The prognostic value of lung ultrasound score (LUSS) in patients with COVID-19 admitted in Emergency Department: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: The Lung Ultrasound (LUS) is routinely used as a point-of-care imaging tool in Emergency Department (ED) and its role in COVID-19 is being studied. The Lung UltraSound Score (LUSS) is a semi quantitative score of lung damage severity. Alongside instrumental diagnostic, the PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) ratio, obtained from arterial blood gas analysis, is the index used to assess the severity of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), according to the Berlin definition. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the study was to evaluate a possible correlation between the LUSS score and the P/F Ratio, obtained from the arterial sampling in COVID-19 positive patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-perspective monocentric observational study and it was carried out in the Emergency Department of the "AOU delle Marche" (Ancona, Italy), from 1 January 2023 to 28 February 2023. The study foresaw, once the patient was admitted to the ED, the execution of the LUS exam and the subsequent calculation of the LUSS score. RESULTS: The sample selected for the study was of 158 patients. The proportion of LUSS ≤4 was statistically higher in those with a P/F >300 (76.2%), compared to those with a P/F ≤300 (13.2%). On the other end, the proportion of LUSS >4 was lower in those who have P/F >300 (23.8%), while it was higher in those who have P/F ≤300 (86.8%). Those patients with a LUSS >4 were 1.76 (95% CI: 1.57 - 1.99) times more likely to have a P/F ≤300, compared to those with LUSS ≤4. The Odds Ratio of having a P/F ≤300 value in those achieving a LUSS >4, compared to those achieving a LUSS ≤4, was 21.0 (95% CI: 8.4 - 52.4). The study identified pO2, Hb and dichotomous LUSS as predictors of the level of P/F ≤300 or P/F >300. DISCUSSION: We found that the LUSS score defined by our study was closely related to the P/F ratio COVID-19 positive patients. Our study presented provides evidence on the potential rule of the LUSS for detecting the stage of lung impairment and the need for oxygen therapy in COVID-19 positive patients.

Early Lung Ultrasound Findings in Patients With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Retrospective Multicenter Study of 479 Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Lung ultrasound (LUS) holds the promise of an accurate, radiation-free, and affordable diagnostic and monitoring tool in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. We sought to evaluate the usefulness of LUS in the diagnosis of patients with respiratory distress and suspicion of interstitial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia, in comparison to other imaging modalities. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective study. LUS was performed, on Emergency Department (ED) arrival of patients presenting for possible COVID-19 evaluation, by trained emergency physicians, before undergoing conventional radiologic examination or while waiting for the report. Scans were performed using longitudinal transducer orientation of the lung regions. CXR was interpreted by radiologists staffing ED radiology. Subjects were divided into two group based on molecular test results. LUS findings were compared to COVID test results, nonlaboratory data, and other imaging for each patient. Categorical variables were expressed as percentages and continuous variables as median ± standard error. RESULTS: A total of 479 patients were enrolled, 87% diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 by molecular testing. COVID positive and COVID negative patients differed with respect to sex, presence of fever, and white blood cells count. Most common findings on lung point of care ultrasound (POCUS) for COVID-positive patients were B-lines, irregular pleural lines, and small consolidation. Normal chest X-ray was found in 17.89% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: This 479 patient cohort, with COVID-19, found LUS to be noninferior to chest X-ray (CXR) for diagnostic accuracy. In this study, COVID-positive patients are most likely to show B lines and sub-pleural consolidations on LUS examination.

A Modified Corona Score Using Lung Ultrasound to Identify COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 continues to circulate around the world with multiple different strains being active at once. While diagnosis with antigen and molecular testing is more readily available, there is still room for alternative methods of diagnosis, particularly in out-of-hospital settings, e.g., home or nursing homes, and in low-medium income countries, where testing may not be readily available. STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of two modified corona score methods compared with a traditional corona score approach to identify patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicenter study performed to compare the ability to predict SARS-CoV-2 test results on a nasopharyngeal swab between the corona scores and two novel corona scores (modified 1 corona score (M1CS) and modified 2 corona score (M2CS)). The M1CS included lung ultrasound (LUS) and chest X-ray (CXR) results, while the M2SC only utilized LUS findings without CXRs. Emergency physicians performed point-of-care LUS and a physical examination upon admission to the emergency department. RESULTS: Subjects positive for SARS-CoV-2 were older and had higher ferritin levels and temperature and lower diastolic blood pressure and oxygen saturation. The two groups differed on corona score and modified corona scores (p < 0.001 for all). SARS-CoV-2-positive patients had fewer pleural line irregularities (p = 0.025) but presented more frequently with an interstitial pattern on CXRs (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, LUS alone provided a valuable contribution to the corona score and improved its performance more than when CXR results were included. These results suggest that resource-limited areas where CXRs may be unavailable or prohibitively expensive can utilize an ultrasound as the sole imaging modality without a loss of diagnostic performance for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia diagnosis.

A management of blunt thoracic trauma in an emergency department observation unit: pre-post observational study.

BACKGROUND: The best management of patients with isolated blunt thoracic trauma at high risk of pulmonary complications (HRPC-BTT: ≥3 isolated rib fractures, sternal fracture, single or few pulmonary contusions or minimal pneumothorax) is still unclear. We compared efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a new clinical pathway involving an Emergency Department Observation Unit (EDOU) with routine care. DESIGN: Retrospective before-after study. SETTING: Level II Trauma Center within a Regional Teaching Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A consecutive series of patients with HRPC-BTT. INTERVENTIONS: a new clinical pathway involving EDOU was implemented. MAIN OUTCOMES: Death rate, tube thoracostomy, and re-admission of discharged patients. Hospital admission rate, length of hospital occupancy, overall costs, and cost-effectiveness were also compared in pre- and post-EDOU period. RESULTS: Two hundred forty patients were eligible for the study: 110 patients in the pre-EDOU period and 130 in the post-EDOU period. Thirteen (12%) of the treated patients were re-admitted to the ED in the pre-EDOU period compared with only five (4%) when the EDOU was available (p = 0.03). The rate of tube thoracostomy performed in admitted patients significantly increased after EDOU implementation: 1 of 54 (1.9%) versus 4 of 32 (12.5%; p < 0.05). The rate of hospitalization decreased from 49% in the pre-EDOU period to 24% in the post-EDOU period (p < 0,005) and the length of stay in hospital in the pre-EDOU period was longer than in the EDOU period: mean 94.7 ± 79.6 versus 65.7 ± 60.6, respectively (p < 0.02). Cost analysis revealed no relevant change in cost-effectiveness per patient (median; interquartile range): €487; €103 to 1959 versus €616; €124 to 1455, respectively, in the pre- and post-EDOU period. CONCLUSIONS: In managing patients affected by HRPC-BTT, a clinical pathway involving the EDOU seems to be more effective than routine care with little impact on cost.