Cargando…
Effect of Machine Settings on Ultrasound Assessment of B‐lines
OBJECTIVES: B‐lines are a lung ultrasound (LUS) artifact that often indicate pathology. Little is known about the optimal ultrasound machine settings to assess B‐lines. We compared settings typically used to evaluate B‐lines at our institution with adjusted settings based on recent studies. METHODS:...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8518047/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33289208 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jum.15581 |
_version_ | 1784584138953588736 |
---|---|
author | Matthias, Isaac Panebianco, Nova L. Maltenfort, Mitchell G. Dean, Anthony J. Baston, Cameron |
author_facet | Matthias, Isaac Panebianco, Nova L. Maltenfort, Mitchell G. Dean, Anthony J. Baston, Cameron |
author_sort | Matthias, Isaac |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: B‐lines are a lung ultrasound (LUS) artifact that often indicate pathology. Little is known about the optimal ultrasound machine settings to assess B‐lines. We compared settings typically used to evaluate B‐lines at our institution with adjusted settings based on recent studies. METHODS: In order to determine typical settings for B‐line assessment, we retrospectively reviewed LUS images obtained at our institution. We then prospectively performed LUS with both typical and adjusted settings, using curvilinear and phased array probes, in 20 patients presenting to the emergency department with shortness of breath. The prospectively obtained clips were rated for quality and quantity of B‐lines by 14 clinicians with experience in LUS, with 1 assigned for typical settings “much greater,” 2 for typical settings “slightly greater,” 3 for both settings “similar,” 4 for adjusted settings “slightly greater,” and 5 for adjusted settings “much greater.” RESULTS: Mean ratings and 95% confidence intervals significantly exceeded the null value of 3 for both B line quality (curvilinear probe: 4.68, 4.50–4.85; phased array probe: 4.02, 3.70–4.35) and B line quantity (curvilinear probe: 4.16, 3.84–4.49; phased array probe: 3.68, 3.41–3.96). CONCLUSIONS: B‐line quality and quantity were rated higher using adjusted settings based on recently published evidence than when using settings that are typically employed in our institution. Our findings suggest that B‐line assessment should be performed with focal zone at the level of the pleura, harmonics off, and gain increased in the far field. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8518047 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | John Wiley & Sons, Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85180472021-10-21 Effect of Machine Settings on Ultrasound Assessment of B‐lines Matthias, Isaac Panebianco, Nova L. Maltenfort, Mitchell G. Dean, Anthony J. Baston, Cameron J Ultrasound Med Original Research OBJECTIVES: B‐lines are a lung ultrasound (LUS) artifact that often indicate pathology. Little is known about the optimal ultrasound machine settings to assess B‐lines. We compared settings typically used to evaluate B‐lines at our institution with adjusted settings based on recent studies. METHODS: In order to determine typical settings for B‐line assessment, we retrospectively reviewed LUS images obtained at our institution. We then prospectively performed LUS with both typical and adjusted settings, using curvilinear and phased array probes, in 20 patients presenting to the emergency department with shortness of breath. The prospectively obtained clips were rated for quality and quantity of B‐lines by 14 clinicians with experience in LUS, with 1 assigned for typical settings “much greater,” 2 for typical settings “slightly greater,” 3 for both settings “similar,” 4 for adjusted settings “slightly greater,” and 5 for adjusted settings “much greater.” RESULTS: Mean ratings and 95% confidence intervals significantly exceeded the null value of 3 for both B line quality (curvilinear probe: 4.68, 4.50–4.85; phased array probe: 4.02, 3.70–4.35) and B line quantity (curvilinear probe: 4.16, 3.84–4.49; phased array probe: 3.68, 3.41–3.96). CONCLUSIONS: B‐line quality and quantity were rated higher using adjusted settings based on recently published evidence than when using settings that are typically employed in our institution. Our findings suggest that B‐line assessment should be performed with focal zone at the level of the pleura, harmonics off, and gain increased in the far field. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2020-12-02 2021-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8518047/ /pubmed/33289208 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jum.15581 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Matthias, Isaac Panebianco, Nova L. Maltenfort, Mitchell G. Dean, Anthony J. Baston, Cameron Effect of Machine Settings on Ultrasound Assessment of B‐lines |
title | Effect of Machine Settings on Ultrasound Assessment of B‐lines |
title_full | Effect of Machine Settings on Ultrasound Assessment of B‐lines |
title_fullStr | Effect of Machine Settings on Ultrasound Assessment of B‐lines |
title_full_unstemmed | Effect of Machine Settings on Ultrasound Assessment of B‐lines |
title_short | Effect of Machine Settings on Ultrasound Assessment of B‐lines |
title_sort | effect of machine settings on ultrasound assessment of b‐lines |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8518047/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33289208 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jum.15581 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT matthiasisaac effectofmachinesettingsonultrasoundassessmentofblines AT panebianconoval effectofmachinesettingsonultrasoundassessmentofblines AT maltenfortmitchellg effectofmachinesettingsonultrasoundassessmentofblines AT deananthonyj effectofmachinesettingsonultrasoundassessmentofblines AT bastoncameron effectofmachinesettingsonultrasoundassessmentofblines |