Impact of radiographer immediate reporting of X-rays of the chest from general practice on the lung cancer pathway (radioX): a randomised controlled trial.

The National Optimal Lung Cancer Pathway recommends rapid progression from abnormal chest X-rays (CXRs) to CT. The impact of the more rapid reporting on the whole pathway is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of immediate reporting of CXRs requested by primary care by radiographers on the time to diagnosis of lung cancer. METHOD: People referred for CXR from primary care to a single acute district general hospital in London attended sessions that were prerandomised to either immediate radiographer (IR) reporting or standard radiographer (SR) reporting within 24 hours. CXRs were subsequently reported by radiologists blind to the radiographer reports to test the reliability of the radiographer report. Radiographer and local radiologist discordant cases were reviewed by thoracic radiologists, blinded to reporter. RESULTS: 8682 CXRs were performed between 21 June 2017 and 4 August 2018, 4096 (47.2%) for IR and 4586 (52.8%) for SR. Lung cancer was diagnosed in 49, with 27 (55.1%) for IR. The median time from CXR to diagnosis of lung cancer for IR was 32 days (IQR 19, 70) compared with 63 days (IQR 29, 78) for SR (p=0.03).8258 CXRs (95.1%) were reported by both radiographers and local radiologists. In the 1361 (16.5%) with discordance, the reviewing thoracic radiologists were equally likely to agree with local radiologist and radiographer reports. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate reporting of CXRs from primary care reduces time to diagnosis of lung cancer by half, likely due to rapid progress to CT. Radiographer reports are comparable to local radiologist reports for accuracy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN21818068. Registered on 20 June 2017.

Pneumomediastinum in COVID-19: a phenotype of severe COVID-19 pneumonitis? The results of the United Kingdom (POETIC) survey.

BACKGROUND: There is an emerging understanding that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased incidence of pneumomediastinum. We aimed to determine its incidence among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the United Kingdom and describe factors associated with outcome. METHODS: A structured survey of pneumomediastinum and its incidence was conducted from September 2020 to February 2021. United Kingdom-wide participation was solicited via respiratory research networks. Identified patients had SARS-CoV-2 infection and radiologically proven pneumomediastinum. The primary outcomes were to determine incidence of pneumomediastinum in COVID-19 and to investigate risk factors associated with patient mortality. RESULTS: 377 cases of pneumomediastinum in COVID-19 were identified from 58 484 inpatients with COVID-19 at 53 hospitals during the study period, giving an incidence of 0.64%. Overall 120-day mortality in COVID-19 pneumomediastinum was 195/377 (51.7%). Pneumomediastinum in COVID-19 was associated with high rates of mechanical ventilation. 172/377 patients (45.6%) were mechanically ventilated at the point of diagnosis. Mechanical ventilation was the most important predictor of mortality in COVID-19 pneumomediastinum at the time of diagnosis and thereafter (p<0.001) along with increasing age (p<0.01) and diabetes mellitus (p=0.08). Switching patients from continuous positive airways pressure support to oxygen or high flow nasal oxygen after the diagnosis of pneumomediastinum was not associated with difference in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Pneumomediastinum appears to be a marker of severe COVID-19 pneumonitis. The majority of patients in whom pneumomediastinum was identified had not been mechanically ventilated at the point of diagnosis.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of adult patients admitted with COVID-19 in East London: a retrospective cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Descriptions of clinical characteristics of patients hospitalised withCOVID-19, their clinical course and short-term inpatient and outpatient outcomes in deprived urban populations in the UK are still relatively sparse. We describe the epidemiology, clinical course, experience of non-invasive ventilation and intensive care, mortality and short-term sequelae of patients admitted to two large District General Hospitals across a large East London National Health Service Trust during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was carried out on a cohort of 1946 patients with a clinical or laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19, including descriptive statistics and survival analysis. A more detailed analysis was undertaken of a subset of patients admitted across three respiratory units in the trust. RESULTS: Increasing age, male sex and Asian ethnicity were associated with worse outcomes. Increasing severity of chest X-ray abnormalities trended with mortality. Radiological changes persisted in over 50% of cases at early follow-up (6 weeks). Ongoing symptoms including hair loss, memory impairment, breathlessness, cough and fatigue were reported in 70% of survivors, with 39% of patients unable to return to work due to ongoing symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the acute clinical features, course of illness and outcomes of COVID-19 will be crucial in understanding the effect of differences in risk, as well as the effectiveness of new interventions and vaccination between the successive waves of the pandemic.

Neutropenic sepsis rates in patients receiving bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin chemotherapy using olanzapine and reduced doses of dexamethasone compared to a standard antiemetic regimen.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the use of a steroid-sparing antiemetic protocol (substituting dexamethasone with olanzapine) affects the incidence of neutropenia and associated hospital admissions in patients receiving bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin (BEP) chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Records from 108 patients who received BEP at St Bartholomew's Hospital, London were divided into two groups according to antiemetic regimen. Group 1 (treated 2008-2013) were treated with a steroid-containing antiemetic protocol and group 2 (treated 2014-2017) were treated according to a steroid-sparing protocol, i.e. using olanzapine. Outcomes included incidence of neutropenia at nadir blood count, severity of neutropenia, hospital admissions attributable to febrile neutropenia (FN) and baseline risk factors associated with FN. Statistical analyses were performed using two-sided chi-squared tests. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of the two groups were balanced with regard to age, gender, histology, and proportion of patients with International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group poor-risk disease. The incidence of neutropenia of any grade (group 1, 96.2%; group 2, 98.1%) was similar, although group 2 had more patients with severe neutropenia than group 2 (77.7% vs 88.8%). There was a significant difference in FN incidence (group 1, 22%; group 2 7.5%; P = 0.030). Most cases of FN occurred in cycle 1. Two baseline characteristics were over-represented in patients who developed FN: female sex and age ≥50 years. CONCLUSION: By comparing two cohorts who received prophylactic antibiotics, our audit suggests that rates of FN-related admissions were lower in the cohort of patients in whom we employed a steroid-sparing antiemetic protocol.