[German recommendations on lung and thoracic ultrasonography in patients with COVID-19]. / Empfehlungen zur Lungen- und Thoraxsonographie bei Patienten mit COVID-19-Erkrankung.

Lung and chest ultrasound are further examination modalities in addition to computed tomography and laboratory diagnostics in patients with COVID-19. It extends the clinical-physical examination because it can examine lung surface sensitively. Lung surface pattern changes have been found in sonograms of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and during the course of the disease. German specialist societies of clinical acute, emergency and intensive care medicine as well as imaging, which are concerned with the care of patients with SARS-CoV­2 infection and COVID-19, have coordinated recommendations for lung and thorax sonography. This document has been created within a transparent process, led by the German Society of Interdisciplinary Emergency and Acute Medicine e. V. (DGINA), and worked out by an expert panel and delegates from the societies. Sources of the first 200 cases were summarized. Typical thorax sonographic findings are presented. International sources or standards that were available in PubMed until May 24, 2020 were included. Using case studies and multimedia content, the document is intended to not only support users but also demonstrate quality features and the potential of chest and lung sonography. The German Society for Ultrasound in Medicine (DEGUM) is carrying out a multicenter study (study coordination at the TU Munich).

Lung Ultrasound Eight-Point Method in Diagnosing Acute Heart Failure in Emergency Patients with Acute Dyspnea: Diagnostic Accuracy and 72 h Monitoring.

Background and Objectives: Acute dyspnea is a common chief complaint in the emergency department (ED), with acute heart failure (AHF) as a frequent underlying disease. Early diagnosis and rapid therapy are highly recommended by international guidelines. This study evaluates the accuracy of point-of-care B-line lung ultrasound in diagnosing AHF and monitoring the therapeutic success of heart failure patients. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective mono-center study in adult patients presenting with undifferentiated acute dyspnea to a German ED. An eight-zone pulmonary ultrasound was performed by experienced sonographers in the ED and 24 and 72 h after. Along with the lung ultrasound evaluation patients were asked to assess the severity of shortness of breath on a numeric rating scale. The treating ED physicians were asked to assess the probability of AHF as the underlying cause. Final diagnosis was adjudicated by two independent experts. Follow-up was done after 30 and 180 days. Results: In total, 102 patients were enrolled. Of them, 89 patients received lung ultrasound evaluation in the ED. The sensitivity of lung ultrasound evaluation in ED in diagnosing AHF was 54.2%, specificity 97.6%. As much as 96.3% of patients with a positive LUS test result for AHF in ED actually suffered from AHF. Excluding diuretically pretreated patients, sensitivity of LUS increased to 75% in ED. Differences in the sum of B-lines between admission time point, 24 and 72 h were not statistically significant. There were no statistically significant differences in the subjectively assessed severity of dyspnea between AHF patients and those with other causes of dyspnea. Of the 89 patients, 48 patients received the final adjudicated diagnosis of AHF. ED physicians assessed the probability of AHF in patients with a final diagnosis of AHF as 70%. Roughly a quarter (23.9%) of the overall cohort patients were rehospitalized within 30 days after admission, 38.6% within 180 days of follow-up. Conclusion: In conclusion, point-of-care lung ultrasound is a helpful tool for the early rule-in of acute heart failure in ED but only partially suitable for exclusion. Of note, the present study shows no significant changes in the number of B-lines after 24 and 72 h.

Severity illness scoring systems for early identification and prediction of in-hospital mortality in patients with suspected sepsis presenting to the emergency department.

The in-hospital mortality of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock (SSSS) is high. In this study we examined the diagnostic and prognostic accuracy of the emergency severity index (ESI), the modified early warning score (MEWS), and the mortality in emergency department (ED) sepsis (MEDS) score. This is a single-centre, prospective and observational study of 151 consecutive patients presenting to the ED of the Nuremberg Hospital with suspected sepsis (age 68.3 ± 18 years, 54.3 % men, 45 % with SSSS, in-hospital mortality of SSSS: 27.8 %). In this study, 37.7 % of the studied patients had a urinary tract infection (n = 57/151), 33.8 % a pneumonia (n = 51/151), 8.6 % an acute abdominal infection (n = 13/151), and in 12.6 % the focus of infection was not further specified or identifiable (n = 19/151). The diagnostic and prognostic accuracy was analyzed by means of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The areas under curve (AUC) in terms of diagnostic accuracy were 0.609, 0.641, and 0.778 for the ESI, MEWS, and MEDS score respectively. The AUCs concerning prognostic accuracy were 0.617, 0.642, and 0.871 for ESI, MEWS, and MEDS score respectively.By using the MEDS score systematically, critically ill patients with sepsis could be detected in the ED. Finally, the MEDS score provides the basis for a risk adjusted disposition management that follows objective criteria.