Analgesic and Anxiolytic Effects of Virtual Reality During Minor Procedures in an Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the analgesic and anxiolytic efficacy of distraction, a nonpharmacologic intervention provided by 3-dimensional (3D) virtual reality (VR) compared with that provided by 2-dimensional (2D) VR during minor emergency department (ED) procedures. METHODS: This randomized controlled study conducted in the ED of a teaching hospital included patients aged more than or equal to 18 years undergoing minor procedures. The patients watched the same computer-generated VR world either in 3D in a head-mounted display (intervention) or in 2D on a laptop screen (control). Our main outcomes were pain and anxiety during the procedure, assessed on a 100-mm visual analog scale. Secondary outcomes included the impression of telepresence in the computer-generated world assessed using the Igroup Presence Questionnaire, and the prevalence and intensity of cybersickness measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale. RESULTS: The final analysis included 117 patients. The differences in median procedural pain and anxiety levels between the 2D and 3D VR groups were not significant: -3 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] -14 to 8) and -4 mm (95% CI -15 to 3), respectively; the difference in telepresence was 2.0 point (95% CI 0 to 2.0), and the proportion difference of cybersickness was -4% (95% CI -22 to 14), with an intensity difference of -5 mm (95% CI -9 to 3). CONCLUSION: During minor procedures in adult patients in the ED, distraction by viewing a 3D virtual world in a head-mounted VR display did not result in lower average levels of procedural pain and anxiety than that by 2D viewing on a screen despite a higher sense of telepresence. There were no significant differences in the prevalence and intensity of cybersickness between the 2 groups.

Point-of-care lung ultrasonography for early identification of mild COVID-19: a prospective cohort of outpatients in a Swiss screening center.

OBJECTIVES: Early identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection is important to guide quarantine and reduce transmission. This study evaluates the diagnostic performance of lung ultrasound (LUS), an affordable, consumable-free point-of-care tool, for COVID-19 screening. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective observational cohort included adults presenting with cough and/or dyspnoea at a SARS-CoV-2 screening centre of Lausanne University Hospital between 31 March and 8 May 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Investigators recorded standardised LUS images and videos in 10 lung zones per patient. Two blinded independent experts reviewed LUS recording and classified abnormal findings according to prespecified criteria to investigate their predictive value to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection according to PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs (COVID-19 positive vs COVID-19 negative). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We finally combined LUS and clinical findings to derive a multivariate logistic regression diagnostic score. RESULTS: Of 134 included patients, 23% (n=30/134) were COVID-19 positive and 77% (n=103/134) were COVID-19 negative; 85%, (n=114/134) cases were previously healthy healthcare workers presenting within 2-5 days of symptom onset (IQR). Abnormal LUS findings were significantly more frequent in COVID-19 positive compared with COVID-19 negative (45% vs 26%, p=0.045) and mostly consisted of focal pathologic B lines. Combining clinical findings in a multivariate logistic regression score had an area under the receiver operating curve of 80.3% to detect COVID-19, and slightly improved to 84.5% with the addition of LUS features. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19-positive patients are significantly more likely to have lung pathology by LUS. However, LUS has an insufficient sensitivity and is not an appropriate screening tool in outpatients. LUS only adds little value to clinical features alone.