key: cord-253572-9qixiew8 authors: Bennett, David; De Vita, Elda; Mezzasalma, Fabrizio; Lanzarone, Nicola; Cameli, Paolo; Bianchi, Francesco; Perillo, Felice; Bargagli, Elena; Mazzei, Maria Antonietta; Volterrani, Luca; Scolletta, Sabino; Valente, Serafina; Franchi, Federico; Frediani, Bruno; Sestini, Piersante title: Portable pocket-sized ultrasound scanner for the evaluation of lung involvement in COVID-19 patients date: 2020-09-21 journal: Ultrasound Med Biol DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.09.014 sha: doc_id: 253572 cord_uid: 9qixiew8 Ultrasound imaging of the lung (LUS) and associated tissues has demonstrated clinical utility in COVID-19 patients. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the possibilities of a portable pocket-sized ultrasound scanner in the evaluation of lung involvement in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. We conducted 437 paired readings in 34 LUS evaluations on hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The lung ultrasound scans were performed on the same day with a standard high-end ultrasound scanner (Venue GO™, GE Healthcare, Chicago, IL, USA) and a pocket-sized ultrasound scanner (Butterfly iQ, Butterfly Network Inc., Guilford, CT, USA). 14/34 scans were performed on severe, 11 on moderate and 9 on mild patients. No difference in days since onset of symptoms was observed between groups (23.29 ± 10.07, 22.91 ± 8.91, 28.56 ± 11.13 days, respectively, p=0.38). No significant differences were found between LUS scores obtained with the high-end and the portable pocket-sized ultrasound scanner. LUS scores in patients with mild respiratory impairment were significantly lower than in moderate and severe patients. Our study confirms the possibilities of portable pocket-sized ultrasound imaging of the lung in COVID-19 patients. Portable pocket-sized ultrasound scanners are cheap, easy to handle and equivalent to standard scanners for non-invasive assessment of severity and dynamic observation of lung lesions in COVID-19 patients. Coronavirus disease 2019 , caused by infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), emerged in China in December 2019 and quickly spread all over the globe. The clinical features are fever, dyspnoea, dry cough, fatigue and diarrhoea (Wan et. 2020) . Pharyngodynia, nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea and anosmia have also been reported (Chen et al. 2020 , Hopkins et al. 2020 , Mason 2020 , Gattinoni et al. 2020 . Interstitial pneumonia is very common and a high percentage of patients (9-11%) develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and require intensive care (Lovato and de Filippis 2020 , Remuzzi and Remuzzi 2020 , Yuan et al. 2020 . Current therapeutic strategy involves agents counteracting viral invasion and replication, and inhibitors of cytokine-sustained inflammatory reactions. No specific antiviral therapy has yet been identified (Capecchi et al. 2020 , Conticini et al. 2020 . Ultrasound imaging of the lung (LUS) is a promising technique in many acute and chronic parenchymal conditions that determine interstitial syndrome. These include cardiogenic and noncardiogenic pulmonary oedema, ARDS, interstitial pulmonary fibrosis and a variety of conditions determining lung consolidations, such as pneumonia and lung cancer (Mojoli et al. 2019 ). In COVID-19 patients, it demonstrated clinical utility due to the typical sonographic characteristics of affected lungs by providing indications for clinical decisions and the management of associated respiratory failure and lung injury (Smith et al. 2020) . The aim of the present study was to evaluate the possibilities of a portable pocket-sized ultrasound scanner in the evaluation of lung involvement in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. We conducted 34 LUS evaluations on patients admitted to the COVID Unit of Siena University Hospital with symptoms compatible with COVID-19, a positive SARS-CoV-2 nasalpharyngeal swab and radiological evidence of interstitial pneumonia. The patients were divided into three severity categories based on respiratory impairment: Mild PaO2/FiO2 > 300 in room air or oxygen flow; Moderate PaO2/FiO2 between 150 and 300 in room air or oxygen-therapy, CPAP, NIV or HFNC; Severe PaO2/FiO2 < 150 on oxygen-therapy, CPAP, NIV, HFNC or mechanical ventilation. Up to six regions of the chest were identified: anterosuperior (A); anteroinferior (B); lateralsuperior (C); lateralinferior (D); posterosuperior (E); posteroinferior (F). One of four different aeration patterns was recorded according to a specific scoring system: A = 0 points (normal aeration, presence of lung sliding with A lines or less than two isolated B lines), B1 = 1 point (moderate loss of lung aeration, multiple well-defined B lines), B2 = 2 points (severe loss of lung aeration, multiple coalescent B lines), C = 3 points (lung consolidation and tissue-like pattern). Pleural effusion and pneumothorax were also recorded. A score of 0 was normal and 36 was the worst. Due to clinical conditions, the upper posterior region (E) could not explored in some patients, so the mean of the regions explored was calculated for the purposes of statistical analysis (total sum (0 to 36) divided by number of regions explored (5 or 6 on each side). Our step-by-step approach 6 to LUS in COVID-19 patients was comparable to the CLUE protocol (Manivel V) . Imaging were obtained by two different operators, both experts in lung ultrasound. The research was approved by the local ethics committee (OSS_REOS n° 12908) and informed consent was obtained from each participant. Student's t-test was used to compare pairs of groups and ANOVA to compare three or more groups, followed by Holm-Sidak's multiple comparisons test, when the former were significant. Normal distribution of data was checked using D'Agostino-Pearson test (command sktest of Stata). The presence and possible sources of systematic bias between the two instruments was investigated in the complete dataset of the individual readings at 12 thoracic location in each patient. We used multilevel mixed-effects linear regression models with the difference in score on the same thoracic location (Butterfly-GE) as the outcome variable, changes in vertical level of the thoracic location (high vs. low), side (right vs. left), horizontal level (anterior, lateral, posterior) and severity as fixed effect variables, and the patient as a random effect variable. The primary outcome of the study was the assessment of the bias and of Limits of Agreement (LoA) between the total patient score obtained with the two instruments, computed with the Bland Altman method (Balnd and Altman 1986). A secondary outcome was the assessment of the concordance between the two instruments. As no single measure of concordance is generally The 34 paired LUS scans on 18 COVID-19 patients (14 male and 4 female; age at presentation 77.6 ± 10.0 years) produced the following results. No difference in age was found between severity groups; 16/34 scans were performed on severe, 11 on moderate and 7 on mild patients. No difference in days since onset of symptoms was observed between groups (23.29 ± 10.07, 22.91 ± 8.91, 28.56 ± 11.13 days, respectively, p=0.38). When assessed on the full dataset of 437 paired readings in 34 LUS, no significant differences were found between LUS scores obtained with the high-end and the portable pocket-sized ultrasound, with a mean difference in score of -0.018± 0.018 points (NS). The score difference did not change significantly according to lung side (0.027 ±0.032 points), vertical level (-0.041±0.033 points), clinical severity (0.013.±0.022 points per each level). A significant difference, however, was found between the two instruments according the horizontal location of the site, with the difference between the two instruments resulting slightly but significantly greater on the posterior compared to the anterior side of the thorax (0.082 ±0.021 points, p <0.01). Total average scores obtained with the two instruments were normally distributed, as was their difference. Average patient scores correlated with clinical severity (p<0.001, Figure 1) 8 All the computed parameters showed an excellent degree of concordance between the two instruments ( Table 1) Lung ultrasound imaging is a non-invasive technique that provides useful indications for clinical decisions concerning COVID-19 patients (Smith et al. 2020 , Wang et al. 2017 . It is safe, repeatable, radiation-free and economical and can be used at the point of care. Here we evaluated the possibilities of a portable pocket-sized ultrasound scanner in COVID-19 patients with pneumonia. We included a cohort of COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized with respiratory failure of different severity. All were scanned with a standard high-end ultrasound scanner and a portable pocket-sized ultrasound scanner. The results of the portable scanner were practically identical to those of the high-end scanner in the assessment of lung interstitial syndrome according the BLUE protocol (Lichtenstein 2015): Bland-Altman bias was found to be close to zero, with very narrow Limits of Agreement and all the other parameters of concordance were in the range of substantial or excellent agreement. Furthermore, no systematic bias was observed according to disease severity or anatomical site of 9 analysis, except for a statistically significant but practically negligible difference in the posterior side of the thorax, possibly a spurious finding. Due to its easy handling and dynamic nature, LUS is increasingly used in clinical settings, especially in critical care (Mojoli et al. 2019) . In SARS-CoV-2 infection, it is invaluable in clinical management, showing higher accuracy than chest radiography (Smith et al. 2019 ) and good correlation with CT imaging and pneumonia severity (Nouvenne et al. 2020 , Zieleskiewicz et al. 2020 ). In experimental models of ARDS, it was found to detect lung lesions before the onset of hypoxemia (Soldati et al. 2020) . Point-of-care ultrasound has great possibilities in many branches of medicine, especially emergency and critical care where it can be invaluable in the safe management of COVID-19, since it allows concomitant clinical examination and lung imaging at the bedside by the same doctor (Smith et al. 2019 , Buonsenso et al. 2020 ). An observational study, named Identifier: NCT04351802), is currently ongoing. The study is designed to assess whether focused lung ultrasound examination can improve the diagnosis of COVID-19 lung disease and/or make an alternative diagnosis at a patient's initial hospital presentation. In our study we also found a statistically significant correlation between portable scanner findings and disease severity, confirming previous reports of 68.8%, 77.8%, 100.0% sensitivity, 85.7%, 76.2%, 92.9% specificity and 76.7%, 76.7%, 93.3% diagnostic accuracy in detecting mild, moderate and severe lung lesions, respectively (Lu et al. 2020) . The main limit of our study were its retrospective nature, preventing the analysis of the effect of the order of measurements with the two instruments and the effect of different observers (both can be considered to have been random, but there was no systematic protocol), and the limited number of patients undergoing imaging, however a considerable number of lung scans were analysed and clearly demonstrated, for the first time, that the performances of the portable and highend scanners were interchangeable. The use of portable ultrasound devices has increased in recent years, creating a flourishing market. A big advantage of portable devices is time saving at the bedside and in prehospital situations; limits are battery runtime, narrow field of vision, and low penetration (Stock et al. 2020 , ESR 2019 . In COVID-19 patients, these devices could be of help for triage purpose as well by providing instant and objective information of the severity of the disease and may avoid further imaging in mild patients, however findings are not specific and may not correlate to clinical outcome and qualified operators are necessary; combination with clinical and physiological data is strongly recommended. Their utility has been argued by several authors (Gibson et al. 2020 , Qian et al. 2020 , but this is the first study providing a demonstration of their use in daily clinical practice in COVID-19 patients. In conclusion, our study confirms the possibilities of portable ultrasound imaging of the lung in COVID-19 patients. Portable pocket-sized ultrasound scanners are cheap, easy to handle and equivalent to standard scanners for non-invasive assessment of severity and dynamic observation of lung lesions in COVID-19 patients with pneumonia. These ultrasound scanners can play a decisive role when healthcare resources are scarce, during pandemics and in emergency situations, such as the present COVID-19 outbreak. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement A Practical Guide to Assess the Reproducibility of Echocardiographic Measurements COVID-19 outbreak: less stethoscope, more ultrasound Antirheumatic agents in covid-19: is IL-6 the right target? Ann Rheum Dis Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study COVID-19 pneumonia in a large cohort of patients treated with biological and targeted synthetic antirheumatic drugs ESR statement on portable ultrasound devices. Insights Imaging COVID-19 Does Not Lead to a "Typical" Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Handheld ultrasound devices: An emerging technology to reduce viral spread during the Covid-19 pandemic Presentation of new onset anosmia during the COVID-19 Quantifying an agreement study BLUE-protocol and FALLS-protocol: two applications of lung ultrasound in the critically ill CMUT/CMOS-based Butterfly iQ -A Portable Personal Sonoscope Clinical Presentation of COVID-19: A Systematic Review Focusing on Upper Airway Symptoms Sample Size for Assessing Agreement between Two Methods of Measurement by Bland-Altman Method CLUE: COVID-19 lung ultrasound in emergency department Pathogenesis of COVID-19 from a cell biology perspective Lung Ultrasound for Critically Ill Patients Lung Ultrasound in COVID-19 Pneumonia: Correlations with Chest CT on Hospital admission A valuable and affordable handheld ultrasound in combating COVID-19 COVID-19 and Italy: what next? Lancet Point-of-care lung ultrasound in patients with COVID-19 -a narrative review Is There a Role for Lung Ultrasound During the COVID-19 Pandemic? Comparison of a pocket-size ultrasound device with a premium ultrasound machine: diagnostic value and time required in bedside ultrasound examination Clinical features and treatment of COVID-19 patients in northeast Chongqing Usefulness of lung ultrasound Blines in connective tissue disease-associated interstitial lung disease: a literature review Monitoring transmissibility and mortality of COVID-19 in Comparative study of lung ultrasound and chest computed tomography scan in the assessment of severity of confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia