Ultra-low-dose CT versus chest X-ray for patients suspected of pulmonary disease at the emergency department: a multicentre randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Chest CT displays chest pathology better than chest X-ray (CXR). We evaluated the effects on health outcomes of replacing CXR by ultra-low-dose chest-CT (ULDCT) in the diagnostic work-up of patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the emergency department. METHODS: Pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised clinical trial in patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the emergency department. Between 31 January 2017 and 31 May 2018, every month, participating centres were randomly allocated to using ULDCT or CXR. Primary outcome was functional health at 28 days, measured by the Short Form (SF)-12 physical component summary scale score (PCS score), non-inferiority margin was set at 1 point. Secondary outcomes included hospital admission, hospital length of stay (LOS) and patients in follow-up because of incidental findings. RESULTS: 2418 consecutive patients (ULDCT: 1208 and CXR: 1210) were included. Mean SF-12 PCS score at 28 days was 37.0 for ULDCT and 35.9 for CXR (difference 1.1; 95% lower CI: 0.003). After ULDCT, 638/1208 (52.7%) patients were admitted (median LOS of 4.8 days; IQR 2.1-8.8) compared with 659/1210 (54.5%) patients after CXR (median LOS 4.6 days; IQR 2.1-8.8). More ULDCT patients were in follow-up because of incidental findings: 26 (2.2%) versus 4 (0.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term functional health was comparable between ULDCT and CXR, as were hospital admissions and LOS, but more incidental findings were found in the ULDCT group. Our trial does not support routine use of ULDCT in the work-up of patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the emergency department. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR6163.

The yield of chest X-ray or ultra-low-dose chest-CT in emergency department patients suspected of pulmonary infection without respiratory symptoms or signs.

OBJECTIVE: The yield of pulmonary imaging in patients with suspected infection but no respiratory symptoms or signs is probably limited, ultra-low-dose CT (ULDCT) is known to have a higher sensitivity than Chest X-ray (CXR). Our objective was to describe the yield of ULDCT and CXR in patients clinically suspected of infection, but without respiratory symptoms or signs, and to compare the diagnostic accuracy of ULDCT and CXR. METHODS: In the OPTIMACT trial, patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the emergency department (ED) were randomly allocated to undergo CXR (1210 patients) or ULDCT (1208 patients). We identified 227 patients in the study group with fever, hypothermia, and/or elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) but no respiratory symptoms or signs, and estimated ULDCT and CXR sensitivity and specificity in detecting pneumonia. The final day-28 diagnosis served as the clinical reference standard. RESULTS: In the ULDCT group, 14/116 (12%) received a final diagnosis of pneumonia, versus 8/111 (7%) in the CXR group. ULDCT sensitivity was significantly higher than that of CXR: 13/14 (93%) versus 4/8 (50%), a difference of 43% (95% CI: 6 to 80%). ULDCT specificity was 91/102 (89%) versus 97/103 (94%) for CXR, a difference of - 5% (95% CI: - 12 to 3%). PPV was 54% (13/24) for ULDCT versus 40% (4/10) for CXR, NPV 99% (91/92) versus 96% (97/101). CONCLUSION: Pneumonia can be present in ED patients without respiratory symptoms or signs who have a fever, hypothermia, and/or elevated CRP. ULDCT's sensitivity is a significant advantage over CXR when pneumonia has to be excluded. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Pulmonary imaging in patients with suspected infection but no respiratory symptoms or signs can result in the detection of clinically significant pneumonia. The increased sensitivity of ultra-low-dose chest CT compared to CXR is of added value in vulnerable and immunocompromised patients. KEY POINTS: • Clinical significant pneumonia does occur in patients who have a fever, low core body temperature, or elevated CRP without respiratory symptoms or signs. • Pulmonary imaging should be considered in patients with unexplained symptoms or signs of infections. • To exclude pneumonia in this patient group, ULDCT's improved sensitivity is a significant advantage over CXR.

Association of Hyperferritinemia With Distinct Host Response Aberrations in Patients With Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Strongly elevated ferritin levels have been proposed to reflect systemic hyperinflammation in patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Knowledge of the incidence and pathophysiological implications of hyperferritinemia in patients with acute infection admitted to a non-intensive care setting is limited. METHODS: We determined the association between hyperferritinemia, defined by 2 cutoff values (500 and 250 ng/mL), and aberrations in key host response mechanisms among patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) on admission to a general hospital ward (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02928367; trialregister.nl NTR6163). RESULTS: Plasma ferritin levels were higher in patients with CAP (n = 174; median [interquartile ranges], 259.5 [123.1-518.3] ng/mL) than in age- and sex-matched controls without infection (n = 50; 102.8 [53.5-185.7] ng/mL); P < .001); they were ≥500 ng/mL in 46 patients (26%) and ≥250 ng/mL in 90 (52%). Measurements of 26 biomarkers reflective of distinct pathophysiological domains showed that hyperferritinemia was associated with enhanced systemic inflammation, neutrophil activation, cytokine release, endothelial cell activation and dysfunction, and activation of the coagulation system. Results were robust across different cutoff values. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperferritinemia identifies patients with CAP with a broad deregulation of various host response mechanisms implicated in the pathogenesis of sepsis. This could inform future therapeutic strategies targeting subgroups within the CAP population.

Lymphopenia is associated with broad host response aberrations in community-acquired pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES: Lymphopenia at hospital admission occurs in over one-third of patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), yet its clinical relevance and pathophysiological implications remain underexplored. We evaluated outcomes and immune features of patients with lymphopenic CAP (L-CAP), a previously described immunophenotype characterized by admission lymphocyte count <0.724 × 109 cells/L. METHODS: Observational study in 149 patients admitted to a general ward for CAP. We measured 34 plasma biomarkers reflective of inflammation, endothelial cell responses, coagulation, and immune checkpoints. We characterized lymphocyte phenotypes in 29 patients using spectral flow cytometry. RESULTS: L-CAP occurred in 45 patients (30.2%) and was associated with prolonged time-to-clinical-stability (median 5 versus 3 days), also when we accounted for competing events for reaching clinical stability and adjusted for baseline covariates (subdistribution hazard ratio 0.63; 95% confidence interval 0.45-0.88). L-CAP patients demonstrated a proportional depletion of CD4 T follicular helper cells, CD4 T effector memory cells, naïve CD8 T cells and IgG+ B cells. Plasma biomarker analyses indicated increased activation of the cytokine network and the vascular endothelium in L-CAP. CONCLUSIONS: L-CAP patients have a protracted clinical recovery course and a more broadly dysregulated host response. These findings highlight the prognostic and pathophysiological relevance of admission lymphopenia in patients with CAP.

Limited Clinical Impact of Ultralow-Dose Computed Tomography in Suspected Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

Patients clinically suspected of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) were randomized between ultralow-dose chest computed tomography ([ULDCT] 261 patients) and chest radiograph ([CXR] 231 patients). We did not find evidence that performing ULDCT instead of CXR affects antibiotic treatment policy or patient outcomes. However, in a subgroup of afebrile patients, there were more patients diagnosed with CAP in the ULDCT group (ULDCT, 106 of 608 patients; CXR, 71 of 654 patients; P = .001).

The host response in different aetiologies of community-acquired pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) can be caused by a variety of pathogens, of which Streptococcus pneumoniae, Influenza and currently SARS-CoV-2 are the most common. We sought to identify shared and pathogen-specific host response features by directly comparing different aetiologies of CAP. METHODS: We measured 72 plasma biomarkers in a cohort of 265 patients hospitalized for CAP, all sampled within 48 hours of admission, and 28 age-and sex matched non-infectious controls. We stratified the biomarkers into several pathophysiological domains- antiviral response, vascular response and function, coagulation, systemic inflammation, and immune checkpoint markers. We directly compared CAP caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19, n=39), Streptococcus pneumoniae (CAP-strep, n=27), Influenza (CAP-flu, n=22) and other or unknown pathogens (CAP-other, n=177). We adjusted the comparisons for age, sex and disease severity scores. FINDINGS: Biomarkers reflective of a stronger cell-mediated antiviral response clearly separated COVID-19 from other CAPs (most notably granzyme B). Biomarkers reflecting activation and function of the vasculature showed endothelial barrier integrity was least affected in COVID-19, while glycocalyx degradation and angiogenesis were enhanced relative to other CAPs. Notably, markers of coagulation activation, including D-dimer, were not different between the CAP groups. Ferritin was most increased in COVID-19, while other systemic inflammation biomarkers such as IL-6 and procalcitonin were highest in CAP-strep. Immune checkpoint markers showed distinctive patterns in viral and non-viral CAP, with highly elevated levels of Galectin-9 in COVID-19. INTERPRETATION: Our investigation provides insight into shared and distinct pathophysiological mechanisms in different aetiologies of CAP, which may help guide new pathogen-specific therapeutic strategies. FUNDING: This study was financially supported by the Dutch Research Council, the European Commission and the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.

OPTimal IMAging strategy in patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the emergency department: chest X-ray or ultra-low-dose chest CT (OPTIMACT) trial-statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: A chest X-ray is a standard imaging procedure in the diagnostic work-up of patients suspected of having non-traumatic pulmonary disease. Compared to a chest X-ray, an ultra-low-dose (ULD) chest computed tomography (CT) scan provides substantially more detailed information on pulmonary conditions. To what extent this translates into an improvement in patient outcomes and health care efficiency is yet unknown. The OPTimal IMAging strategy in patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the emergency department: chest X-ray or ultra-low-dose chest CT (OPTIMACT) study is a multicenter, pragmatic, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate replacement of chest X-ray by ULD chest CT in the diagnostic work-up of such patients, in terms of patient-related health outcomes and costs. During randomly assigned periods of 1 calendar month, either conventional chest X-ray or ULD chest CT scan was used as the imaging strategy. This paper presents in detail the statistical analysis plan of the OPTIMACT trial, developed prior to data analysis. METHODS/RESULTS: Functional health at 28 days is the primary clinical outcome. Functional health at 28 days is measured by the physical component summary scale of the Short Form (SF)-12 questionnaire version 1. Secondary outcomes are mental health (mental component summary scale of the SF-12), length of hospital stay, mortality within 28 days, quality-adjusted life year equivalent during the first 28 days (derived from the EuroQol five-dimension, five-level instrument), correct diagnoses at emergency department discharge as compared to the final post hoc diagnosis at day 28, number of patients in follow-up because of incidental findings on chest X-ray or ULD chest CT, and health care costs. CONCLUSIONS: After this pragmatic trial we will have precise estimates of the effectiveness of replacing chest X-ray with ULD chest CT in terms of patient-related health outcomes and costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands National Trial Register: NTR6163. Registered on 6 December 2016.

Classifying the diagnosis of study participants in clinical trials: a structured and efficient approach.

BACKGROUND: A challenge in imaging research is a diagnostic classification of study participants. We hypothesised that a structured approach would be efficient and that classification by medical students, residents, and an expert panel whenever necessary would be as valid as classification of all patients by experts. METHODS: OPTIMACT is a randomised trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness of replacing chest x-ray for ultra-low-dose chest computed tomography (CT) at the emergency department. We developed a handbook with diagnostic guidelines and randomly selected 240 cases from 2,418 participants enrolled in OPTIMACT. Each case was independently classified by two medical students and, if they disagreed, by the students and a resident in a consensus meeting. Cases without consensus and cases classified as complex were assessed by a panel of medical specialists. To evaluate the validity, 60 randomly selected cases not referred to the panel by the students and the residents were reassessed by the specialists. RESULTS: Overall, the students and, if necessary, residents were able to assign a diagnosis in 183 of the 240 cases (76% concordance; 95% confidence interval [CI] 71-82%). We observed agreement between students and residents versus medical specialists in 50/60 cases (83% concordance; 95% CI 74-93%). CONCLUSIONS: A structured approach in which study participants are assigned diagnostic labels by assessors with increasing levels of medical experience was an efficient and valid classification method, limiting the workload for medical specialists. We presented a viable option for classifying study participants in large-scale imaging trials (Netherlands National Trial Register number NTR6163).

The incidence of negative intraoperative findings after unsuccessful hydrostatic reduction of ileocolic intussusception in children: A retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of studies addressing the occurrence of negative intraoperative findings (that is the absence of intussusception) after an unsuccessful hydrostatic reduction of an ileocolic intussusception. The aim of this study is to determine the incidence of negative intraoperative findings after unsuccessful hydrostatic reduction of ileocolic intussusception. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre retrospective study of all children aged 0-18 years treated for ileocolic intussusception from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2015 in 9 Dutch hospitals. Primary outcome measure was the percentage of children without an intussusception during surgical exploration after unsuccessful hydrostatic reduction. RESULTS: In the study period 436 patients were diagnosed with an ileocolic intussusception. Of these, 408 patients underwent hydrostatic reduction of an ileocolic intussusception. 112 patients (27.5%) underwent surgery after an unsuccessful hydrostatic reduction. In 13 (11.6%) patients no intraoperative evidence of intussusception was found. Patients who underwent surgical intervention after unsuccessful hydrostatic reduction were significantly younger than patients who had a successful hydrostatic reduction; there was no gender difference. CONCLUSION: A substantial number of children (11.6%) underwent a laparotomy after unsuccessful hydrostatic reduction in whom no intussusception was found intraoperatively. We suggest initiating laparoscopy instead of laparotomy when surgery is necessary. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

OPTimal IMAging strategy in patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the emergency department: chest X-ray or ultra-low-dose CT (OPTIMACT)-a randomised controlled trial chest X-ray or ultra-low-dose CT at the ED: design and rationale.

BACKGROUND: Chest X-ray has been the standard imaging method for patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the emergency department (ED) for years. Recently, ultra-low-dose chest computed tomography (ULD chest CT) has been introduced, which provides substantially more detailed information on pulmonary conditions that may cause pulmonary disease, with a dose in the order of chest X-ray (0.1 vs. 0.05 mSv). The OPTimal IMAging strategy in patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the emergency department: chest X-ray or CT (OPTIMACT) study is a randomized trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness of replacing chest X-ray for ULD chest CT in the diagnostic work-up of patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the ED. METHODS: Two thousand four hundred patients presenting at the ED with pulmonary complaints and suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease will be enrolled in this multicenter, pragmatic, randomized trial. During randomly assigned periods of one calendar month, either conventional chest X-ray or ULD chest CT scan will be used as the imaging strategy. Randomization will rely on computer-generated blocks of 2 months to control for seasonal effects. Chest X-ray and ULD chest CT will be performed in a standardized way, after obtaining the clinical history and performing physical examination and initial laboratory tests. The primary outcome measure is functional health at 28 days. Secondary outcome measures are mental health, length of hospital stay, mortality within 28 days, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) during the first 28 days, correct diagnoses at ED discharge as compared to the final post hoc diagnosis, and number of patients in follow-up because of incidental findings on chest X-ray or ULD chest CT. In an economic evaluation, we will estimate total health care costs during the first 28 days. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic trial will clarify the effects of replacing chest X-ray by ULD chest CT in daily practice, in terms of patient-related health outcomes and costs, in the diagnostic work-up of patients suspected of non-traumatic pulmonary disease at the ED. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The OPTIMACT trial is registered in the Netherlands National Trial Register under number NTR6163. The date of registration is December 6, 2016.