Value of Thoracic Echocardiography in the Diagnosis of Acute Heart Failure: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Context center dot For patients with acute heart failure (AHF), the methods of clinical diagnosis of pulmonary edema mainly include clinical symptoms, laboratory results, and an imaging examination. The common diagnostic methods, such as chest X-rays and computerized tomography (CT) scanning, haven't been completely satisfactory. Objective center dot The study intended to systematically, quantitatively, and comprehensively evaluate the value of a lung (pulmonary) ultrasound, performed at a patient's bedside, in the diagnosis of acute heart failure (AHF), to provide an objective basis for its clinical application and further research. Design center dot The research team searched PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, China Journal Full-text Database (CNKI), VIP Full-text Database, Wanfang Database, and China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) for relevant literature, from January 2010 to the present, about the use of a lung ultrasound for diagnosis of AHF patients. The team used keywords to search literature: ultrasound, AHF diagnosis, cardiogenic pulmonary edema, ultrasonic examination, AHF diagnosis, and cardiogenic pulmonary edema. The research team then conducted a meta-analysis of the collected data according to the Cochrane Handbook 5.3 with RevMan 5.3 statistical software. Setting center dot The study took place at Jinan Outcome Measures center dot The research team: (1) evaluated the quality of the included studies; (2) examined the accuracy of a lung ultrasound in the diagnosis of AHF compared to computerized tomography ( CT) as well as to the conventional ultrasonic cardiogram (echocardiogram) that a cardiologist performs; (3) determined the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of lung ultrasound using data from two of the included studies; (4) evaluated the data by drawing funnel charts; and (5) examined the publication bias of the included studies. Results center dot The research team selected six controlled clinical studies, with 345 data samples, for the meta-analysis. The team performed heterogeneity tests for the included research data. For the first test, the team compared the accuracy of lung ultrasound and CT in diagnosing AHF and found obvious heterogeneity, with chi(2) = 11.40, df = 3, P = .010, and I-2 = 74%. Based on an analysis using a random effects model, the team found no significant differences between the two methods in the diagnosis of AHF (P =.35). For the second test, the team compared the accuracy of lung ultrasound and an ultrasonic cardiogram in diagnosing AHF and found that the data didn't differ significantly, with chi(2) = 0.08, df = 1, P = .78, I-2 = 0%. Based on an analysis using a fixed effects model, the team found that the accuracy of the lung ultrasound in diagnosing AHF was significantly higher than that of ultrasonic cardiogram (P = .01). In the two studies, the sensitivity and specificity were high. The majority of the funnel charts were symmetrical, but a few were asymmetrical, suggesting a publication bias, which the heterogeneity in the studies and the limited number of examined examples may explain. Conclusions center dot Lung ultrasound is of great value in the diagnosis of AHF. It's highly efficient, has prospects for broad clinical application, and is worth popularizing, benefiting patients. Scholars need to verify the current study's findings in follow-up studies and in more high-quality case-control trials.