A Randomized Controlled Trial of Lung Ultrasound Compared to Chest X-ray for Diagnosing Pneumonia in the Emergency Department

NCT ID: NCT01654887

Last Updated: 2017-03-10

Study Results

Results available

Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.

View full results

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

191 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2012-08-31

Study Completion Date

2013-07-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The primary objective of this study is to determine if lung ultrasound (LUS) can replace chest x-ray (CXR) when evaluating patients with possible pneumonia. Specifically, we are looking for an overall reduction of CXR when LUS is used first. Our null hypothesis is that LUS cannot replace CXR for diagnosing pneumonia. Our alternate hypothesis is that LUS can replace CXR for diagnosing pneumonia. Our secondary objectives include: (1) a comparison of unscheduled healthcare visits after the index Emergency Department (ED) visit between those subjects who undergo CXR first and those who undergo LUS first, (2) an evaluation of the rate of antibiotic use between the two groups, (3) a comparison of the admission rates, and (4) a comparison of the length of stay in the Emergency Department between the two groups.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Background - Ultrasound is now widely accepted as a diagnostic tool for use in the emergency department, as supported by the American College of Emergency Physicians position statement in 2001 (revised in 2008). Evidence-based guidelines for point-of-care lung ultrasound have recently been published (Volpicelli et al 2012). Lichtenstein et al (2004) performed bedside LUS on 117 critically ill patients to evaluate for alveolar consolidation and compared these findings with CT, the gold standard. Sensitivity of ultrasound was 90% and specificity 98%, indicating that US is a feasible imaging modality for the lungs. Copetti et al (2008) compared the diagnostic accuracy of LUS and CXR in children with suspected pneumonia. 79 children underwent LUS and CXR. Lung ultrasound was positive for the diagnosis of pneumonia in 60 patients, whereas CXR was positive in 53. Copetti concluded that LUS is as reliable as CXR in diagnosing pneumonia plus it has the added benefit of no radiation exposure for patients. Shah et al (2009) found LUS to be superior to CXR in detecting pneumonia. 200 patients with suspected pneumonia were enrolled and underwent LUS and CXR. LUS detected 49 pneumonias whereas CXR detected 36. The 13 cases of radiographically occult pneumonia that were identified by LUS were all less than 1 centimeter in diameter, suggesting that LUS is superior in identifying early and/or small pulmonary consolidations. This particular study found that LUS was able to detect pneumonia with a Sensitivity of 86% and a Specificity of 97%. Additionally, Tsung et all (2009) found that it is feasible to use ultrasound to distinguish viral from bacterial pneumonia, thus indicating another striking advantage to LUS. From these studies, it is clear that lung ultrasound plays a role in the diagnosis of pulmonary pathology and moreover it is possible that LUS may replace CXR as the imaging modality of choice. This study is designed as a comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trial between ultrasound and chest x-ray for diagnosing pneumonia. The study cited above performed by Shah et al 2009 forms the basis of our pilot data in planning this randomized controlled trial. In Dr. Shah's study, there were no missed pneumonias and no over or under treatment of pneumonia when pneumonia was diagnosed on lung ultrasound.

Study Design - Currently CXR is the standard of care for the detection of pneumonia, however, there is published evidence that demonstrates LUS is as reliable as CXR and even surpasses CXR in detecting small and/or early pneumonias as well differentiating viral from bacterial processes as cited above (Lichtenstein et al 2004; Copetti et al 2008; Shah et al 2009; Tsung et al 2012).

The motivation for conducting this study is that we have possibly identified an imaging modality that is better than our current standard of care. It is our primary aim to compare the two imaging modalities to clinical outcomes to see if subjects in the investigational arm have better outcomes than those in the control arm who receive the standard of care.

The attending physician or fellow caring for the patient will determine if the patient is eligible. If the ED provider clearly identifies a pneumonia on the ultrasound then the patient will be diagnosed and treated for pneumonia without being subjected to the unnecessary radiation of a CXR. However, if the provider does not clearly identify a pneumonia on ultrasound or if the LUS fails to detect a pneumonia and the clinical suspicion remains high, then the provider has the option to proceed to the CXR to assist in the diagnosis of pneumonia. Alternatively, all subjects randomized to the control arm will under a CXR first followed by a LUS, because LUS can often provide additional information that CXR does not as noted above (e.g. the ability to differentiate between viral and pneumonia infections).

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Pneumonia

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

DIAGNOSTIC

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Lung Ultrasound

LUS first with the option of obtaining CXR second

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Lung Ultrasound

Intervention Type OTHER

Six anatomic areas, delineated by the anterior, posterior, and mid- axillary lines will be systematically examined bilaterally, as per the modified Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Emergency (BLUE) protocol (Lichtenstein 2008). Ultrasound images will be obtained in longitudinal and transverse orientation, and recorded.

Chest X-Ray

CXR first followed by LUS second

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Chest X-Ray

Intervention Type RADIATION

Posterior-Anterior and lateral views of the chest via chest radiography followed by a lung ultrasound which is comprised of six anatomic areas, delineated by the anterior, posterior, and mid- axillary lines will be systematically examined bilaterally, as per the modified Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Emergency (BLUE) protocol (Lichtenstein 2008). Ultrasound images will be obtained in longitudinal and transverse orientation, and recorded.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Lung Ultrasound

Six anatomic areas, delineated by the anterior, posterior, and mid- axillary lines will be systematically examined bilaterally, as per the modified Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Emergency (BLUE) protocol (Lichtenstein 2008). Ultrasound images will be obtained in longitudinal and transverse orientation, and recorded.

Intervention Type OTHER

Chest X-Ray

Posterior-Anterior and lateral views of the chest via chest radiography followed by a lung ultrasound which is comprised of six anatomic areas, delineated by the anterior, posterior, and mid- axillary lines will be systematically examined bilaterally, as per the modified Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Emergency (BLUE) protocol (Lichtenstein 2008). Ultrasound images will be obtained in longitudinal and transverse orientation, and recorded.

Intervention Type RADIATION

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

LUS CXR

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* All patients who present to the ED with respiratory symptoms suspicious for pneumonia
* In whom the treating physician believes would benefit from diagnostic imaging

Exclusion Criteria

* Patients who arrive at the ED with a previously performed CXR
* Unstable patients with life-threatening injuries who require ongoing resuscitation
Maximum Eligible Age

21 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

James Tsung, MD, MPH

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

New York, New York, United States

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Emergency Ultrasound Guidelines. Policy Statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians (revised in October 2008)

Reference Type BACKGROUND

Volpicelli G, Elbarbary M, Blaivas M, Lichtenstein DA, Mathis G, Kirkpatrick AW, Melniker L, Gargani L, Noble VE, Via G, Dean A, Tsung JW, Soldati G, Copetti R, Bouhemad B, Reissig A, Agricola E, Rouby JJ, Arbelot C, Liteplo A, Sargsyan A, Silva F, Hoppmann R, Breitkreutz R, Seibel A, Neri L, Storti E, Petrovic T; International Liaison Committee on Lung Ultrasound (ILC-LUS) for International Consensus Conference on Lung Ultrasound (ICC-LUS). International evidence-based recommendations for point-of-care lung ultrasound. Intensive Care Med. 2012 Apr;38(4):577-91. doi: 10.1007/s00134-012-2513-4. Epub 2012 Mar 6.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 22392031 (View on PubMed)

Lichtenstein DA, Lascols N, Meziere G, Gepner A. Ultrasound diagnosis of alveolar consolidation in the critically ill. Intensive Care Med. 2004 Feb;30(2):276-281. doi: 10.1007/s00134-003-2075-6. Epub 2004 Jan 13.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 14722643 (View on PubMed)

Copetti R, Cattarossi L. Ultrasound diagnosis of pneumonia in children. Radiol Med. 2008 Mar;113(2):190-8. doi: 10.1007/s11547-008-0247-8. Epub 2008 Apr 2. English, Italian.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 18386121 (View on PubMed)

Shah et al. "The Feasibility of Diagnosing Pediatric Pneumonia Using Point-of-Care Ultrasound." Pediatric Emergency Care. American Academy of Pediatrics, Section on Emergency Medicine, Scientific Abstract Presentations, AAP National Conference and Exhibition, October 16, 2009 Y Washington, DC. Ped Emerg Care. Volume 25(10), October 2009, pp 704-712.

Reference Type BACKGROUND

Tsung JW, Kessler DO, Shah VP. Prospective application of clinician-performed lung ultrasonography during the 2009 H1N1 influenza A pandemic: distinguishing viral from bacterial pneumonia. Crit Ultrasound J. 2012 Jul 10;4(1):16. doi: 10.1186/2036-7902-4-16.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 22862998 (View on PubMed)

Jones BP, Tay ET, Elikashvili I, Sanders JE, Paul AZ, Nelson BP, Spina LA, Tsung JW. Feasibility and Safety of Substituting Lung Ultrasonography for Chest Radiography When Diagnosing Pneumonia in Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Chest. 2016 Jul;150(1):131-8. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2016.02.643. Epub 2016 Feb 26.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 26923626 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

HSM# 12-00153

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: secondary_id

GCO 12-0428

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.