ABSTRACT
Objectives To assess the diagnostic performance of lung point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) compared to either a positive nucleic acid test (NAT) or a COVID-19-typical pattern on computed tomography (CT) and to evaluate opportunities to simplify a POCUS algorithm.
Methods Hospital-admitted adult inpatients with (1) either confirmed or suspected COVID-19 and (2) a completed or ordered CT within the preceding 24 hours were recruited. Twelve lung zones were scanned with a handheld POCUS machine. POCUS, CT, and X-ray (CXR) images were reviewed independently by blinded experts. A simplified POCUS algorithm was developed via machine learning.
Results Of 79 enrolled subjects, 26.6% had a positive NAT and 31.6% had a CT typical for COVID-19. The receiver operator curve (ROC) for a 12-zone POCUS protocol had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.787 for positive NAT and 0.820 for typical CT. A simplified four-zone protocol had an AUC of 0.862 for typical CT and 0.862 for positive NAT. CT had an AUC of 0.815 for positive NAT; CXR had AUCs of 0.793 for positive NAT and 0.733 for typical CT. Performance of the four-zone protocol was superior to CXR for positive NAT (p=0.0471). Using a two-point cutoff system, the four-zone POCUS protocol had a sensitivity of 0.920 and 0.904 compared to CT and NAT, respectively, at the lower cutoff; it had a specificity of 0.926 and 0.948 at the higher cutoff, respectively.
Conclusion POCUS outperformed CXR to predict positive NAT. POCUS could potentially replace other chest imaging for persons under investigation for COVID-19.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
N/A. This was a prospective observational study, not a clinical trial. Registration with ClinicalTrials.gov not required.
Funding Statement
No funding was received for this project.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The protocol was approved in writing by the Partners Institutional Review Board.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, TFH.
