• Don J Palamattam, Rupa Sreedhar, Shrinivas V Gadhinglajkar, Prasanta K Dash, and Subin Sukesan.
• Division of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anaesthesiology, Department of Anaesthesiology, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, India.
• J. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesth. 2022 Nov 1; 36 (11): 403940444039-4044.

ObjectiveThe primary objective was to study the degree of agreement between the chest ultrasound (CUS) studies and chest x-ray (CXR) studies in postoperative pediatric cardiac surgical patients regarding the diagnosis of thoracic abnormalities, and also to compare the diagnostic performance of CUS in reference to CXR for the detection of thoracic abnormalities. The secondary objective was to compare the necessity for interventions done on the basis of CUS and CXR findings in the postoperative setting.DesignA prospective observational study.SettingAt a postoperative pediatric cardiac surgical intensive care unit in a tertiary-care center.ParticipantsOne hundred sixty patients between the age of 2 months to 18 years undergoing elective cardiac surgery for various congenital heart diseases.InterventionsAfter obtaining permission from the institutional ethics committee, 160 pediatric cardiac surgical patients were studied prospectively in the postoperative period. On the day of surgery (postoperative day [POD] 0), bedside CXR was done in the immediate postoperative period. After bedside CXR, CUS examination was performed and then interpreted by the principal investigator. The CXR was interpreted by the surgical team. Provisional diagnosis was made by the principal investigator and surgical team. Any intervention required was decided based on CXR or CUS findings or both. The procedure was repeated in the morning of POD 1.Measurements And Main ResultsThe degree of agreement between CUS studies and CXR studies in detecting abnormalities was evaluated by Cohen's kappa (k) statistics. The diagnostic performance of CUS was compared with that of CXR using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy. Overall, kappa analysis (k) showed substantial agreement between the findings of the CUS and CXR studies (k = 0.749). The diagnostic performance of CUS, as compared with CXR, was found to have a sensitivity of 96.9%, specificity of 84.75%, PPV of 73.4%, NPV of 98.43%, and diagnostic accuracy of 88.44%. In 94 abnormal findings, the interventions were done based on CUS or CXR findings or both. Overall, there was a substantial agreement (k = 0.787) between CUS and CXR regarding the necessity for interventions.ConclusionsThe degree of agreement between CUS and CXR studies was substantial for atelectasis, interstitial edema, and diaphragmatic weakness. The degree of agreement between CUS and CXR studies was almost perfect for pneumothorax and fair for pleural effusion. More CUS studies detected intrathoracic pathologies than CXR studies. The CUS also detected abnormalities earlier than CXR and was found to be useful for the early institution of intervention therapy in patients with interstitial edema and atelectasis. It would be reasonable to conclude that CUS may be considered in some instances as an alternative to CXR.Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

14 keywords...

hide…