Author/Authors :
Yang, Weibo Department of High Altitude Disease - Xizang Military General Hospital, Lhasa, China , Wang, Yuliang Department of High Altitude Disease - Xizang Military General Hospital, Lhasa, China , Qiu, Zewu Digestive System Department of Affiliated 307 Hospital -Academy of Military Science of the People’s Liberation Army, Beijing, China , Huang, Xuewen Department of High Altitude Disease - Xizang Military General Hospital, Lhasa, China , Lv, Maoxia Department of Ultrasound - Xizang Military General Hospital, Lhasa, China , Liu, Bin Department of Radiology - Xizang Military General Hospital, Lhasa, China , Yang, Dingzhou Department of High Altitude Disease - Xizang Military General Hospital, Lhasa, China , Yang, Zhenhan Department of High Altitude Disease - Xizang Military General Hospital, Lhasa, China , Xie, Tingshan Department of High Altitude Disease - Xizang Military General Hospital, Lhasa, China
Abstract :
Objective. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasonography (LUS) for high-altitude
pulmonary edema (HAPE). Background. LUS has proven to be a reliable tool for the diagnosis of pulmonary diseases, including
pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and pneumothorax. LUS also has potential for the diagnosis of
HAPE. However, the actual diagnostic value of LUS for HAPE is still unknown. Our objective was to determine the feasibility of
using LUS for the diagnosis of HAPE. Materials and Methods. A prospective clinical research study of adult HAPE patients was
conducted. LUS and chest X-ray (CXR) were performed in patients with suspected HAPE before and after treatment, and
pulmonary moist rales were recorded concurrently. The diagnostic value of LUS, CXR, and moist rales for HAPE (i.e., their
sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values) were assessed, and the results were compared. The gold
standard was the final diagnosis. Results. In total, 148 patients were enrolled in the study, 126 of which were diagnosed with
HAPE (85.14%). Before treatment, the diagnostic accuracy of LUS for HAPE was as follows: sensitivity, 98.41% (95%
confidence interval (CI) 100.60–96.23%); specificity, 90.91% (95% CI 102.92–78.90%). LUS had higher sensitivity (0.98 vs. 0.81,
P < 0.01 using the McNemar test) than moist rales for the diagnosis of HAPE. LUS also had higher sensitivity than CXR (0.98 vs.
0.93, P < 0.05 using the McNemar test). After treatment, LUS was consistent with CXR in 96.55% of HAPE patients, and the
concordance between LUS and CXR was high (k statistic = 0.483 P ≤ 0.001; 95% CI −0.021 to −0.853). Conclusion. The results
indicate that LUS is a reliable method for the diagnosis and surveillance of HAPE. This trial is registered with Chinese Clinical
Trial Registry (No. ChiCTR-DDD-16009841).