Lung Ultrasound Versus Chest Radiography for Acute Heart Failure: Impact of Heart Failure History and Pleural Effusion

<b>Background/Objectives:</b> This is the first prospective, same-day, multi-modality comparison of lung ultrasound (LUS) and chest radiography (CXR) for detecting acute heart failure (AHF) in non-critical patients with dyspnoea, examining the impact of chronic heart failure and pleural effusion, using low-dose chest CT (LDCT) as an objective comparator, and cardiologists-adjudicated AHF as reference standard. <b>Methods:</b> An observational study of 240 consecutive non-critical patients ≥50 years admitted with dyspnoea was conducted. Unstable AHF cases were deemed ineligible. Each modality was evaluated at the population level with area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity, and compared at the patient level using conditional odds ratio for the association to AHF adjudicated by blinded cardiologists. Congestion was defined by LUS as (a) ≥3 B-lines bilaterally, or (b) B-lines combined with pleural effusion, and (c) CXR, interpreted by two thoracic radiologists, using (d) LDCT as an objective comparator. <b>Results:</b> Among 240 patients (66 with cardiologist-adjudicated AHF, 58 with chronic heart failure), LUS (b) demonstrated a diagnostic accuracy at population level of AUC = 0.82 (sensitivity = 80%, specificity = 84%), while CXR (c) achieved AUC = 0.80 (sensitivity = 68%, specificity = 91%), with CXR showing a modest but statistically significant difference over LUS at the patient level (OR = 1.51, <i>p</i> = 0.03). Incorporating pleural effusion into LUS increased its AUC from 0.67 to 0.82 (a vs. b, <i>p</i> < 0.001). The objective comparator, LDCT (d), achieved an AUC = 0.92 (sensitivity = 74%, specificity = 96%). In patients with chronic heart failure, LUS (b) and CXR (c) performed comparably (<i>p</i> = 0.87), whereas in those without chronic heart failure, CXR was superior (<i>p</i> = 0.04). <b>Conclusions:</b> In non-critical, diagnostically challenging patients with dyspnoea, in whom critical AHF cases were not eligible, including pleural effusion improved LUS accuracy for AHF. Diagnostic performance differed by heart failure history, with CXR superior in new-onset heart failure, while LUS and CXR performed comparably in chronic heart failure.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Diagnostics
Published
2025-11-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15233047
Primary Topic
Ultrasound in Clinical Applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Lung Ultrasound Versus Chest Radiography for Acute Heart Failure: Impact of Heart Failure History and Pleural Effusion

Jens Jakob Thune, Johannes Grand, Olav Wendelboe Nielsen, Anne Sophie Overgaard Olesen et al.
Diagnostics
Ultrasound in Clinical Applications
article

Lung Ultrasound Versus Chest Radiography for Acute Heart Failure: Impact of Heart Failure History and Pleural Effusion

Jens Jakob Thune, Johannes Grand, Olav Wendelboe Nielsen, Anne Sophie Overgaard Olesen, Mikael Boesen, Kristina Miger
article en

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives:</b> This is the first prospective, same-day, multi-modality comparison of lung ultrasound (LUS) and chest radiography (CXR) for detecting acute heart failure (AHF) in non-critical patients with dyspnoea, examining the impact of chronic heart failure and pleural effusion, using low-dose chest CT (LDCT) as an objective comparator, and cardiologists-adjudicated AHF as reference standard. <b>Methods:</b> An observational study of 240 consecutive non-critical patients ≥50 years admitted with dyspnoea was conducted. Unstable AHF cases were deemed ineligible. Each modality was evaluated at the population level with area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity, and compared at the patient level using conditional odds ratio for the association to AHF adjudicated by blinded cardiologists. Congestion was defined by LUS as (a) ≥3 B-lines bilaterally, or (b) B-lines combined with pleural effusion, and (c) CXR, interpreted by two thoracic radiologists, using (d) LDCT as an objective comparator. <b>Results:</b> Among 240 patients (66 with cardiologist-adjudicated AHF, 58 with chronic heart failure), LUS (b) demonstrated a diagnostic accuracy at population level of AUC = 0.82 (sensitivity = 80%, specificity = 84%), while CXR (c) achieved AUC = 0.80 (sensitivity = 68%, specificity = 91%), with CXR showing a modest but statistically significant difference over LUS at the patient level (OR = 1.51, <i>p</i> = 0.03). Incorporating pleural effusion into LUS increased its AUC from 0.67 to 0.82 (a vs. b, <i>p</i> < 0.001). The objective comparator, LDCT (d), achieved an AUC = 0.92 (sensitivity = 74%, specificity = 96%). In patients with chronic heart failure, LUS (b) and CXR (c) performed comparably (<i>p</i> = 0.87), whereas in those without chronic heart failure, CXR was superior (<i>p</i> = 0.04). <b>Conclusions:</b> In non-critical, diagnostically challenging patients with dyspnoea, in whom critical AHF cases were not eligible, including pleural effusion improved LUS accuracy for AHF. Diagnostic performance differed by heart failure history, with CXR superior in new-onset heart failure, while LUS and CXR performed comparably in chronic heart failure.

DiagnosticsVol. 15(23)
University of Copenhagen (DK), Amager Hospital (DK), Frederiksberg Hospital (DK)
Openalex Percentile: Top 54%
Ultrasound in Clinical Applications
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.