Open AccessSmall airway dysfunction on impulse oscillometry and pathological signs on lung ultrasound are frequent in post-COVID-19 patients with persistent respiratory symptoms
Author(s) -
Agnaldo José Lopes,
Patrícia Frascari Litrento,
Bruna C. Provenzano,
Alícia Sales Carneiro,
Laura Braga Monnerat,
Mariana Soares da Cal,
Angelo Thomaz Abalada Ghetti,
Thiago Thomáz Mafort
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0260679
Subject(s) - medicine , spirometry , population , respiratory system , cohort , covid-19 , pathological , cardiology , disease , infectious disease (medical specialty) , environmental health , asthma
Background Thousands of people worldwide are suffering the consequences of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), and impulse oscillometry (IOS) and lung ultrasound (LUS) might be important tools for the follow-up of this population. Our objective was to prospectively evaluate abnormalities detected using these two methods in a cohort of COVID-19 survivors with respiratory symptoms. Methods In this follow-up study, 59 patients underwent clinical evaluations, spirometry, IOS and LUS in the 2nd (M1) and 5th (M2) months after diagnostic confirmation of COVID-19 by real-time reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction. Aeration scores were obtained from the LUS exams based on the following findings: B-lines >2, coalescent B-lines, and subpleural consolidations. Results Fifty-nine (100%) participants had cough and/or dyspnea at M1, which decreased to 38 (64.4%) at M2 (p = 0.0001). Spirometry was abnormal in 26 (44.1%) and 20 (33.9%) participants at M1 and M2, respectively, although without statistical significance (p = 0.10). Normal examination, restrictive patterns, and obstructive patterns were observed in 33 (55.9%), 18 (30.5%), and 8 (13.6%) participants, respectively, at M1 and in 39 (66.1%), 13 (22%), and 7 (11.9%) participants at M2 (p = 0.14). Regarding IOS, considering changes in resistive and reactive parameters, abnormal exams were detected in 52 (88.1%) and 42 (71.2%) participants at M1 and M2, respectively (p = 0.002). Heterogeneity of resistance between 4 and 20 Hz >20% was observed in 38 (64.4%) and 33 (55.9%) participants at M1 and M2, respectively (p = 0.30). Abnormal LUS was observed in 46 (78%) and 36 (61%) participants at M1 and M2, respectively (p = 0.002), with a reduction in aeration scores between M1 and M2 [5 (2–8) vs. 3 (0–6) points, p<0.0001]. Conclusions IOS and LUS abnormalities are frequent in the first 5 months post-COVID-19 infection; however, when prospectively evaluated, significant improvement is evident in the parameters measured by these two methods.