Search

Objectives To evaluate general practitioners’ (GPs’) ability to perform focused lung ultrasound (FLUS) following a training program and assess FLUS feasibility in general practice. Also, to describe FLUS findings and evaluate GPs’ ability to interpret these in adults with acute lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) when pneumonia is suspected and assess GPs’ perception of FLUS impact.Methods Nine GPs, using point-of-care ultrasound, completed a FLUS training program. Adults (≥ 18 years) with acute cough (< 28 days) and at least one other symptom of acute LRTI, where the GP suspected pneumonia, were subsequently included. All patients received FLUS. The GPs reported FLUS findings, feasibility, and perception of FLUS impact. Recorded FLUS videos from all patients were reviewed by two specialists (Specialist Reference). The specialists assessed FLUS image quality. Agreements between the GPs and the Specialist Reference on FLUS findings were used to evaluate GPs’ ability to interpret FLUS.Results Of 91 patients included, FLUS image quality was acceptable or higher in 84 patients (92.4%). FLUS proved feasible with only two scans not completed. The GPs reported FLUS pathological findings in 51.7% of patients in 78% agreement with the Specialist Reference and Cohen’s kappa 0.56. Focal B-lines represented the most frequent pathological findings. The GPs perceived that FLUS impacted change in tentative diagnosis and/or plans for treatment and/or visitation in 29 (32.0%) of patients.Conclusion After the training, the GPs performed FLUS well. Interpretation of FLUS pathology presence was of moderate agreement. The GPs perceived that FLUS had impact on patient management.Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04711031

Abstract Background The use of antibiotics is a key driver of antimicrobial resistance and is considered a major threat to global health. In Denmark, approximately 75% of antibiotic prescriptions are issued in general practice, with acute lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) being one of the most common indications. Adults who present to general practice with symptoms of acute LRTI often suffer from self-limiting viral infections. However, some patients have bacterial community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), a potential life-threatening infection, that requires immediate antibiotic treatment. Importantly, no single symptom or specific point-of-care test can be used to discriminate the various diagnoses, and diagnostic uncertainty often leads to (over)use of antibiotics. At present, general practitioners (GPs) lack tools to better identify those patients who will benefit from antibiotic treatment. The primary aim of the PLUS-FLUS trial is to determine whether adults who present with symptoms of an acute LRTI in general practice and who have FLUS performed in addition to usual care are treated less frequently with antibiotics than those who only receive usual care. Methods Adults (≥ 18 years) presenting to general practice with acute cough (

Objectives We aimed to systematically review the published literature regarding adults with clinical suspicion of pneumonia that compares the accuracy of lung ultrasonography (LUS) performed by non-imaging specialists to other reference standards in diagnosing and evaluating the severity of community-acquired pneumonia. Moreover, we aimed to describe LUS training and the speciality of the physician performing LUS, time spent on the LUS procedure and potential harms to patients.Materials and methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up until May 2019. We included studies that used LUS to diagnose pneumonia, but also confirmed pneumonia by other means. Publications were excluded if LUS was performed by a sonographer or radiologist (imaging specialists) or performed on other indications than suspicion of pneumonia. Two review authors screened and selected articles, extracted data and assessed quality using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2.Results We included 17 studies. The sensitivity of LUS to diagnose pneumonia ranged from 0.68 to 1.00; however, in 14 studies, sensitivity was ≥0.91. Specificities varied from 0.57 to 1.00. We found no obvious differences between studies with low and high diagnostic accuracy. The non-imaging specialists were emergency physicians, internal medicine physicians, intensivists or ‘speciality not described’. Five studies described LUS training, which varied from a 1-hour course to fully credentialed ultrasound education. In general, the methodological quality of studies was good, though, some studies had a high risk of bias.Conclusion We found significant heterogeneity across studies. In the majority of studies, LUS in the hands of the non-imaging specialists demonstrated high sensitivities and specificities in diagnosing pneumonia. However, due to problems with methodology and heterogeneity there is a need for larger studies with uniform and clearly established criteria for diagnosis and blinding.PROSPERO registration number Prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017057804).