OBJECTIVES: Amplitude-mode (A-mode) ultrasonography is a promising technique to monitor loss and recovery of skeletal muscle in patients with burns. However, its clinimetric properties are unknown. Therefore, we determined its feasibility, interrater, and intrarater reliability, and clinical utility.METHODS: Skeletal muscle thickness of upper arms and legs was assessed longitudinally in hospitalized adult patients with ≥ 5 % total body surface area (TBSA) burns, by pairs of two out of five raters. Feasibility was evaluated by % successful assessments, reliability by intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs), and clinical utility by smallest detectable change (SDC).RESULTS: Thirty-four patients participated (77 % male; mean age 48 ± 17 y, median TBSA burned 12 % [IQR 7-19]). Images were acquired on 69 % of planned occasions, and 89 % of images could be analyzed. Overall interrater ICCs were ≥ 0.84 (for pairs: 0.63-0.99) and intrarater ICCs were ≥ 0.95 (for pairs: 0.45-0.99). The overall interrater SDC was ≤ 33 % of the measured mean (for pairs: 3-52 %), while intrarater SDC was ≤ 20 % (for pairs: 3-48 %). All five raters could measure legs with moderate to excellent reliability, whereas for arms some demonstrated poor reliability.CONCLUSION: A-mode ultrasonography assessment of skeletal muscle in patients with burns is feasible. However, reliability and clinical utility are rater-dependent; therefore we recommend assessments by the same rater.
DOCUMENT
Background: Ventilation with lower positive end–expiratory pressure (PEEP) may cause loss of lung aeration in critically ill invasively ventilated patients. This study investigated whether a systematic lung ultrasound (LUS) scoring system can detect such changes in lung aeration in a study comparing lower versus higher PEEP in invasively ventilated patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods: Single center substudy of a national, multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing lower versus higher PEEP ventilation strategy. Fifty–seven patients underwent a systematic 12–region LUS examination within 12 h and between 24 to 48 h after start of invasive ventilation, according to randomization. The primary endpoint was a change in the global LUS aeration score, where a higher value indicates a greater impairment in lung aeration. Results: Thirty–three and twenty–four patients received ventilation with lower PEEP (median PEEP 1 (0–5) cm H2O) or higher PEEP (median PEEP 8 (8–8) cm H2O), respectively. Median global LUS aeration scores within 12 h and between 24 and 48 h were 8 (4 to 14) and 9 (4 to 12) (difference 1 (–2 to 3)) in the lower PEEP group, and 7 (2–11) and 6 (1–12) (difference 0 (–2 to 3)) in the higher PEEP group. Neither differences in changes over time nor differences in absolute scores reached statistical significance. Conclusions: In this substudy of a randomized clinical trial comparing lower PEEP versus higher PEEP in patients without ARDS, LUS was unable to detect changes in lung aeration.
DOCUMENT
