Reliability of a Pocket Sized Ultrasound Scanner in the Evaluation Covid-19 Pneumonia (USCovid)

June 13, 2020 updated by: Piersante Sestini, University of Siena

Comparison Between a Pocket Sized and a High End Ultrasound Scanner in the Evaluation of Lung Involvement in Patients With Covid-19 Pneumonia

Ultrasound imaging of the lung (LUS) and associated tissues has demonstrated clinical utility in COVID-19 patients. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the possibilities of a portable pocket-sized ultrasound scanner in the evaluation of lung involvement in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, in comparison with a high end ultrasound scanner.

Statisical analysis will be performed with Stata for Windows V 16 (Stata corp, Texas College, TX). Power size estimation using Medcalc 19.3.1, (MedCalc Software Ltd, Ostenda, B) showed that hat 34 patients would be required for the comparison of the two methods using the Bland-Altman method assuming a mean difference in total score of 1±1, a false positive rate (α) of 0.05 and a false negative rate of 0.1 (β=0.9).

Study Overview

Status

Unknown

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), emerged in China in December 2019 and quickly spread all over the globe. The clinical features are fever, dyspnoea, dry cough, fatigue and diarrhoea (1). Pharyngodynia, nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea and anosmia have also been reported . Interstitial pneumonia is very common and a high percentage of patients (9-11%) develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and require intensive care. Current therapeutic strategy involves agents counteracting viral invasion and replication, and inhibitors of cytokine-sustained inflammatory reactions. No specific antiviral therapy has yet been identified.

Ultrasound imaging of the lung (LUS) and associated tissues has demonstrated clinical utility in COVID-19 patients, due to the typical sonographic characteristics of affected lungs. It provides indications for clinical decisions and the management of associated respiratory failure and lung injury.

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the possibilities of a portable pocket-sized ultrasound scanner in the evaluation of lung involvement in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

We will perform 34 LUS (lung ultrasound scan) evaluations on patients admitted to the COVID Unit of Siena University Hospital with symptoms compatible with COVID-19, a positive SARS-CoV-2 nasal-pharyngeal swab and radiological evidence of interstitial pneumonia.

The patients will be divided into three severity categories based on respiratory impairment: Mild PaO2/FiO2 > 300 in room air or oxygen flow; Moderate PaO2/FiO2 between 150 and 300 in room air or oxygen-therapy, CPAP, NIV or HFNC; Severe PaO2/FiO2 < 150 on oxygen-therapy, CPAP, NIV, HFNC or mechanical ventilation.

The lung ultrasound scans will be performed on the same day with a standard ultrasound scanner (GE Healthcare, Venue GO) and a pocket-sized ultrasound scanner (Butterfly Network Inc., Butterfly iQ) for clinical purposes; lung preset will be used with both scanners. Up to six regions of the chest will be identified: anterosuperior (A); anteroinferior (B); lateralsuperior (C); lateralinferior (D); posterosuperior (E); posteroinferior (F). One of four different aeration patterns will be recorded according to a specific scoring system: A = 0 points (normal aeration, presence of lung sliding with A lines or less than two isolated B lines), B1 = 1 point (moderate loss of lung aeration, multiple well-defined B lines), B2 = 2 points (severe loss of lung aeration, multiple coalescent B lines), C = 3 points (lung consolidation and tissue-like pattern). Pleural effusion and pneumothorax were also recorded. A score of 0 was normal and 36 was the worst. Due to clinical conditions, the upper posterior region (E) could not be explored in some patients, so the mean of the regions explored will be calculated for the purposes of statistical analysis (total sum (0 to 36) divided by number of regions explored (5 or 6 on each side).

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Anticipated)

34

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Locations

    • Si
      • Siena, Si, Italy, 53100
        • Recruiting
        • Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Senese
        • Contact:

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child
  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

Patients admitted to hospital ward with a diagnosis of Covid-19 preumonia, confirmed by a positive rtPCR swab and radiography

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Admitted to hospital ward with a diagnosis of Covid-19 preumonia, confirmed by a positive rtPCR swab and radiography

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Unable/unwilling to cooperate

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Bland-Altman estimate of bias and Limits of Agreement (LoA) of patient mean scores obtained with the two instruments
Time Frame: 1 day
The more widely accepted measure of agreement beteen two instruments. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical method for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet i:307-310
1 day

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: David Bennett, MD, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Senese

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

March 15, 2020

Primary Completion (Actual)

June 10, 2020

Study Completion (Anticipated)

June 10, 2020

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

June 12, 2020

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

June 13, 2020

First Posted (Actual)

June 16, 2020

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

June 16, 2020

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

June 13, 2020

Last Verified

June 1, 2020

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

YES

IPD Plan Description

The whole anonymized dataset could be shared

IPD Sharing Time Frame

from the month of July, for one year

IPD Sharing Access Criteria

on request by email

IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type

  • STUDY_PROTOCOL

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Covid-19 Pneumonia

Clinical Trials on Butterfly

3
Subscribe