Lung ultrasound score severity cut-off points in COVID-19 pneumonia. A systematic review and validating cohort.

Objectives: Our purpose was to establish different cut-off points based on the lung ultrasound score (LUS) to classify COVID-19 pneumonia severity. Methods: Initially, we conducted a systematic review among previously proposed LUS cut-off points. Then, these results were validated by a single-centre prospective cohort study of adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studied variables were poor outcome (ventilation support, intensive care unit admission or 28-days mortality) and 28-days mortality. Results: From 510 articles, 11 articles were included. Among the cut-off points proposed in the articles included, only the LUS > 15 cut-off point could be validated for its original endpoint, demonstrating also the strongest relation with poor outcome (odds ratio [OR] = 3.636, confidence interval [CI] 1.411-9.374). Regarding our cohort, 127 patients were admitted. In these patients, LUS was statistically associated with poor outcome (OR = 1.303, CI 1.137-1.493), and with 28-days mortality (OR = 1.024, CI 1.006-1.042). LUS > 15 showed the best diagnostic performance when choosing a single cut-off point in our cohort (area under the curve 0.650). LUS ≤ 7 showed high sensitivity to rule out poor outcome (0.89, CI 0.695-0.955), while LUS > 20 revealed high specificity to predict poor outcome (0.86, CI 0.776-0.917). Conclusions: LUS is a good predictor of poor outcome and 28-days mortality in COVID-19. LUS ≤ 7 cut-off point is associated with mild pneumonia, LUS 8-20 with moderate pneumonia and ≥20 with severe pneumonia. If a single cut-off point were used, LUS > 15 would be the point which better discriminates mild from severe disease.

Objetivos: Establecer diferentes puntos de corte basados en el Lung Ultrasound Score (LUS) para clasificar la gravedad de la neumonía COVID-19. Métodos: Inicialmente, realizamos una revisión sistemática entre los puntos de corte LUS propuestos previamente. Estos resultados fueron validados por una cohorte prospectiva unicéntrica de pacientes adultos con infección confirmada por SARS-CoV-2. Las variables analizadas fueron la mala evolución y la mortalidad a los 28 días. Resultados: De 510 artículos, se incluyeron 11. Entre los puntos de corte propuestos en los artículos incluidos, solo LUS > 15 pudo ser validado para su objetivo original, demostrando también la relación más fuerte con mala evolución (odds ratio [OR] = 3,636, intervalo de confianza [IC] 1,411-9,374). Respecto a nuestra cohorte, se incluyeron 127 pacientes. En estos pacientes, el LUS se asoció estadísticamente con mala evolución (OR = 1,303, IC 1,137-1,493) y con mortalidad a los 28 días (OR = 1,024, IC 1,006-1,042). LUS > 15 mostró el mejor rendimiento diagnóstico al elegir un único punto de corte en nuestra cohorte (área bajo la curva 0,650). LUS ≤ 7 mostró una alta sensibilidad para descartar mal resultado (0,89, IC 0,695-0,955), mientras que LUS > 20 reveló gran especificidad para predecir mala evolución (0,86, IC 0,776-0,917). Conclusiones: LUS es un buen predictor de mala evolución y mortalidad a 28 días en COVID-19. LUS ≤ 7 se asocia con neumonía leve, LUS 8-20 con neumonía moderada y ≥ 20 con neumonía grave. Si se utilizara un único punto de corte, LUS > 15 sería el que mejor discriminaría la enfermedad leve de la grave.

Lung ultrasound score severity cut-off points in COVID-19 pneumonia. A systematic review and validating cohort / Puntos de corte de gravedad del Lung Ultrasound Score en la neumonía COVID-19. Revisión sistemática de la literatura y cohorte de validación

Objectives Our purpose was to establish different cut-off points based on the lung ultrasound score (LUS) to classify COVID-19 pneumonia severity. Methods Initially, we conducted a systematic review among previously proposed LUS cut-off points. Then, these results were validated by a single-centre prospective cohort study of adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studied variables were poor outcome (ventilation support, intensive care unit admission or 28-days mortality) and 28-days mortality. Results From 510 articles, 11 articles were included. Among the cut-off points proposed in the articles included, only the LUS>15 cut-off point could be validated for its original endpoint, demonstrating also the strongest relation with poor outcome (odds ratio [OR]=3.636, confidence interval [CI] 1.411–9.374). Regarding our cohort, 127 patients were admitted. In these patients, LUS was statistically associated with poor outcome (OR=1.303, CI 1.137–1.493), and with 28-days mortality (OR=1.024, CI 1.006–1.042). LUS>15 showed the best diagnostic performance when choosing a single cut-off point in our cohort (area under the curve 0.650). LUS≤7 showed high sensitivity to rule out poor outcome (0.89, CI 0.695–0.955), while LUS>20 revealed high specificity to predict poor outcome (0.86, CI 0.776–0.917). Conclusions LUS is a good predictor of poor outcome and 28-days mortality in COVID-19. LUS≤7 cut-off point is associated with mild pneumonia, LUS 8–20 with moderate pneumonia and ≥20 with severe pneumonia. If a single cut-off point were used, LUS>15 would be the point which better discriminates mild from severe disease (AU)

Objetivos Establecer diferentes puntos de corte basados en el Lung Ultrasound Score (LUS) para clasificar la gravedad de la neumonía COVID-19. Métodos Inicialmente, realizamos una revisión sistemática entre los puntos de corte LUS propuestos previamente. Estos resultados fueron validados por una cohorte prospectiva unicéntrica de pacientes adultos con infección confirmada por SARS-CoV-2. Las variables analizadas fueron la mala evolución y la mortalidad a los 28 días. Resultados De 510 artículos, se incluyeron 11. Entre los puntos de corte propuestos en los artículos incluidos, solo LUS>15 pudo ser validado para su objetivo original, demostrando también la relación más fuerte con mala evolución (odds ratio [OR]=3,636, intervalo de confianza [IC] 1,411-9,374). Respecto a nuestra cohorte, se incluyeron 127 pacientes. En estos pacientes, el LUS se asoció estadísticamente con mala evolución (OR=1,303, IC 1,137-1,493) y con mortalidad a los 28 días (OR=1,024, IC 1,006-1,042). LUS>15 mostró el mejor rendimiento diagnóstico al elegir un único punto de corte en nuestra cohorte (área bajo la curva 0,650). LUS≤7 mostró una alta sensibilidad para descartar mal resultado (0,89, IC 0,695-0,955), mientras que LUS>20 reveló gran especificidad para predecir mala evolución (0,86, IC 0,776-0,917). Conclusiones LUS es un buen predictor de mala evolución y mortalidad a 28 días en COVID-19. LUS≤7 se asocia con neumonía leve, LUS 8-20 con neumonía moderada y ≥20 con neumonía grave. Si se utilizara un único punto de corte, LUS>15 sería el que mejor discriminaría la enfermedad leve de la grave (AU)

Lung ultrasound score severity cut-off points in COVID-19 pneumonia. A systematic review and validating cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Our purpose was to establish different cut-off points based on the lung ultrasound score (LUS) to classify COVID-19 pneumonia severity. METHODS: Initially, we conducted a systematic review among previously proposed LUS cut-off points. Then, these results were validated by a single-centre prospective cohort study of adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studied variables were poor outcome (ventilation support, intensive care unit admission or 28-days mortality) and 28-days mortality. RESULTS: From 510 articles, 11 articles were included. Among the cut-off points proposed in the articles included, only the LUS>15 cut-off point could be validated for its original endpoint, demonstrating also the strongest relation with poor outcome (odds ratio [OR]=3.636, confidence interval [CI] 1.411-9.374). Regarding our cohort, 127 patients were admitted. In these patients, LUS was statistically associated with poor outcome (OR=1.303, CI 1.137-1.493), and with 28-days mortality (OR=1.024, CI 1.006-1.042). LUS>15 showed the best diagnostic performance when choosing a single cut-off point in our cohort (area under the curve 0.650). LUS≤7 showed high sensitivity to rule out poor outcome (0.89, CI 0.695-0.955), while LUS>20 revealed high specificity to predict poor outcome (0.86, CI 0.776-0.917). CONCLUSIONS: LUS is a good predictor of poor outcome and 28-days mortality in COVID-19. LUS≤7 cut-off point is associated with mild pneumonia, LUS 8-20 with moderate pneumonia and ≥20 with severe pneumonia. If a single cut-off point were used, LUS>15 would be the point which better discriminates mild from severe disease.

SARS-CoV-2 infection presenting as acute acalculous cholecystitis

No disponible

Síndrome de Froin secundario a absceso epidural / Froin's syndrome secondary to epidural abscess

No disponible

Ultrasound findings of lung ultrasonography in COVID-19: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: To identify the defining lung ultrasound (LUS) findings of COVID-19, and establish its association to the initial severity of the disease and prognostic outcomes. METHOD: Systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. We queried PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database and Scopus using the terms ((coronavirus) OR (covid-19) OR (sars AND cov AND 2) OR (2019-nCoV)) AND (("lung ultrasound") OR (LUS)), from 31st of December 2019 to 31st of January 2021. PCR-confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection, obtained from original studies with at least 10 participants 18 years old or older, were included. Risk of bias and applicability was evaluated with QUADAS-2. RESULTS: We found 1333 articles, from which 66 articles were included, with a pooled population of 4687 patients. The most examined findings were at least 3 B-lines, confluent B-lines, subpleural consolidation, pleural effusion and bilateral or unilateral distribution. B-lines, its confluent presentation and pleural abnormalities are the most frequent findings. LUS score was higher in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and emergency department (ED), and it was associated with a higher risk of developing unfavorable outcomes (death, ICU admission or need for mechanical ventilation). LUS findings and/or the LUS score had a good negative predictive value in the diagnosis of COVID-19 compared to RT-PCR. CONCLUSIONS: The most frequent ultrasound findings of COVID-19 are B-lines and pleural abnormalities. High LUS score is associated with developing unfavorable outcomes. The inclusion of pleural effusion in the LUS score and the standardisation of the imaging protocol in COVID-19 LUS remains to be defined.

Lung Ultrasound, Clinical and Analytic Scoring Systems as Prognostic Tools in SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia: A Validating Cohort.

At the moment, several COVID-19 scoring systems have been developed. It is necessary to determine which one better predicts a poor outcome of the disease. We conducted a single-center prospective cohort study to validate four COVID-19 prognosis scores in adult patients with confirmed infection at ward. These are National Early Warning Score (NEWS) 2, Lung Ultrasound Score (LUS), COVID-19 Worsening Score (COWS), and Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology score (SEIMC Score). Our outcomes were the combined variable "poor outcome" (non-invasive mechanical ventilation, intubation, intensive care unit admission, and death at 28 days) and death at 28 days. Scores were analysed using univariate logistic regression models, receiver operating characteristic curves, and areas under the curve. Eighty-one patients were included, from which 21 had a poor outcome, and 9 died. We found a statistically significant correlation between poor outcome and NEWS2, LUS > 15, and COWS. Death at 28 days was statistically correlated with NEWS2 and SEIMC Score although COWS also performs well. NEWS2, LUS, and COWS accurately predict poor outcome; and NEWS2, SEIMC Score, and COWS are useful for anticipating death at 28 days. Lung ultrasound is a diagnostic tool that should be included in COVID-19 patients evaluation.

Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) in diagnosis of proximal deep vein thrombosis among COVID-19 hospitalized patients with a high rate of low molecular weight heparin prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) are both complications linked with COVID-19. Lower limb point-of-care clinical ultrasound (POCUS) could detect occult clots, helping decide whom to treat with anticoagulation. OBJECTIVES: To determine proximal DVT prevalence with POCUS screening among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. PATIENTS/METHODS: Lower limb POCUS was performed in all patients admitted either to the ward or intensive care unit (ICU) between April 22nd and 30th 2020. Clinical and laboratory features, prescriptions, thrombotic complications and outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: 87 patients were screened, of which 26 (29.8%) either had been discharged from ICU (19.5%) or were still in critical condition (10.3%). DVT was found in 4 patients (3 femoral, 1 popliteal), of which 1 had not received low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) prophylaxis. 21 CT pulmonary angiograms were performed, being positive for PE in 5 cases (23.8%); only 2 of these patients suffered DVT. CONCLUSIONS: Screening lower extremities with POCUS did not find a high rate of DVT among patients receiving LMWH-prophylaxis. However, there was a noteworthy amount of PE without DVT.

ANTECEDENTES: La trombosis venosa profunda (TVP) y la embolia pulmonar (EP) son complicaciones relacionadas con la COVID-19. La ecografía clínica en el punto de atención (POCUS) de las extremidades inferiores podría detectar coágulos ocultos, ayudando a decidir a quién tratar con anticoagulación. OBJETIVOS: Determinar la prevalencia de la TVP proximal con el cribado mediante POCUS entre los pacientes hospitalizados por COVID-19. PACIENTES/MÉTODOS: Se realizó una POCUS de miembros inferiores a todos los pacientes ingresados en planta o en la Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos (UCI) entre el 22 y el 30 de abril de 2020. Se evaluaron las características clínicas y de laboratorio, las prescripciones, las complicaciones trombóticas y los resultados. RESULTADOS: Se examinaron 87 pacientes, de los cuales 26 (29,8%) habían sido dados de alta de la UCI (19,5%) o seguían en estado crítico (10,3%). Se detectó una TVP en cuatro pacientes (tres femoral, uno poplítea), de los cuales uno no había recibido profilaxis con heparina de bajo peso molecular (HBPM). Se realizaron 21 angiografías pulmonares por TC, siendo positivas para EP en cinco casos (23,8%); solo dos de estos pacientes sufrieron TVP. CONCLUSIONES: El cribado de las extremidades inferiores con POCUS no encontró una tasa elevada de TVP entre los pacientes que recibían profilaxis con HBPM. Sin embargo, hubo una cantidad notable de EP sin TVP.

Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) in diagnosis of proximal deep vein thrombosis among COVID-19 hospitalized patients with a high rate of low molecular weight heparin prophylaxis

Antecedentes: La trombosis venosa profunda (TVP) y la embolia pulmonar (EP) son complicaciones relacionadas con la COVID-19. La ecografía clínica en el punto de atención (POCUS) de las extremidades inferiores podría detectar coágulos ocultos, ayudando a decidir a quién tratar con anticoagulación.ObjetivosDeterminar la prevalencia de la TVP proximal con el cribado mediante POCUS entre los pacientes hospitalizados por COVID-19.Pacientes/métodosSe realizó una POCUS de miembros inferiores a todos los pacientes ingresados en planta o en la Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos (UCI) entre el 22 y el 30 de abril de 2020. Se evaluaron las características clínicas y de laboratorio, las prescripciones, las complicaciones trombóticas y los resultados.ResultadosSe examinaron 87 pacientes, de los cuales 26 (29,8%) habían sido dados de alta de la UCI (19,5%) o seguían en estado crítico (10,3%). Se detectó una TVP en cuatro pacientes (tres femoral, uno poplítea), de los cuales uno no había recibido profilaxis con heparina de bajo peso molecular (HBPM). Se realizaron 21 angiografías pulmonares por TC, siendo positivas para EP en cinco casos (23,8%); solo dos de estos pacientes sufrieron TVP. (AU)

Background: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) are both complications linked with COVID-19. Lower limb point-of-care clinical ultrasound (POCUS) could detect occult clots, helping decide whom to treat with anticoagulation.ObjectivesTo determine proximal DVT prevalence with POCUS screening among hospitalized COVID-19 patients.Patients/MethodsLower limb POCUS was performed in all patients admitted either to the ward or intensive care unit (ICU) between April 22nd and 30th 2020. Clinical and laboratory features, prescriptions, thrombotic complications and outcomes were assessed.Results87 patients were screened, of which 26 (29.8%) either had been discharged from ICU (19.5%) or were still in critical condition (10.3%). DVT was found in 4 patients (3 femoral, 1 popliteal), of which 1 had not received low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) prophylaxis. 21 CT pulmonary angiograms were performed, being positive for PE in 5 cases (23.8%); only 2 of these patients suffered DVT. (AU)

Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) in diagnosis of proximal deep vein thrombosis among COVID-19 hospitalized patients with a high rate of low molecular weight heparin prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) are both complications linked with COVID-19. Lower limb point-of-care clinical ultrasound (POCUS) could detect occult clots, helping decide whom to treat with anticoagulation. OBJECTIVES: To determine proximal DVT prevalence with POCUS screening among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. PATIENTS/METHODS: Lower limb POCUS was performed in all patients admitted either to the ward or intensive care unit (ICU) between April 22nd and 30th 2020. Clinical and laboratory features, prescriptions, thrombotic complications and outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: 87 patients were screened, of which 26 (29.8%) either had been discharged from ICU (19.5%) or were still in critical condition (10.3%). DVT was found in 4 patients (3 femoral, 1 popliteal), of which 1 had not received low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) prophylaxis. 21 CT pulmonary angiograms were performed, being positive for PE in 5 cases (23.8%); only 2 of these patients suffered DVT. CONCLUSIONS: Screening lower extremities with POCUS did not find a high rate of DVT among patients receiving LMWH-prophylaxis. However, there was a noteworthy amount of PE without DVT.

Effectiveness of corticoid pulses in patients with cytokine storm syndrome induced by SARS-CoV-2 infection.

INTRODUCTION: Cytokine storm syndrome (CSS) is a serious complication of COVID-19 patients. Treatment is tocilizumab. The use of glucocorticoids (GC) is controversial. In other very similar CSS, such as macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) and hemophagocytic syndrome (HFS), the main treatment are corticosteroids. Our objective is to evaluate the efficacy of GC in the CSS by COVID-19. PATIENTS: We included 92 patients with CSS associated to COVID-19 who received GC, GC, and tocilizumab and only tocilizumab. We determine CSS markers. We evaluated mortality, intubation, and a combined variable. RESULTS: In all cases the percentages of events were lower in the group of patients with GC was administered. The hazard ratio of the final variables with GC versus the group in which only tocilizumab was administered was lower as CGs were considered, with statistical significance for survival. DISCUSSION: The early use of GC pulses could control SLC, with a lower requirement to use tocilizumab and a decrease in events such as intubation and death.

INTRODUCCIÓN: El síndrome de liberación de citocinas (SLC) es una complicación grave de los pacientes COVID-19. La base del tratamiento es tocilizumab. El uso de glucocorticoides (GC) es controvertido. En otros SLC muy parecidos, como son el síndrome de activación macrofágica (SAM) y el síndrome hemofagocítico (SHF) el tratamiento con los corticoides es fundamental. Nuestro objetivo es evaluar la eficacia de los GC en el SLC por COVID-19. PACIENTES: Incluimos 92 pacientes con SLC por COVID-19 que recibieron GC, GC y tocilizumab y sólo tocilizumab. Determinamos marcadores de SLC. Evaluamos mortalidad, intubación y una variable combinada. RESULTADOS: En todos los casos los porcentajes de eventos fueron menores en el grupo de pacientes en los que se administraron GC. Las razones de riesgo de las variables finales de los grupos con GC frente al grupo en el que se administró sólo tocilizumab fue menor conforme se consideraron los GC, con significación estadística para la supervivencia. DISCUSIÓN: El uso precoz de pulsos de GC puede controlar el SLC, con un menor requerimiento de uso de tocilizumab y una disminución de eventos como la intubación y muerte.

Eficacia de los pulsos de corticoides en pacientes con síndrome de liberación de citocinas inducido por infección por SARS-CoV-2 / Effectiveness of corticoid pulses in patients with cytokine stormsyndrome induced by sars-cov-2 infection

INTRODUCCIÓN: el síndrome de liberación de citoquinas (SLC) es una complicación grave de los pacientes COVID-19. La base del tratamiento es tocilizumab. El uso de glucocorticoides (GC) es controvertidos. En otros SLC muy parecidas, como son el síndrome de activación macrofágica (SAM) y el síndrome hemofagocítico (SHF) los corticoides fundamentales. Nuestro objetivo es evaluar la eficacia de los GC en el SLC por COVID-19. PACIENTES: incluimos 92 pacientes con SLC por COVID-19 que recibieron GC, GC y tocilizumab y sólo tocilizumab. Determinamos marcadores de SLC. Evaluamos mortalidad, intubación y una variable combinada. RESULTADOS: en todos los casos los porcentajes de eventos fueron menores en el grupo de pacientes en los que se administraron GC. Las razones de riesgo delas variables finales de los grupos con GC frente al grupo en el que se administró sólo tocilizumab fue menor conforme se consideraron los GC, con significación estadística para la supervivencia. DISCUSIÓN: el uso precoz de pulsos de GC puede controlar el SLC, con un menor requerimiento de uso de tocilizumab y una disminución de eventos como la intubación y muerte

INTRODUCTION: cytokine stormsyndrome (CSS) is a serious complication of COVID-19 patients. Treatment is tocilizumab. The use of glucocorticoids (GC) is controversial. In other very similar CSS, such as macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) and hemophagocytic syndrome (HFS), the main treatment are corticosteroids. Our objective is to evaluate the efficacy of GC in the CSSby COVID-19. PATIENTS: we included 92 patients with CSS associated to COVID-19 who received GC, GC, and tocilizumab and only tocilizumab. We determine CSS markers. We evaluated mortality, intubation, and a combined variable. RESULTS: in all cases the percentages of events were lower in the group of patients with GC was administered. The hazardratio of the final variables with GC versus the group in which only tocilizumab was administered was lower as CGs were considered, with statistical significance for survival. DISCUSSION: the early use of GC pulses couldcontrol SLC, with a lower requirement to use tocilizumab and a decrease in events such as intubation and death

[Effectiveness of corticoid pulses in patients with cytokine storm syndrome induced by SARS-CoV-2 infection]. / Eficacia de los pulsos de corticoides en pacientes con síndrome de liberación de citocinas inducido por infección por SARS-CoV-2.

INTRODUCTION: Cytokine storm syndrome (CSS) is a serious complication of COVID-19 patients. Treatment is tocilizumab. The use of glucocorticoids (GC) is controversial. In other very similar CSS, such as macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) and hemophagocytic syndrome (HFS), the main treatment are corticosteroids. Our objective is to evaluate the efficacy of GC in the CSS by COVID-19. PATIENTS: We included 92 patients with CSS associated to COVID-19 who received GC, GC, and tocilizumab and only tocilizumab. We determine CSS markers. We evaluated mortality, intubation, and a combined variable. RESULTS: In all cases the percentages of events were lower in the group of patients with GC was administered. The hazard ratio of the final variables with GC versus the group in which only tocilizumab was administered was lower as CGs were considered, with statistical significance for survival. DISCUSSION: The early use of GC pulses could control SLC, with a lower requirement to use tocilizumab and a decrease in events such as intubation and death.