Micro-costing analysis of suspected lower respiratory tract infection care in a French emergency department.

Introduction: In the context of budgetary constraints faced by healthcare systems, the medical-economic evaluation of care strategies becomes essential. In particular, valuing consumed resources in the overcrowded emergency departments (EDs) has become a priority to adopt more efficient approaches in treating the growing number of patients. However, precisely measuring the cost of care is challenging. While bottom-up micro-costing is considered the gold standard, its practical application remains limited. Objective: The objective was to accurately estimate the ED care cost for patients consulting in a French ED for suspected lower respiratory tract infection. Methods: The authors conducted a cost analysis using a bottom-up micro-costing method. Patients were prospectively included between January 1, and March 31, 2023. The primary endpoint was the mean cost of ED care. Resources consumed were collected using direct observation method and cost data were obtained from information available at Strasbourg University Hospital. Results: The mean cost of ED care was €411.68 (SD = 174.49). The cost elements that made the greatest contribution to the total cost were laboratory tests, labor, latency time, imaging and consumables. Considering this cost and the current epidemiological data on respiratory infections in France, the absence of valuation for outpatient care represents an annual loss of over 17 million euros for healthcare facilities. Conclusion: Micro-costing is a key element in valuing healthcare costs. The importance of accurately measuring costs, along with measuring the health outcomes of a defined care pathway, is to enhance the relevance of health economic evaluations and thus ensure efficient care.

Organizational Benefits of Ultra-Low-Dose Chest CT Compared to Chest Radiography in the Emergency Department for the Diagnostic Workup of Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Real-Life Retrospective Analysis.

Background and Objectives: Chest radiography remains the most frequently used examination in emergency departments (ED) for the diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), despite its poor diagnostic accuracy compared with ultra-low-dose (ULD) chest computed tomography (CT). However, although ULD CT appears to be an attractive alternative to radiography, its organizational impact in ED remains unknown. Our objective was to compare the relevant timepoints in ED management of CT and chest radiography. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study in two ED of a University Hospital including consecutive patients consulting for a CAP between 1 March 2019 and 29 February 2020 to assess the organizational benefits of ULD chest CT and chest radiography (length of stay (LOS) in the ED, time of clinical decision after imaging). Overlap weights (OW) were used to reduce covariate imbalance between groups. Results: Chest radiography was performed for 1476 patients (mean age: 76 years [63; 86]; 55% men) and ULD chest CT for 133 patients (mean age: 71 [57; 83]; 53% men). In the weighted population with OW, ULD chest CT did not significantly alter the ED LOS compared with chest radiography (11.7 to 12.2; MR 0.96 [0.85; 1.09]), although it did significantly reduce clinical decision time (6.9 and 9.5 h; MR 0.73 [0.59; 0.89]). Conclusion: There is real-life evidence that a strategy with ULD chest CT can be considered to be a relevant approach to replace chest radiography as part of the diagnostic workup for CAP in the ED without increasing ED LOS.

Imaging strategies used in emergency departments for the diagnostic workup of COVID-19 patients during the first wave of the pandemic: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency departments (EDs) were on the front line for the diagnostic workup of patients with COVID-19-like symptoms during the first wave. Chest imaging was the key to rapidly identifying COVID-19 before administering RT-PCR, which was time-consuming. The objective of our study was to compare the costs and organizational benefits of triage strategies in ED during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study in five EDs in France, involving 3712 consecutive patients consulting with COVID-like symptoms between 9 March 2020 and 8 April 2020, to assess the cost effectiveness of imaging strategies (chest radiography, chest computed tomography (CT) scan in the presence of respiratory symptoms, systematic ultra-low-dose (ULD) chest CT, and no systematic imaging) on ED length of stay (LOS) in the ED and on hospital costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the difference in costs divided by the difference in LOS. RESULTS: Compared with chest radiography, workup with systematic ULD chest CT was the more cost-effective strategy (average LOS of 6.89 hours; average cost of €3646), allowing for an almost 4-hour decrease in LOS in the ED at a cost increase of €98 per patient. Chest radiography (extendedly dominated) and RT-PCR with no systematic imaging were the least effective strategies, with an average LOS of 10.8 hours. The strategy of chest CT in the presence of respiratory symptoms was more effective than the systematic ULD chest CT strategy, with the former providing a gain of 37 minutes at an extra cost of €718. DISCUSSION: Systematic ULD chest CT for patients with COVID-like symptoms in the ED is a cost-effective strategy and should be considered to improve the management of patients in the ED during the pandemic, given the need to triage patients.

Rapid Antigen Test Combined with Chest Computed Tomography to Rule Out COVID-19 in Patients Admitted to the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVE: Correct and timely identification of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients is critical in the emergency department (ED) prior to admission to medical wards. Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are a rapid alternative to Reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for the diagnosis of COVID-19 but have lower sensitivity. METHODS: We evaluated the performance in real-life conditions of a strategy combining Ag-RDT and chest computed tomography (CT) to rule out COVID-19 infection in 1015 patients presenting in the ED between 16 November 2020 and 18 January 2021 in order to allow non-COVID-19 patients to be hospitalized in dedicated units directly. The combined strategy performed in the ED for patients with COVID-19 symptoms was assessed and compared with RT-PCR. RESULTS: Compared with RT-PCR, the negative predictive value was 96.7% for Ag-RDT alone, 98.5% for Ag-RDT/CT combined, and increased to 100% for patients with low viral load. CONCLUSION: A strategy combining Ag-RDT and chest CT is effective in ruling out COVID-19 in ED patients with high precision.

SARS-CoV-2 viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs in the emergency department does not predict COVID-19 severity and mortality.

INTRODUCTION: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has led to devastating repercussions on health care systems worldwide. This viral infection has a broad clinical spectrum (ranging from influenza-like disease, viral pneumonia, and hypoxemia to acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring prolonged intensive care unit stays). The prognostic impact of measuring viral load on nasopharyngeal swab specimens (by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR]) is yet to be elucidated. METHODS: Between March 3 and April 5, 2020, we conducted a retrospective study on a cohort of COVID-19 patients (mild or severe disease) who were hospitalized after presenting to the emergency department (ED) and had at least one positive nasopharyngeal swab during their hospital stay. We led our study at the University Hospitals of Strasbourg in the Greater East region of France, one of the pandemic's epicenters in Europe. RESULTS: We have collected samples from a cohort of 287 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who were included in our study. Nearly half of them (50.5%) presented a mild form of the disease, while the other half (49.5%) presented a severe form, requiring mechanical ventilation. Median (interquartile range) viral load on the initial upper respiratory swab at admission was 4.76 (3.29-6.06) log10 copies/reaction. When comparing survivors and nonsurvivors, this viral load measurement did not differ according to subgroups (p = 0.332). Additionally, we have found that respiratory viral load measurement was predictive of neither in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.85 to 1.31, p = 0.637) nor disease severity (AOR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.73 to 1.06, p = 0.167). CONCLUSION: Respiratory viral load measurement on the first nasopharyngeal swab (by RT-PCR) during initial ED management is neither a predictor of severity nor a predictor of mortality in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Host response to this viral infection along with the extent of preexisting comorbidities might be more foretelling of disease severity than the virus itself.