The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Pediatr.
Sec. Pediatric Critical Care
Volume 13 - 2025 |
doi: 10.3389/fped.2025.1500500
The diagnostic value and efficacy evaluation of lung ultrasound score in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective observational study
Provisionally accepted- 1 Department of Ultrasound, First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Shihezi University, Shihezi, Xinjiang Uyghur Region, China
- 2 First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Shihezi University, Shihezi, China
- 3 Department of Pediatrics, the First Affiliated Hospital of Shihezi University, Shihezi, Xinjiang Province, China., Shihezi, China
Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy and determine the optimal cut-off values of lung ultrasound score for diagnosing neonatal respiratory distress syndrome and its accuracy in assessing the efficacy of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome.Method: This prospective study included 100 neonates with suspected neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Each patient underwent both the 14-zone and 12-zone lung ultrasound methods, as well as a chest X-ray, performed after birth and before initiating drug treatment. Surfactant replacement therapy was administered to patients who were diagnosed with neonatal respiratory distress syndrome and met the criteria for medication. Lung ultrasound was conducted and recorded at the 24th hour, the 48th hour, the 72nd hour, and the 7th day after drug administration. ROC curve analysis, Kappa statistics, and ANOVA were utilized to identify the optimal cut-off values for the lung ultrasound scores in diagnosing neonatal respiratory distress syndrome.Results: 89 neonates were diagnosed with respiratory distress syndrome, of whom 64 received surfactant replacement therapy. The mean scores of 12-zone lung ultrasound score, 14-zone lung ultrasound score, and chest X-ray score are 18.22 ± 7.15, 38.92 ± 9.69, and 2.15 ± 0.97, respectively. The diagnostic AUC for the 12-zone lung ultrasound score is 0.84 (95% CI: 0.73 -0.95), with an optimal cut-off value of 13.5 for diseased versus not diseased, while the AUC for the 14-zone lung ultrasound score is 0.88 (95% CI: 0.76 -0.99), with an optimal cut-off value of 34 for diseased versus not diseased. There is significant concordance between the neonatal lung ultrasonography scores and the chest X-ray score for diagnosis respiratory distress syndrome (P < 0.01). The optimal cut-off values for the grading diagnosis of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome using the 14-zone lung ultrasound score are identified as 36.5, 40.5, and 44.5. The 12-zone lung ultrasound score does not have a significant difference between the 12th hour after receiving surfactant replacement therapy and the 48th hour after treatment (P = 0.08). All other comparisons demonstrated significant differences.Conclusion: The 14-zone lung ultrasound score demonstrates higher diagnostic efficacy in diagnosing neonatal respiratory distress syndrome and can accurately evaluate the early efficacy of surfactant replacement therapy in neonates.
Keywords: neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary surfactant, neonatal lung ultrasonography score, Chest X-ray, Grade diagnoses
Received: 23 Sep 2024; Accepted: 16 Jan 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Dong, Deng, Tong, Du, Liu and Guo. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Jian Dong, Department of Ultrasound, First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Shihezi University, Shihezi, 832002, Xinjiang Uyghur Region, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.