Lung Ultrasound vs. Chest X-Ray Study for the Radiographic Diagnosis of COVID-19 Pneumonia in a High-Prevalence Population.

BACKGROUND: The viral illness severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), more commonly known as Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), has become a global pandemic, infecting over 100 million individuals worldwide. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the test characteristics of point-of-care lung ultrasound (LUS) with chest x-ray study (CXR) at radiographically detecting COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This was a single-center, prospective, observational study at an urban university hospital with > 105,000 patient visits annually. Patients ≥ 18 years old, who presented to the Emergency Department with predefined signs and symptoms of COVID-19, were eligible for enrollment. Each patient received an LUS using a portable, handheld ultrasound followed by a single-view, portable anteroposterior CXR. Patients with an abnormal LUS or CXR underwent a non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography scan (NCCT). The primary outcome was the radiographic diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia on NCCT. RESULTS: One hundred ten patients underwent LUS, CXR, and NCCT; 99 LUS and 73 CXRs were interpreted as positive; 81 NCCTs were interpreted as positive, providing a prevalence of COVID-19 pneumonia of 75% (95% confidence interval [CI] 66-83.2) in our study population. LUS sensitivity was 97.6% (95% CI 91.6-99.7) vs. 69.9% (95% CI 58.8-79.5) for CXR. LUS specificity was 33.3% (95% CI 16.5-54) vs. 44.4% (95% CI 25.5-64.7) for CXR. LUS positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 81.8% (95% CI 72.8-88.9) and 81.8% (95% CI 48.2-97.7), respectively, vs. 79.5% (95% CI 68.4-88), and 32.4% (95% CI 18-49.8), respectively, for CXR. CONCLUSION: LUS was more sensitive than CXR at radiographically identifying COVID-19 pneumonia.

Impact of COVID-19 and Shelter in Place on Volume and Type of Traumatic Injuries.

INTRODUCTION: Very little is known about the effects of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and its associated social distancing practices on trauma presentations to the emergency department (ED). This study aims to assess the impact of a city-wide stay at home order on the volume, type, and outcomes of traumatic injuries at urban EDs. METHODS: The study was a retrospective chart review of all patients who presented to the ED of an urban Level I Trauma Center and its urban community affiliate in the time period during the 30 days before the institution of city-wide shelter-in-place (preSIP) order and 60 days after the shelter-in-place (SIP) order and the date-matched time periods in the preceding year. Volume and mechanism of traumatic injuries were compared using paired T-tests. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in overall ED volume. The volume of certain blunt trauma presentations (motor vehicle collisions) during the first 60 days of SIP compared to the same period from the year prior also significantly decreased. Importantly, the volume of penetrating injuries, including gunshot wounds and stab wounds, did not differ for the preSIP and SIP periods when compared to the prior year. The mortality of traumatic injuries was also unchanged during the SIP comparison period. CONCLUSION: While there were significant decreases in visits to the ED and overall trauma volume, penetrating trauma, including gun violence, and other severe traumatic injuries remain a public health crisis that affects urban communities despite social distancing recommendations enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic.