Evidence Hub

Assessing diaphragm dysfunction in ICU patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: A prospective observational cohort study

Nazire Ates Ayhan, Sinem Bayrakçı, Ahmet Firat, Yurdaer Bulut, G. Seydaoğlu, Emre Karakoç, Oya Baydar Toprak, E. Ozyilmaz

Science in progress, 2026

79 participants

Abstract

Objective Ultrasonography has been commonly employed during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to assess lung and heart conditions; however, diaphragm ultrasonography (DU) has not been as widely acknowledged. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of diaphragm dysfunction (DD) in non-intubated critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia on intensive care unit (ICU) admission and to examine the correlation between DD and various prognostic factors during their ICU stay. Methods This prospective observational cohort study included 79 consecutive patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) over an eight-month period. DU was performed within 24 h of admission by the same ultrasonographer. Diaphragm excursion was measured, and the diaphragmatic thickening fraction (DTF) was calculated. Results A total of 79 patients were included in the study. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis identified a diaphragmatic thickening fraction (DTF) threshold of ≤25% for predicting ICU mortality (area under the curve [AUC] 0.87, sensitivity 85.1%, specificity 71.9%). Based on this cutoff, diaphragmatic dysfunction (DD) was present in 50.6% of patients on ICU admission and was associated with higher mortality (65.0% vs. 15.4%, p<0.001), fewer ICU-free days, and higher intubation rates. Survivors had significantly higher DTF values than non-survivors (30.7% vs. 18.8%, p<0.001). Multivariate analyses showed that DD on ICU admission was an independent…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 79 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free