arbitrary guideline, the discriminative ability of a test is considered: non-informative (AUC = 0.5); low accurate (0.5 < AUC ≤ 0.7); moderately accurate (0.7 < AUC ≤ 0.9); highly accurate (0.9 < AUC < 1); or perfect (AUC = 1) [44]. Differences in the feasibility among B-line quantification methods were presented in boxplot. We evaluated the inter-rater reliability of B-line quantification methods between two emergency physicians using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), according to the criteria stated by the guidelines (less than 0.40—poor; between 0.40 and 0.59—fair; between 0.60 and 0.74—good; between 0.75 and 1.00—excellent) [45].
A P value < 0.05 was considered significant. Statistical analyses were performed using R software (version 4.2.2, R foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).
Results
Patient characteristics
A total of 71 patients were enrolled during the period of January 2018 to December 2020. Baseline characteristics and medical treatments are shown in Table 1. In the whole cohort, the median age was 79 years, and 50.70% of patients were male. The etiologies of current HF hospitalization were coronary heart disease (70.4%), hypertensive heart disease (15.5%), and valvular heart disease (4.2%).
There were no significant statistical differences regarding the demographics or clinical characteristics between both groups, except for the presence of higher age in patients with composite outcome events (80.50 (72.00, 86.00) vs. 76.00 (71.00, 82.00), p = 0.034). We observed that higher scores of six B-line quantification methods were related to the composite outcome. With respect to drugs prescribed in EICU, we found patients with composite outcome events had lower angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) usage rates and higher Furosemide usage rates (5.3 vs. 24.2%, p = 0.037; 100.0 vs. 87.9%, p = 0.042, respectively).
Relationship between the LUS scoring methods and the composite outcome
Table 2 presents the association between six B-line quantification methods and the composite outcome (readmission to the ICUs or death within 180 days).
In the crude model (Model 1), Quantitative method 1 (OR: 1.446, 95% CI 1.117–1.872, p = 0.005), Quantitative method 2 (OR: 1.444, 95% CI 1.114–1.872, p = 0.006), Quantitative method 3 (OR: 1.127, 95% CI 1.036–1.255, p = 0.005), Quantitative method 4 (OR: 1.112, 95% CI 1.027–1.203, p = 0.009), Quantitative method 5 (OR: 1.128, 95% CI 1.039–1.225, p = 0.004), and Quantitative method 6 (OR: 1.094, 95% CI 1.029–1.164, p = 0.004) increased the risk of the composite outcome.
When adjusting for the potential risk factors (Model 2), Quantitative method 1 (OR: 1.657, 95% CI 1.183–2.321, p = 0.003), Quantitative method 2 (OR: 1.659, 95% CI 1.183–2.325, p = 0.003), Quantitative method 3 (OR: 1.167, 95% CI 1.048–1.299, p = 0.005), Quantitative method 4 (OR: 1.156, 95% CI 1.038–1.287, p = 0.008), Quantitative method 5 (OR: 1.174, 95% CI 1.052–1.310, p = 0.004), and Quantitative method 6 (OR: 1.139, 95% CI 1.046–1.241, p = 0.003) increased the risk of the composite outcome.
Discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness of B-line quantification methods
Quantitative method 1 (AUC = 0.707, 95% CI 0.584–0.829, p < 0.001; cutoff value 2.5; specificity 78.9%, sensitivity 60.6%), Quantitative method 2 (AUC = 0.705, 95% CI 0.583–0.828, p < 0.001; cutoff value 2.5; specificity 78.9%, sensitivity 60.6%), Quantitative method 3 (AUC = 0.711, 95% CI 0.589–0.832, p < 0.001; cutoff value 10.5; specificity 76.3%, sensitivity 60.6%), Quantitative method 4 (AUC = 0.717, 95% CI 0.596–0.838, p < 0.001; cutoff value 13.5; specificity 68.4%, sensitivity 69.7%), Quantitative method 5 (AUC = 0.714, 95% CI 0.593–0.835, p < 0.001; cutoff value 18.5; specificity 78.9%, sensitivity 57.6%), and Quantitative method 6 (AUC = 0.713, 95% CI 0.594–0.832, p < 0.001; cutoff value 24.5; specificity 68.4%, sensitivity 66.7%), showed moderately accurate discriminative values in differentiating patients with the composite outcome (Fig. 1). 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 (Fig. 2). Figure 3 illustrates the decision curves for six B-line quantification methods to predict the composite outcome in patients with HF. Decision curve presented that six B-line quantification methods presented similar net benefits at the entire range of threshold probabilities.
The feasibility and reproducibility among six quantification methods
The boxplot (Fig. 4) indicates a significant difference of the time spent for image interpretation among six B-line quantification methods. Image interpretation time of the B-pattern scoring systems (Quantitative methods 1 and 2) was significantly less than that of other methods, and interpretation time of the B-line count based on the percentage of the rib space (Quantitative methods 5 and 6) was significantly more than that of other methods.
ICC for Quantitative methods 1 and 2 between two experts were 0.927 (0.885–0.954) and 0.886(0.824–0.928), respectively, which demonstrated the excellent level of clinical significance; ICC for Quantitative methods 3, 4, 5, and 6 between two experts were 0.740 (0.614–0.830), 0.737 (0.609–0.827), 0.749 (0.626–0.836) and 0.747 (0.623–0.835), respectively, and the level of clinical significance was good (Table 3).
Discussion
In this prospective observational study, we found that higher scores of 8‑point lung ultrasonography were related to the composite outcome, and six B-line quantification methods had similar discrimination, calibration and clinical usefulness, the feasibility, and reproducibility of B-pattern scoring systems (Quantitative methods 1 and 2) was nevertheless superior to other methods.
Studies have demonstrated that pulmonary congestion detected by 8-point LUS protocol could predict rehospitalization for HF events and/or all-cause death. Two studies have suggested there was a significant positive correlation between the number of positive zones (Quantitative method 1) at discharge and the risk of 30 day readmission or 4-year all-cause mortality [14, 46]. Several studies showed that B-lines (Quantitative method 3) at admission or before discharge were associated with HF readmission or death at 1, 3, 6, or 12 months [33, 47,48,49,50]. A multivariate cox regression showed that B-lines ≥ 30 (Quantitative method 4) at admission was a risk factor for 1-year death or rehospitalization [28]. Compared to those with < 19 B-lines (Quantitative method 5), patients with ≥ 19 B-lines at admission had a fourfold higher hazard of in-hospital mortality [26]. Our study was consistent with these results, we also found that the scores of Quantitative methods 2 and 6 at discharge were independent predictors of readmission to the ICUs or death within 180 days.
Previous studies have demonstrated that the scores assessed through 3 B-line quantification methods had low or moderate discriminatory power to predict the outcome. B-lines (Quantitative method 3) at admission were predictive for HF readmission or death at 6 months (AUC 0.68, p < 0.001) [33]; B-lines ≥ 30 (Quantitative method 4) at admission demonstrated a moderately accurate performance (AUC 0.75, p < 0.010) in predicting 1-year death or rehospitalization [28]; B-lines ≥ 19 (Quantitative method 5) at admission had a moderately discriminatory performance to predict in-hospital mortality (AUC 0.79, p < 0.010) [26]. Similarly, we found the area under the curve of six B-line quantification methods was 0.707–0.717 with p < 0.001. Meanwhile, they showed similar agreement between prediction and observation, and presented similar net benefits at the entire range of threshold probabilities. Therefore, different B-line quantification methods had comparable discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness.
Image interpretation time of B-pattern scoring systems (Quantitative methods 1 and 2) was significantly less than that of other methods, which suggested that Quantitative methods 1 and 2 were more timesaving than other methods. Moreover, several studies demonstrated that inter-observer agreement of B-line quantification methods between competent observers was proved to be good or excellent. Anderson KL found that the interclass correlation coefficients for Quantitative methods 3 and 5 between emergency physicians with experience in pleural sonography were 0.84 (0.81–0.87) and 0.87 (0.85–0.90), respectively [29], and it was previously shown that the ICC of Quantitative methods 3 between two experienced observers was 0.663 (0.540–0.753) [45]. In our study, ICC for Quantitative methods 1 and 2 were 0.927 and 0.886, respectively, and ICC for Quantitative methods 3, 4, 5, and 6 were 0.740, 0.737, 0.749, and 0.747, respectively. The results of our and other studies were not entirely comparable, and different probes of lung ultrasound, operator expertise, quantity of LUS images, experience of observers, comorbidities of patients and the timing of image interpretation (immediate or delayed review) were possibly responsible for the changes [45, 51, 52].
A number of image acquisition protocols ranging from 4 to 28 chest regions have been described, and 8‑point lung ultrasonography is increasingly used in the clinical setting[25], furthermore, there is a consensus paper already recommending Quantitative method 1 of 8-zone LUS examination in patients with acute decompensated HF [22]. The results of our study were in line with current consensuses. Besides, we found that Quantitative method 2 has similar discrimination, calibration, clinical usefulness, feasibility and reproducibility with Quantitative method 1. It could be explained that Quantitative method 1 and Quantitative method 2 are both regarded as B-pattern scoring systems, and they have high similarity in Quantifying the number of positive zones. We, thus, recommend B-pattern scoring systems (Quantitative methods 1 and 2) to be conducted into the routine use.
Our study had some potential limitations. First, like similar previous studies, there was no “golden standard” for B-line identification in our study. Second, we did not adjust for more confounding factors in logistic model because of limited sample size. Third, heterogeneity among the study subjects might be high because of patients at EICU with complicated comorbidities. Fourth, patients admitted to EICU for acute HF were enrolled, but study population did not include patients in other setting like internal medicine wards or outpatient clinic. Finally, LUS was performed to all patients before EICU discharge, and we did not obtain the baseline B-line burden at EICU admission, so we could not assess dynamic changes of quantitative methods.
Conclusions
Six quantification methods of 8-point LUS protocol have similar discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness in patients with HF, but B-pattern scoring systems are shown to be more feasible and reproducible when compared with other methods. Moreover, prospective multicenter studies need to assess these results in internal medicine wards or outpatient clinic.
Data availability
The datasets that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M, Gardner RS, Baumbach A, Böhm M, Burri H, Butler J, Čelutkienė J, Chioncel O, Cleland JGF, Coats AJS, Crespo-Leiro MG, Farmakis D, Gilard M, Heymans S, Hoes AW, Jaarsma T, Jankowska EA, Lainscak M, Lam CSP, Lyon AR, McMurray JJV, Mebazaa A, Mindham R, Muneretto C, Francesco Piepoli M, Price S, Rosano GMC, Ruschitzka F, Kathrine Skibelund A (2021) 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J 42:1–128. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab368
Luo Y, Li Z, Liu J, Chong Y, Wu B (2021) Prognostic value of the albumin-bilirubin score in critically ill patients with heart failure. Ann Palliative Med 10(12):12727–12741. https://doi.org/10.21037/apm-21-3424
Ambrosy AP, Fonarow GC, Butler J, Chioncel O, Greene SJ, Vaduganathan M, Nodari S, Lam CSP, Sato N, Shah AN, Gheorghiade M (2014) The global health and economic burden of hospitalizations for heart failure: lessons learned from hospitalized heart failure registries. J Am Coll Cardiol 63(12):1123–1133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.11.053
Luo C, Zhu Y, Zhu Z, Li R, Chen G, Wang Z (2022) A machine learning-based risk stratification tool for in-hospital mortality of intensive care unit patients with heart failure. J Transl Med 20(1):136. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-022-03340-8
Kim MS, Lee JH, Cho HJ, Cho JY, Choi JO, Hwang KK, Yoo BS, Kang SM, Choi DJ (2019) KSHF Guidelines for the Management of Acute Heart Failure: Part III. Specific Management of Acute Heart Failure According to the Etiology and Co-morbidity. Korean Circ J 49(1):46–68. https://doi.org/10.4070/kcj.2018.0351
Palazzuoli A, Ruocco G, Beltrami M, Nuti R, Cleland JG (2018) Combined use of lung ultrasound, B-type natriuretic peptide, and echocardiography for outcome prediction in patients with acute HFrEF and HFpEF. Clin Res Cardiol 107(7):586–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-018-1221-7
Platz E, Merz AA, Jhund PS, Vazir A, Campbell R, McMurray JJ (2017) Dynamic changes and prognostic value of pulmonary congestion by lung ultrasound in acute and chronic heart failure: a systematic review. Eur J Heart Fail 19(9):1154–1163. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.839
Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, Bueno H, Cleland JGF, Coats AJS, Falk V, Gonzalez-Juanatey JR, Harjola VP, Jankowska EA, Jessup M, Linde C, Nihoyannopoulos P, Parissis JT, Pieske B, Riley JP, Rosano GMC, Ruilope LM, Ruschitzka F, Rutten FH, van der Meer P (2016) 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J 37(27):2129–2200. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehw128
Kang Y, Zhong XK, Chen QW, Yang ZX, Chen XJ, Yu PM, Zhang Q (2022) Prognostic values of B-lines combined with clinical congestion assessment at discharge in heart failure patients. ESC Heart Fail 9(5):3044–3051. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.14041
Gargani L, Pang PS, Frassi F, Miglioranza MH, Dini FL, Landi P, Picano E (2015) Persistent pulmonary congestion before discharge predicts rehospitalization in heart failure: a lung ultrasound study. Cardiovasc Ultrasound 13:40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12947-015-0033-4
Cogliati C, Casazza G, Ceriani E, Torzillo D, Furlotti S, Bossi I, Vago T, Costantino G, Montano N (2016) Lung ultrasound and short-term prognosis in heart failure patients. Int J Cardiol 218:104–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.05.010
Coiro S, Porot G, Rossignol P, Ambrosio G, Carluccio E, Tritto I, Huttin O, Lemoine S, Sadoul N, Donal E, Zannad F, Girerd N (2016) Prognostic value of pulmonary congestion assessed by lung ultrasound imaging during heart failure hospitalisation: a two-centre cohort study. Sci Rep 6:39426. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39426
Platz E, Campbell RT, Claggett B, Lewis EF, Groarke JD, Docherty KF, Lee MMY, Merz AA, Silverman M, Swamy V, Lindner M, Rivero J, Solomon SD, McMurray JJV (2019) Lung Ultrasound in Acute Heart Failure: Prevalence of Pulmonary Congestion and Short- and Long-Term Outcomes. JACC Heart Fail 7(10):849–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2019.07.008
Ceriani E, Casazza G, Peta J, Torzillo D, Furlotti S, Cogliati C (2020) Residual congestion and long-term prognosis in acutely decompensated heart failure patients. Intern Emerg Med 15(4):719–724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-020-02326-y
Pugliese NR, Mazzola M, Bandini G, Barbieri G, Spinelli S, De Biase N, Masi S, Moggi-Pignone A, Ghiadoni L, Taddei S, Sicari R, Pang PS, De Carlo M, Gargani L (2023) Prognostic Role of Sonographic Decongestion in Patients with Acute Heart Failure with Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Multicentre Study. J Clin Med. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12030773
Leidi A, Soret G, Mann T, Koegler F, Coen M, Leszek A, Dubouchet L, Guillermin A, Kaddour M, Rouyer F, Combescure C, Carballo S, Reny JL, Marti C, Stirnemann J, Grosgurin O (2022) Eight versus 28-point lung ultrasonography in moderate acute heart failure: a prospective comparative study. Intern Emerg Med 17(5):1375–1383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-022-02943-9
Liteplo AS, Marill KA, Villen T, Miller RM, Murray AF, Croft PE, Capp R, Noble VE (2009) Emergency thoracic ultrasound in the differentiation of the etiology of shortness of breath (ETUDES): sonographic B-lines and N-terminal pro-brain-type natriuretic peptide in diagnosing congestive heart failure. Acad Emerg Med 16(3):201–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00347.x
Enghard P, Rademacher S, Nee J, Hasper D, Engert U, Jorres A, Kruse JM (2015) Simplified lung ultrasound protocol shows excellent prediction of extravascular lung water in ventilated intensive care patients. Critical Care (Lond, Engl) 19:36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-015-0756-5
Pivetta E, Goffi A, Lupia E, Tizzani M, Porrino G, Ferreri E, Volpicelli G, Balzaretti P, Banderali A, Iacobucci A, Locatelli S, Casoli G, Stone MB, Maule MM, Baldi I, Merletti F, Cibinel GA, Baron P, Battista S, Buonafede G, Busso V, Conterno A, Del Rizzo P, Ferrera P, Pecetto PF, Moiraghi C, Morello F, Steri F, Ciccone G, Calasso C, Caserta MA, Civita M, Condo C, D’Alessandro V, Del Colle S, Ferrero S, Griot G, Laurita E, Lazzero A, Lo Curto F, Michelazzo M, Nicosia V, Palmari N, Ricchiardi A, Rolfo A, Rostagno R, Bar F, Boero E, Frascisco M, Micossi I, Mussa A, Stefanone V, Agricola R, Cordero G, Corradi F, Runzo C, Soragna A, Sciullo D, Vercillo D, Allione A, Artana N, Corsini F, Dutto L, Lauria G, Morgillo T, Tartaglino B, Bergandi D, Cassetta I, Masera C, Garrone M, Ghiselli G, Ausiello L, Barutta L, Bernardi E, Bono A, Forno D, Lamorte A, Lison D, Lorenzati B, Maggio E, Masi I, Maggiorotto M, Novelli G, Panero F, Perotto M, Ravazzoli M, Saglio E, Soardo F, Tizzani A, Tizzani P, Tullio M, Ulla M, Romagnoli E (2015) Lung Ultrasound-Implemented Diagnosis of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure in the ED. Chest 148(1):202–210. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.14-2608
Rouby J-J, Arbelot C, Gao Y, Zhang M, Lv J, An Y, Chunyao W, Bin D, Valente Barbas CS, Dexheimer Neto FL, Prior Caltabeloti F, Lima E, Cebey A, Perbet S, Constantin J-M (2018) Training for Lung Ultrasound Score Measurement in Critically Ill Patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 198(3):398–401. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201802-0227LE
Harrison NE, Ehrman R, Favot M, Gowland L, Lenning J, Abidov A, Henry S, Gupta S, Welch R, Levy P (2022) Right ventricular dysfunction in acute heart failure from emergency department to discharge: Predictors and clinical implications. Am J Emerg Med 52:25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2021.11.024
Volpicelli G, Elbarbary M, Blaivas M, Lichtenstein DA, Mathis G, Kirkpatrick AW, Melniker L, Gargani L, Noble VE, Via G, Dean A, Tsung JW, Soldati G, Copetti R, Bouhemad B, Reissig A, Agricola E, Rouby J-J, Arbelot C, Liteplo A, Sargsyan A, Silva F, Hoppmann R, Breitkreutz R, Seibel A, Neri L, Storti E, Petrovic T (2012) International evidence-based recommendations for point-of-care lung ultrasound. Intensive Care Med 38(4):577–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-012-2513-4
Buessler A, Chouihed T, Duarte K, Bassand A, Huot-Marchand M, Gottwalles Y, Pénine A, André E, Nace L, Jaeger D, Kobayashi M, Coiro S, Rossignol P, Girerd N (2020) Accuracy of Several Lung Ultrasound Methods for the Diagnosis of Acute Heart Failure in the ED: A Multicenter Prospective Study. Chest 157(1):99–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2019.07.017
Cox EGM, Wiersema R, Wong A, van der Horst ICC (2020) Six versus eight and twenty-eight scan sites for B-line assessment: differences in examination time and findings. Intensive Care Med 46(5):1063–1064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-020-06004-7
Pellicori P, Platz E, Dauw J, Ter Maaten JM, Martens P, Pivetta E, Cleland JGF, McMurray JJV, Mullens W, Solomon SD, Zannad F, Gargani L, Girerd N (2021) Ultrasound imaging of congestion in heart failure: examinations beyond the heart. Eur J Heart Fail 23(5):703–712. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.2032
Araiza-Garaygordobil D, Gopar-Nieto R, Martinez-Amezcua P, Cabello-Lopez A, Manzur-Sandoval D, Garcia-Cruz E, De la Fuente-Mancera JC, Martinez-Gutierrez J, Luna-Carrera MJ, Lerma-Landeros E, Gutierrez-Gonzalez FM, Gonzalez-Pacheco H, Briseno-De la Cruz JL, Arias-Mendoza A (2021) Point-of-care lung ultrasound predicts in-hospital mortality in acute heart failure. QJM 114(2):111–116. https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcaa298
Pang PS, Russell FM, Ehrman R, Ferre R, Gargani L, Levy PD, Noble V, Lane KA, Li X, Collins SP (2021) Lung Ultrasound-Guided Emergency Department Management of Acute Heart Failure (BLUSHED-AHF): A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial. JACC Heart Fail 9(9):638–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2021.05.008
Yang F, Wang Q, Zhang L, Ma Y, Chen Q (2021) Prognostic value of pulmonary oedema assessed by lung ultrasound in patient with acute heart failure. Heart Vessels 36(4):518–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00380-020-01719-5
Anderson KL, Fields JM, Panebianco NL, Jenq KY, Marin J, Dean AJ (2013) Inter-rater reliability of quantifying pleural B-lines using multiple counting methods. J Ultrasound Med 32(1):115–120. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2013.32.1.115
Tsuchiya N, Griffin L, Yabuuchi H, Kawanami S, Shinzato J, Murayama S (2020) Imaging findings of pulmonary edema: Part 1. Cardiogenic pulmonary edema and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Acta Radiol 61(2):184–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185119857433
Mayo PH, Copetti R, Feller-Kopman D, Mathis G, Maury E, Mongodi S, Mojoli F, Volpicelli G, Zanobetti M (2019) Thoracic ultrasonography: a narrative review. Intensive Care Med 45(9):1200–1211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-019-05725-8
Coiro S, Rossignol P, Ambrosio G, Carluccio E, Alunni G, Murrone A, Tritto I, Zannad F, Girerd N (2015) Prognostic value of residual pulmonary congestion at discharge assessed by lung ultrasound imaging in heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 17(11):1172–1181. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.344
Palazzuoli A, Evangelista I, Beltrami M, Pirrotta F, Tavera MC, Gennari L, Ruocco G (2022) Clinical, Laboratory and Lung Ultrasound Assessment of Congestion in Patients with Acute Heart Failure. J Clin Med 11(6):1642. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11061642
Mitchell C, Rahko PS, Blauwet LA, Canaday B, Finstuen JA, Foster MC, Horton K, Ogunyankin KO, Palma RA, Velazquez EJ (2019) Guidelines for Performing a Comprehensive Transthoracic Echocardiographic Examination in Adults: Recommendations from the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 32(1):1–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2018.06.004
Augustine DX, Coates-Bradshaw LD, Willis J, Harkness A, Mathew T (2018) Echocardiographic assessment of pulmonary hypertension: A guideline protocol from the British Society of Echocardiography. Echo Res Pract 5(3):G11–G24
Huang WC, Hsu CH, Sung SH, Ho WJ, Chu CY, Chang CP, Chiu YW, Wu CH, Chang WT, Lin L, Lin SL, Cheng CC, Wu YJ, Wu SH, Hsieh TY, Hsu HH, Fu M, Dai ZK, Kuo PH, Hwang JJ, Cheng SM (2019) 2018 TSOC guideline focused update on diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. J Formosan Med Assoc = Taiwan yi zhi 118(12):1584–1609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2018.12.009
Platz E, Jhund PS, Girerd N, Pivetta E, McMurray JJV, Peacock WF, Masip J, Martin-Sanchez FJ, Miró Ò, Price S, Cullen L, Maisel AS, Vrints C, Cowie MR, DiSomma S, Bueno H, Mebazaa A, Gualandro DM, Tavares M, Metra M, Coats AJS, Ruschitzka F, Seferovic PM, Mueller C (2019) Expert consensus document: Reporting checklist for quantification of pulmonary congestion by lung ultrasound in heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 21(7):844–851. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.1499
Wang M, Hao M, Liu N, Yang X, Lu Y, Liu R, Zhang H (2023) Nomogram for predicting the risk of preterm birth in women undergoing in vitro fertilization cycles. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 23(1):324. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05646-x
Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR (1996) A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 49(12):1373–1379. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00236-3
Dou Y, Li A, Liu G, Wang P, Zhang B (2023) Comparison of bioimpedance equations and dual-energy X-ray for assessment of fat free mass in a Chinese dialysis population. Ren Fail 45(1):2182131. https://doi.org/10.1080/0886022x.2023.2182131
Alqutub MN (2022) Peri-implant parameters and cytokine profile among Peri-implant disease patients treated with Er Cr YSGG laser and PDT. Photodiagnosis Photodynamic Ther 37:102641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdpdt.2021.102641
Grant SW, Collins GS, Nashef SAM (2018) Statistical Primer: developing and validating a risk prediction model. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 54(2):203–208. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezy180
Staffa SJ, Zurakowski D (2021) Statistical Development and Validation of Clinical Prediction Models. Anesthesiology 135(3):396–405. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000003871
Regterschot GR, Morat T, Folkersma M, Zijlstra W (2015) The application of strength and power related field tests in older adults: criteria, current status and a future perspective. Eur Rev Aging Phys Activity 12:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11556-015-0147-6
Pičuljan A, Šustić M, Brumini G, Kuharić J, Šustić A (2020) Reliability of B-line quantification by different-level observers and a software algorithm using point-of-care lung ultrasound. J Clin Monit Comput 34(6):1259–1264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-019-00440-7
Cohen A, Li T, Maybaum S, Fridman D, Gordon M, Shi D, Nelson M, Stevens GR (2023) Pulmonary Congestion on Lung Ultrasound Predicts Increased Risk of 30-Day Readmission in Heart Failure Patients. J Ultrasound Med 42:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.16202
Johannessen Ø, Claggett B, Lewis EF, Groarke JD, Swamy V, Lindner M, Solomon SD, Platz E (2021) A-lines and B-lines in patients with acute heart failure. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 10(8):909–917. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjacc/zuab046
Pérez-Herrero S, Lorenzo-Villalba N, Urbano E, Sánchez-Sauce B, Aguilar-Rodríguez F, Bernabeu-Wittel M, Garcia-Alonso R, Soler-Rangel L, Trapiello-Valbuena F, Garcia-García A, Casas-Rojo JM, Beltrán-Romero L, De Jorge-Huerta L, Molina-Puente JI, Andrès E, Iguarán-Bermúdez R, Méndez-Bailón M (2022) Prognostic Significance of Lung and Cava Vein Ultrasound in Elderly Patients Admitted for Acute Heart Failure: PROFUND-IC Registry Analysis. J Clin Med. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11154591
Rattarasarn I, Yingchoncharoen T, Assavapokee T (2022) Prediction of rehospitalization in patients with acute heart failure using point-of-care lung ultrasound. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 22(1):330. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-022-02781-9
Imanishi J, Maeda T, Ujiro S, Masuda M, Kusakabe Y, Takemoto M, Fujimoto W, Kuroda K, Yamashita S, Iwasaki M, Todoroki T, Okuda M (2023) Association between B-lines on lung ultrasound, invasive haemodynamics, and prognosis in acute heart failure patients. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 12(2):115–123. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjacc/zuac158
Gomond-Le Goff C, Vivalda L, Foligno S, Loi B, Yousef N, De Luca D (2020) Effect of Different Probes and Expertise on the Interpretation Reliability of Point-of-Care Lung Ultrasound. Chest 157(4):924–931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2019.11.013
DeSanti RL, Cowan EA, Kory PD, Lasarev MR, Schmidt J, Al-Subu AM (2022) The Inter-Rater Reliability of Pediatric Point-of-Care Lung Ultrasound Interpretation in Children With Acute Respiratory Failure. J Ultrasound Med 41(5):1159–1167. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.15805
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Zhou D at Zigong Academy of Artificial Intelligence and Big Data for Medical Science for his support.
Funding
This study was funded by the Health and Family Planning Commission of Sichuan Province (17PJ136), Sichuan Medical Association Scientific Research Project (S21019), and Scientific Project of Zigong Fourth People's Hospital (202102).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All co-authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose nor conflicts of interest to declare.
Human and animal rights and Informed consent
This study adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki, the human research ethics committee of Zigong Fourth People's Hospital approved the research protocol (180002), and informed consent was obtained from all patients.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Xu, P., Ye, L., Li, L. et al. Comparison of the prognostic value, feasibility, and reproducibility among different scoring methods of 8‑point lung ultrasonography in patients with acute heart failure. Intern Emerg Med 18, 2321–2332 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-023-03433-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-023-03433-2