Nurse-Performed Lung Ultrasound Shows High Specificity for Pulmonary Congestion: Study

Written By :  Dr Riya Dave
Medically Reviewed By :  Dr. Kamal Kant Kohli
Published On 2025-08-06 15:30 GMT   |   Update On 2025-08-06 15:30 GMT
Advertisement

Researchers identified that a single, skilled nurse could safely rule out pulmonary congestion in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) with lung ultrasound (LUS), providing new promise for the inclusion of point-of-care imaging in nursing practice. In a prospective exploratory diagnostic accuracy study, LUS performed by a nurse had high specificity (94%) but moderate sensitivity (50%) for detecting pulmonary congestion in critically ill adults. The study was published in the International Journal of Nursing Knowledge by Bruna G. and colleagues.

The research was carried out from October 2022 to September 2023 in a Brazilian general hospital ICU. A convenience sample of 64 adult AKI patients admitted to the ICU were included. Bedside LUS was conducted by a critical care nurse according to the "Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Emergency" protocol. Pulmonary congestion was considered to be present when ≥3 B-lines in ≥2 intercostal spaces on both sides of the chest. These ultrasound results were subsequently compared to an independent reference standard of vascular congestion on chest X-ray or CT scan, interpreted by blinded intensivists.

Advertisement

The objective was to establish how precisely nurse-administered LUS can diagnose pulmonary congestion and whether these ultrasound results reflect nursing diagnostic models, specifically NANDA-I classification of "Excess Fluid Volume."

Key Findings

  • 14 out of 64 patients (21.9%) were detected to have pulmonary congestion by the radiological standard.

  • LUS was 50% sensitive (95% CI: 23%–77%), i.e., correctly detected half of the true congestion.

  • Specificity was 94% (95% CI: 89%–99%), i.e., LUS correctly excluded congestion in nearly all patients without it.

  • Positive predictive value (probability that patients with positive LUS actually had congestion) was 70%, and the negative predictive value (probability that patients with negative LUS were actually congestion-free) was 87%.

  • Nurse-performed LUS showed high agreement with radiology, with a Gwet's AC1 coefficient of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.63–0.92).

  • There were no reported adverse events from conducting LUS.

  • The significant sonographic marker, ≥3 B-lines, correlated with NANDA-I defining characteristic of "pulmonary congestion" for the diagnosis code 00026 of Excess Fluid Volume.

In this pilot study, one experienced nurse could perform LUS with very good specificity to exclude pulmonary congestion in AKI patients admitted to intensive care units. The present results bring a new avenue for equipping nurses with point-of-care imaging, pointing out further research with greater numbers for full utilization of its diagnostic capabilities.

Reference:

Barbeiro, B. G., do Prado, P. R., Santos, V. B., Menegueti, M. G., Boling, B., & Gimenes, F. R. E. (2025). Diagnostic accuracy of nurse‑performed lung ultrasound for pulmonary congestion in acute kidney injury: An exploratory study. International Journal of Nursing Knowledge, 2047-3095.70018. https://doi.org/10.1111/2047-3095.70018


Tags:    
Article Source : International Journal of Nursing Knowledge

Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.

NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.

Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Similar News