Lung ultrasound as a screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection in surgical patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of lung ultrasound (LUS) in screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients requiring surgery. METHODS: Patients underwent a LUS protocol that included a scoring system for screening COVID-19 pneumonia as well as RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2. The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve was determined for the relationship between LUS score and PCR test results for COVID-19. The optimal threshold for the best discrimination between non-COVID-19 patients and COVID-19 patients was calculated. RESULTS: Among 203 patients enrolled (mean age 48 years; 82 males), 8.3% were COVID-19-positive; 4.9% were diagnosed via the initial RT-PCR test. Of the patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, 64.7% required in-hospital management and 17.6% died. The most common ultrasound findings were B lines (19.7%) and a thickened pleura (19.2%). The AUC of the ROC curve of the relationship of LUS score with a cutoff value >8 versus RT-PCR test for the assessment of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia was 0.75 (95% CI 0.61-0.89; sensitivity 52.9%; specificity 91%; LR (+) 6.15, LR (-) 0.51). CONCLUSION: The LUS score in surgical patients is not a useful tool for screening patients with potential COVID-19 infection. LUS score shows a high specificity with a cut-off value of 8.

Prophylactic platelet transfusion and risk of bleeding associated with ultrasound-guided central venous access in patients with severe thrombocytopenia.

BACKGROUND: Reported risk of bleeding complications after central catheter access in patients with thrombocytopenia is highly variable. Current guidelines recommend routine prophylactic platelet (PLT) transfusion before central venous catheter placement in patients with severe thrombocytopenia. Nevertheless, the strength of such recommendations is weak and supported by observational studies including few patients with very low PLT counts (<20 × 109 /L). This study aims to assess the risk of bleeding complications related to using or not using prophylactic PLT transfusion before ultrasound-guided central venous access in patients with very low PLT counts. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with very low PLT counts (<20 × 109 /L) subjected to ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization between January 2011 and November 2019 in a university hospital. Bleeding complications were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. A multivariate logistic regression was conducted to assess the risk of major and minor bleeding complications comparing patients who did or did not receive prophylactic PLT transfusion for the procedure. Multiple imputation by chained equations was used to handle missing data. A two-tailed p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Among 221 patients with very low PLT counts, 72 received prophylactic PLT transfusions while 149 did not. Baseline characteristics were similar between transfused and nontransfused patients. No major bleeding events were identified, while minor bleeding events were recognized in 35.7% of patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed no significant differences in bleeding complications between patients who received prophylactic PLT transfusions and those who did not (odds ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.45-1.55, p = 0.567). Additional complete case and sensitivity analyses yielded results similar to those of the main analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center retrospective cohort study of ultrasound-guided central venous access in patients with very low PLT counts, no major bleeding was identified, and prophylactic PLT transfusions did not significantly decrease minor bleeding events.