SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test: Fast-safe or dangerous? An analysis in the emergency department of an university hospital.

The use of Antigen point of care tests (AgPOCT) might be an essential tool to fight the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Manufacturer information indicates a specificity of about 95% and there is a growing interest to use these tests area-wide. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify whether AgPOCT can be used safely for "rule-in" (detection of positive patients) and for "rule-out" (valid negative testing). Two thousand three hundred and seventy-five patients received polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing and AgPOCT for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) regardless of symptoms. The positive predictive value of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients was compared with a cut-off threshold cycle (C t ) value of ≤30 and in total. Five hundrded and fifty-one patients tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus by PCR, of whom 35.2% presented without symptoms. In all patients, regardless of their symptoms or C t values, a sensitivity of 68.9% and a specificity of 99.6% were calculated for AgPOCT. In patients with C t values ≤30, a sensitivity of 80.5% (95% confidence interval: ±1.62) and a specificity of 99.6% were shown for all tests (symptomatic/asymptomatic). Highly infectious patients (C t ≤ 20), regardless of symptoms, were reliably detected by the AgPOCT. In infectious patients with C t values ≤30, the test has a sensitivity of about 80% regardless of COVID-19 typical symptoms, which is apparently less than the 96.52% specificity indicated by the manufacturer. Relevant improvement in test sensitivity by querying the patients who are symptomatic and asymptomatic is also not feasible. We strongly suggest that we critically question the use of AgPOCT for "rule-out," as they only provide a supposed safety.

[Wave riding - 12 months of COVID-19 in a German tertiary care center]. / Wellenreiten ­ 12 Monate COVID-19 im Maximalversorger.

INTRODUCTION: With more than 1400 COVID-19 inpatients, the university hospital of Essen is the main regional caregiver during COVID-19 pandemic. We present outcome data of our inpatients during the first 12 months of pandemic and our derived clinical care concepts. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all 1396 COVID-19 inpatients presenting between March, 1st of 2020 and February, 28th of 2021 for comorbidities, survival and complications. Group comparison between patients receiving standard care and those requiring intermediate/ intensive care. RESULTS: Mortality rate of all inpatients was 19,8 % (277/ 1396), whereas 10.6 % (93/877) of the patients with standard care and 35.5 % (184/519) of those with intermediate/intensive care died during hospital stay. Age above 60 years, obesity, need for mechanical ventilation, nitric oxide therapy, ECMO and acute renal failure as well as stroke during the clinical course were independent predictors of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality of both patient groups ranges within the numbers published by other international groups. The vast impact of usual comorbidities could be observed as well as the high rate of complications in serious ill COVID-19 patients. The mean age of both patient groups was lower than expected (60 years standard care versus 63 years intermediate/ intensive care). A maximum of patient and staff protection measures, a fast and efficient testing strategy during primary triage, standardized concepts from emergency department to intensive care units and dynamic adjustment of resources to daily changing needs can ensure a high quality of care even during peak of pandemic.

Impact of Anesthetics on Cardioprotection Induced by Pharmacological Preconditioning.

Anesthetics, especially propofol, are discussed to influence ischemic preconditioning. We investigated whether cardioprotection by milrinone or levosimendan is influenced by the clinically used anesthetics propofol, sevoflurane or dexmedetomidine. Hearts of male Wistar rats were randomised, placed on a Langendorff system and perfused with Krebs⁻Henseleit buffer (KHB) at a constant pressure of 80 mmHg. All hearts underwent 33 min of global ischemia and 60 min of reperfusion. Three different anesthetic regimens were conducted throughout the experiments: propofol (11 µM), sevoflurane (2.5 Vol%) and dexmedetomidine (1.5 nM). Under each anesthetic regimen, pharmacological preconditioning was induced by administration of milrinone (1 µM) or levosimendan (0.3 µM) 10 min before ischemia. Infarct size was determined by TTC staining. Infarct sizes in control groups were comparable (KHB-Con: 53 ± 9%, Prop-Con: 56 ± 9%, Sevo-Con: 56 ± 8%, Dex-Con: 53 ± 9%; ns). Propofol completely abolished preconditioning by milrinone and levosimendan (Prop-Mil: 52 ± 8%, Prop-Lev: 52 ± 8%; ns versus Prop-Con), while sevoflurane did not (Sevo-Mil: 31 ± 9%, Sevo-Lev: 33 ± 7%; p < 0.05 versus Sevo-Con). Under dexmedetomidine, results were inconsistent; levosimendan induced infarct size reduction (Dex-Lev: 36 ± 6%; p < 0.05 versus Dex-Con) but not milrinone (Dex-Mil: 51 ± 8%; ns versus Dex-Con). The choice of the anesthetic regimen has an impact on infarct size reduction by pharmacological preconditioning.