Frequency and Distribution of Chest Radiographic Findings in Patients Positive for COVID-19.

Background Current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) radiologic literature is dominated by CT, and a detailed description of chest radiography appearances in relation to the disease time course is lacking. Purpose To describe the time course and severity of findings of COVID-19 at chest radiography and correlate these with real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, or SARS-CoV-2, nucleic acid. Materials and Methods This is a retrospective study of patients with COVID-19 confirmed by using RT-PCR and chest radiographic examinations who were admitted across four hospitals and evaluated between January and March 2020. Baseline and serial chest radiographs (n = 255) were reviewed with RT-PCR. Correlation with concurrent CT examinations (n = 28) was performed when available. Two radiologists scored each chest radiograph in consensus for consolidation, ground-glass opacity, location, and pleural fluid. A severity index was determined for each lung. The lung scores were summed to produce the final severity score. Results The study was composed of 64 patients (26 men; mean age, 56 years ± 19 [standard deviation]). Of these, 58 patients had initial positive findings with RT-PCR (91%; 95% confidence interval: 81%, 96%), 44 patients had abnormal findings at baseline chest radiography (69%; 95% confidence interval: 56%, 80%), and 38 patients had initial positive findings with RT-PCR testing and abnormal findings at baseline chest radiography (59%; 95% confidence interval: 46%, 71%). Six patients (9%) showed abnormalities at chest radiography before eventually testing positive for COVID-19 with RT-PCR. Sensitivity of initial RT-PCR (91%; 95% confidence interval: 83%, 97%) was higher than that of baseline chest radiography (69%; 95% confidence interval: 56%, 80%) (P = .009). Radiographic recovery (mean, 6 days ± 5) and virologic recovery (mean, 8 days ± 6) were not significantly different (P = .33). Consolidation was the most common finding (30 of 64; 47%) followed by ground-glass opacities (21 of 64; 33%). Abnormalities at chest radiography had a peripheral distribution (26 of 64; 41%) and lower zone distribution (32 of 64; 50%) with bilateral involvement (32 of 64; 50%). Pleural effusion was uncommon (two of 64; 3%). The severity of findings at chest radiography peaked at 10-12 days from the date of symptom onset. Conclusion Findings at chest radiography in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 frequently showed bilateral lower zone consolidation, which peaked at 10-12 days from symptom onset. © RSNA, 2020.

Imaging findings in coronavirus infections: SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2.

During the first two decades of the 21st century, there have been three coronavirus infection outbreaks raising global health concerns by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), and the SARS-CoV-2. Although the reported imaging findings of coronavirus infection are variable and non-specific, the most common initial chest radiograph (CXR) and CT findings are ground-glass opacities and consolidation with peripheral predominance and eventually spread to involve both lungs as the disease progresses. These findings can be explained by the immune pathogenesis of coronavirus infection causing diffuse alveolar damage. Although it is insensitive in mild or early coronavirus infection, the CXR remains as the first-line and the most commonly used imaging modality. That is because it is rapid and easily accessible and helpful for monitoring patient progress during treatment. CT is more sensitive to detect early parenchymal lung abnormalities and disease progression, and can provide an alternative diagnosis. In this pictorial review, various coronavirus infection cases are presented to provide imaging spectrums of coronavirus infection and present differences in imaging among them or from other viral infections, and to discuss the role of imaging in viral infection outbreaks.

Development and validation of risk prediction models for COVID-19 positivity in a hospital setting.

OBJECTIVES: To develop: (1) two validated risk prediction models for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) positivity using readily available parameters in a general hospital setting; (2) nomograms and probabilities to allow clinical utilisation. METHODS: Patients with and without COVID-19 were included from 4 Hong Kong hospitals. The database was randomly split into 2:1: for model development database (n = 895) and validation database (n = 435). Multivariable logistic regression was utilised for model creation and validated with the Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) test and calibration plot. Nomograms and probabilities set at 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6 were calculated to determine sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: A total of 1330 patients (mean age 58.2 ± 24.5 years; 50.7% males; 296 COVID-19 positive) were recruited. The first prediction model developed had age, total white blood cell count, chest x-ray appearances and contact history as significant predictors (AUC = 0.911 [CI = 0.880-0.941]). The second model developed has the same variables except contact history (AUC = 0.880 [CI = 0.844-0.916]). Both were externally validated on the H-L test (p = 0.781 and 0.155, respectively) and calibration plot. Models were converted to nomograms. Lower probabilities give higher sensitivity and NPV; higher probabilities give higher specificity and PPV. CONCLUSION: Two simple-to-use validated nomograms were developed with excellent AUCs based on readily available parameters and can be considered for clinical utilisation.