Diagnostic performance of pulmonary ultrasonography and a clinical score for the evaluation of fluid overload in haemodialysis patients

Le résumé fourni par la source

INTRODUCTION: There is no feasible benchmark in daily routine to estimate the hydration status of haemodialysis patients, which is essential to their management. OBJECTIVE: We performed a study in haemodialysis patients to assess the diagnostic performance of pulmonary ultrasound and clinical examination for the evaluation of fluid overload using transthoracic echocardiography as a gold standard. METHODS: Thirty-one patients receiving chronic haemodialysis patients were included. Evaluation of hydration status was assessed weekly before haemodialysis sessions using clinical and Echo Comet Score from pulmonary ultrasound and transthoracic echocardiography (reference method). RESULTS: Five patients had a transthoracic echocardiography overload. Compared with transthoracic echocardiography, the diagnostic performance of the clinical overload score has a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 77%, a positive predictive value of 50% and a negative predictive value of 100% with a κ of 0.79. Only orthopnoea (P=0.008), jugular turgor (P=0.005) and hepatic-jugular reflux (P=0.008) were significantly associated with transthoracic echocardiography overload diagnosis. The diagnostic performance of Echo Comet Score by pulmonary ultrasound has a sensitivity of 80%, a specificity of 58%, a positive predictive value of 26% and a negative predictive value of 94%. Ten patients (32.3%) had an increase of extravascular pulmonary water without evidence of transthoracic echocardiography or clinical overload. CONCLUSIONS: Our clinical score has a convincing diagnostic performance compared to transthoracic echocardiography and could be easily used in daily clinical routine to adjust dry weight. The evaluation of the overload using pulmonary ultrasound seems poorly correlated with the overload evaluated by transthoracic echocardiography. Extravascular pulmonary water undetected by clinical examination and transthoracic echocardiography remains a parameter that requires further investigation.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.