Diagnostic accuracy of prehospital lung ultrasound for acute decompensated heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Frances M. Russell,Nicholas E. Harrison,Oliver Hobson,Nicholas Montelauro,Cecelia J. Vetter,Daniel Brenner,Sarah Kennedy,Benton R. Hunter
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2024.03.021
IF: 3.6
2024-03-19
The American Journal of Emergency Medicine
Abstract:Background Lung ultrasound (LUS) reduces time to diagnosis and treatment of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) in emergency department (ED) patients with undifferentiated dyspnea. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of LUS for ADHF in the prehospital setting. Methods We performed a keyword search of multiple databases from inception through June 1, 2023. Included studies were those enrolling prehospital patients with undifferentiated dyspnea or suspected ADHF, and specifically diagnostic studies comparing prehospital LUS to a gold standard and intervention studies with a non-US comparator group. Title and abstract screening, full text review, risk of bias (ROB) assessments, and data extraction were performed by multiple authors. and adjudicated. The primary outcome was pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic likelihood ratios (LR) for prehospital LUS. A test-treatment threshold of 0.7 was applied based on prior ADHF literature in the ED. Intervention outcomes included mortality, mechanical ventilation, and time to HF specific treatment. Results Eight diagnostic studies ( n = 691) and two intervention studies ( n = 70) met inclusion criteria. No diagnostic studies were low-ROB. Both intervention studies were critical-ROB, and not pooled. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of prehospital LUS for ADHF were 86.7% (95%CI:70.8%–94.6%) and 87.5% (78.2%–93.2%), respectively, with similar performance by physician vs. paramedic LUS and number of lung zones evaluated. Pooled LR+ and LR- were 7.27 (95% CI: 3.69–13.10) and 0.17 (95% CI: 0.06–0.34), respectively. Area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.922. At the observed 42.4% ADHF prevalence (pre-test probability), positive pre-hospital LUS exceeded the 70% threshold to initiate treatment (post-test probability 84%, 80–88%). Conclusions LUS had similar diagnostic test characteristics for ADHF diagnosis in the prehospital setting as in the ED. A positive prehospital LUS may be sufficient to initiate early ADHF treatment based on published test-treatment thresholds. More studies are needed to determine the clinical impact of prehospital LUS.
emergency medicine