The New Frontier of Point-of-Care Ultrasound: Lung Ultrasound in Congenital Heart Disease
The bedside assessment of pulmonary congestion is undergoing conceptual consolidation: lung ultrasound (LUS) has evolved from being merely an “adjunct” tool to assuming a central role in the identification of extravascular fluid and aeration patterns, with important diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. The article by Donmez et al. directly discusses the role of LUS in the assessment of pulmonary edema in children with congenital heart disease (CHD). In a retrospective cohort of 62 children, the study observed pulmonary edema in 53% by LUS and in 58% by radiography. Furthermore, the presence of edema by LUS was associated with clinically relevant variables in the clinical picture, such as recurrent respiratory infections, low weight, and elevated BNP levels. These findings reinforce that LUS adds objective and reproducible information to the care of children, in a context where clinical examination can be hampered by low cooperation and bedside radiography may have reduced accuracy due to positioning limitations and technical quality.
In adults with heart failure, the usefulness of LUS for pulmonary congestion is supported by several clinical studies demonstrating high diagnostic performance and correlation with outcomes. B-lines reflect increased extravascular fluid and, when diffusely present, reclassify the differential diagnosis of dyspnea. Comparison between LUS, biomarkers, and clinical assessment in an outpatient setting has shown that the burden of B-lines can detect subclinical congestion and anticipate the possibility of decompensation., In an acute setting, the systematic implementation of LUS improves diagnostic accuracy for decompensated heart failure, and prognostic studies associate congestion detected by LUS with worse short- and long-term outcomes. Reviews and perspective papers in cardiology have highlighted LUS as a rapid, reproducible, and low-cost diagnostic modality.
[…]
Comments are moderated by the editorial team before publication. Discussions should be evidence-based and use scientific language. Conflicts of interest should be declared.