Prognostic significance of peripheral consolidations at chest x-ray in severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

To evaluate the possible prognostic significance of the development of peripheral consolidations at chest x-ray in COVID-19 pneumonia, we retrospectively studied 92 patients with severe respiratory failure (PaO2/FiO2 ratio < 200 mmHg) that underwent at least two chest x-ray examinations (baseline and within 10 days of admission). Patients were divided in two groups based on the evolution of chest x-ray toward the appearance of peripheral consolidations or toward a greater extension of the lung abnormalities but without peripheral consolidations. Patients who developed lung abnormalities without peripheral consolidations as well as patients who developed peripheral consolidations showed, at follow-up, a significant worsening of the PaO2/FiO2 ratio but a significantly lower mortality and intubation rate was observed in patients with peripheral consolidations at chest x-ray. The progression of chest x-ray toward peripheral consolidations is an independent prognostic factor associated with lower intubation rate and mortality.

Mesothelin is more useful in pleural effusion than in serum in the diagnosis of pleural mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Soluble mesothelin-related peptide (SMRP) is regarded as a biomarker of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Herein, we compared the diagnostic performances of SMRP in matched pleural effusion (PE-SMRP) and serum (S-SMRP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Diagnosis on pleural biopsies was performed for all patients including 43 with MPM, 23 with non-MPM pleural metastases (MTS) and 36 with benign (BNG) pleural diseases. SMRP was measured by a MesoMark ELISA (Cis-Bio International Gif/Yvette; France). RESULTS: Using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, 12.70 and 1.08 nM were detected as cut-off values to optimal discrimination for PE-SMRP and S-SMRP, respectively. PE-SMRP showed a better diagnostic accuracy than S-SMRP in MPM vs. MTS+BNG (area under the ROC curve=81.6 vs. 70.5; sensitivity=69.8% vs. 46.5%; specificity=88.1% vs. 84.7%; diagnostic odds ratio (DOR)=17.1 vs. 4.8). In S-SMRP-negative patients, PE-SMRP maintained an acceptable performance (Sensitivity=47.8%; DOR=8.3; p=0.001), whereas in PE-SMRP-negative patients, S-SMRP performed very poorly (Sensitivity=15.4%; DOR=1.2; p=0.858). CONCLUSION: PE-SMRP detection has a superior diagnostic accuracy than S-SMRP detection in the diagnosis of MPM.