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:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Matthias, Isaac, Panebianco, Nova L., Maltenfort, Mitchell G., Dean, Anthony J., Baston, Cameron
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