Have a personal or library account? Click to login

Accuracy of Critical Care Ultrasonography Plus Arterial Blood Gas Analysis Based Algorithm in Diagnosing Aetiology of Acute Respiratory Failure

Open Access
|Feb 2023

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1

Critical Care Ultrasonography plus arterial blood gas analysis based algorithm
Critical Care Ultrasonography plus arterial blood gas analysis based algorithm

Fig. 2

Chest X ray based algorithm
Chest X ray based algorithm

Distribution of participants by their demographic and other characteristics

CharacteristicN = 174
Age (mean+SD, years)
53.0 (37.0-64.0)
Gender n (%)
F -n (%)67 (38.5%)
M -n (%)
107 (61.5%)
Source n(%)
CCU (Coronary care unit)4 (2.3%)
CTVS surgery) (Cardiothoracic ward vascular2 (1.1%)
ED (Emergency department)105 (60.3%)
ENT (Ear nose throat) ward1 (0.6%)
EW (Eye ward)1 (0.6%)
MW (Medicine ward)51 (29.3%)
PW (Pulmonary ward)
10 (5.7%)
Mode of ventilation n (%)
Facemask/NRBM/HFNO11 (6.3%)
NIV74 (42.5%)
INVASIVE
89 (51.1%)
SOFA on DOA to ICU Median (IQR)
6.0 (4.0-9.8)
CCUS based DX n (%)
Alveolar (lung) defect69 (39.7%)
Alveolar (cardiac) defect60 (34.5%)
Ventilation plus alveolar defect19 (10.9%)
Perfusion defect4 (2.3%)
Metabolic defect
22 (12.6%)
CXR based DX n (%)
Alveolar (lung) defect71 (40.8%)
Alveolar(cardiac) defect69 (39.7%)
Ventilation plus alveolar defect5 (2.9%)
Perfusion defect24 (13.8%)
Metabolic defect5 (2.9%)
Need of vasopressors on day 1 n (%)137 (78.7%)
LOS in ICU days Median (IQR)
6.0 (4.0, 11.0)
Composite diagnosis n (%)
Alveolar (lung) defect63 (36.2%)
Alveolar(cardiac) defect55 (31.6%)
Ventilation plus alveolar defect18 (10.3%)
Perfusion defect6 (3.4%)
Metabolic defect
32 (18.4%)
Outcome n (%)
Discharged115 (66.1%)
Death59 (33.9%)

Correlation of CCUS based algorithm/ Chest X ray based algorithm vs Composite diagnosis

SensitivitySpecificityPPVCohn’s Kappa
1CCUS vs Composite diagnosis (Alveolar- Pneumonia)85.71% (75.03-92.3)86.49% (78.9-91.64)78.26 (67.18-86.36)0.7074 (0.5593-0.8566)
2CxR vs Composite diagnosis (Alveolar- Pneumonia)84.13% (73.91-91.14)83.78% (75.82-89.94)74.65 (63.45-83.30)0.661 (0.5131-0.8088)
3CCUS vs CxR (Alveolar- Pneumonia) 0.59 (0.44-0.74)
4CCUS vs Composite diagnosis (Alveolar- Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema)94.55% (85.15-98.13)93.28% (87.28-98.55)86.67 (75.83-93.08)0.8573 (0.709-1.006)
5CxR vs Composite diagnosis (Alveolar- Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema)90.91% (80.42-96.05)84.03% (76.4-89.53)72.46 (60.95-81.61)0.7014 (0.551-0.8477)
6CCUS vs CxR (Alveolar- Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema) 0.6438 (0.49-0.75)
7CCUS (Ventilation vs Composite with Alveolar diagnosis defect)(60.7883.33-94.16% )(93.5997.44-% 99)(56.6778.95 -91.49)(0.13980.7883 -0.9368)
8CxR vs Composite diagnosis (Ventilation with Alveolar defect)22.22% (9.001-45.22)99.36% (96.46-99.89)80 (37.55-96.38)0.3171 (0.1973-0.4369)
9CCUS vs CxR (Ventilation with Alveolar defect) 0.3016 (0.18-0.41)
10CCUS vs Composite diagnosis ( Perfusion defect)66.67% (30-90.32)100% (97.76-100)100 (51.01-100)0.7943 (0.6489-0.9397)
11CxR vs Composite diagnosis ( Perfusion defect)50% (18.78-81.24)87.5% (81.65-91.68)12.5 (4.344-31)0.1553 (0.0385-0.2681)
12CCUS vs CxR (Perfusion defect) 0.10 (0.08-0.207)
13CCUS vs Composite diagnosis (Metabolic defect)62.65% (45.25-77.07)98.59% (95.01-99.69)90.91 (72.98-97.47)0.695 (0.55-0.840)
14CxR vs Composite diagnosis (Metabolic defect)15.63% (6.864-31.75)100 (97.37-100)100 (96.55-100)0.2321 (0.1369-0.3273)
15CCUS vs CxR (Metabolic defect) 0.28 (0.15-0.37)

Agreement of CCUS with CXR

CharacteristicAlveolar (lung) defect N = 69Alveolar (cardiac) defect N = 60Ventilation plus alveolar defect N = 19Perfusion defect N = 4Metabolic defect N = 22
CXR based DX
Alveolar (lung) defect53 (76.8%)8 (13.3%)8 (42.1%)0 (0.0%)2 (9.1%)
Alveolar(cardiac) defect12 (17.4%)50 (83.3%)5 (26.3%)2 (50.0%)0 (0.0%)
Ventilation plus alveolar defect1 (1.4%)0 (0.0%)4 (21.1%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)
Perfusion defect2 (2.9%)2 (3.3%)2 (10.5%)2 (50.0%)16 (72.7%)
Metabolic defect1 (1.4%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)4 (18.2%)

Agreement of CCUS and CXR with Composite Diagnosis

CharacteristicAlveolar (lung) defect N = 63Alveolar (cardiac) defect N = 55Ventilation plus alveolar defect N = 18Perfusion defect N = 6Metabolic defect N = 32
CCUS based DX
Alveolar (lung) defect54 (85.7%)3 (5.5%)3 (16.7%)0 (0.0%)9 (28.1%)
Alveolar(cardiac) defect5 (7.9%)52 (94.5%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)3 (9.4%)
Ventilation plus alveolar defect2 (3.2%)0 (0.0%)15 (83.3%)2 (33.3%)0 (0.0%)
Perfusion defect0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)4 (66.7%)0 (0.0%)
Metabolic defect
2 (3.2%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
20 (62.5%)
CXR based DX
Alveolar (lung) defect53 (84.1%)5 (9.1%)10 (55.6%)0 (0.0%)3 (9.4%)
Alveolar(cardiac) defect8 (12.7%)50 (90.9%)3 (16.7%)3 (50.0%)5 (15.6%)
Ventilation plus alveolar defect1 (1.6%)0 (0.0%)4 (22.2%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)
Perfusion defect1 (1.6%)0 (0.0%)1 (5.6%)3 (50.0%)19 (59.4%)
Metabolic defect0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)5 (15.6%)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jccm-2023-0006 | Journal eISSN: 2393-1817 | Journal ISSN: 2393-1809
Language: English
Page range: 20 - 29
Submitted on: Feb 16, 2022
Accepted on: Jan 20, 2023
Published on: Feb 8, 2023
Published by: University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Targu Mures
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2023 Rajesh Panda, Saurabh Saigal, Rajnish Joshi, Abhijit Pakhare, Ankur Joshi, Jai Prakash Sharma, Sahil Tandon, published by University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Targu Mures
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.