Context Lung ultrasonography (LUS) is increasingly used to identify various neonatal respiratory disorders. There is emerging evidence that it can identify infants with significant lung disease who need surfactant treatment or mechanical ventilation.
Objective To systematically review the accuracy of LUS in determining the need for surfactant treatment or mechanical ventilation in infants with respiratory distress treated with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP).
Methods Database search include EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL and Cochrane central from inception until 17 October 2018. Included is diagnostic accuracy studies reporting LUS evaluating surfactant therapy/mechanical ventilation. Two authors extracted data independently and assessed quality. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool was used to determine the methodological quality.
Results Six studies involving 485 infants included in the review. Three studies used LUS score, two used type 1 lung profile, and one used high-risk LUS to evaluate the outcome. The pooled sensitivity and specificity at LUS score cut-off >5–6 was 88% (95% CI 80% to 93%) and 82% (95% CI 74% to 89%), respectively. Infants with LUS score >5–6 were at significantly increased risk of surfactant treatment compared with infants with LUS score <5–6 (relative risk=7.51; 95% CI 4.16 to 13.58; two studies; participants=189; I2=0%). The diagnostic accuracy of type 1 lung profile was better in younger preterm infants (sensitivity 88.9%, specificity 100%) compared with late preterm and term infants (sensitivity 100%, specificity 28%).
Conclusions LUS, particularly LUS score, can be used accurately to determine the need for surfactant replacement treatment or mechanical ventilation in infants with respiratory distress treated with NCPAP support. The accuracy is better in younger preterm infants compared with late preterm and term infants.
PROSPERO registration number CRD42018115135.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors AR conceptualised and designed the study, performed the search and initial screening of the articles, abstracted the data, performed initial analyses and assessed the methodological quality, drafted the manuscript and approved the final version. MF shortlisted the articles to ascertain no missing studies for selection, double checked the numbers included in the analyses and results, verified the methodological quality, revised the manuscript and approved the final version.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Presented at Pediatric Academic Socities meeting 2019 at Baltimore, USA.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.