Comparative analysis of chest radiography and lung ultrasound to predict intra-hospital prognosis of patients admitted for acute SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (COVID-19) Análisis comparativo de la radiografía de tórax y la ecografía pulmonar para predecir el pronóstico intrahospitalario de pacientes ingresados por neumonía secundaria a SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)

Background Point of care lung ultrasound (POCUS) has been recently used to assess prognosis in COVID-19 patients. However, there are no data comparing POCUS and chest-X ray, a technique widely used. Patients and methods Retrospective analysis in stable COVID-19 patients. Schalekamp radiological lung scale and LUZ-Score ultrasound scale were compared. Primary end-point was in-hospital death and/or need for Intensive Care Unit admission. Results A total of 138 patients were included. Median Schalekamp scale was 2 (2) and median LUZ-Score scale was 21 (10). No significant correlation was observed between both techniques. Patients with a LUZ-Score ≥ 21 points at admission had worse lung function and higher concentrations of LDH, CRP and Interleuquine-6. Schalekamp scale failed to identify patients at a higher risk at admission for the primary end-point. Addition of POCUS to a previous clinical model, improved risk prediction (AUC 0.805 [95% CI: 0.662-0.948];P = < .001). Conclusions Chest X-ray and POCUS showed no correlation at admission in this analysis. Only POCUS identified a group of patients with greater clinical and analytical involvement. POCUS improved, previous clinical model, while chest X-ray did not add relevant predictive information for the primary endpoint.

Comparative analysis of chest radiography and lung ultrasound to predict intra-hospital prognosis of patients admitted for acute SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (COVID-19).

Background: Point of care lung ultrasound (POCUS) has been recently used to assess prognosis in COVID-19 patients. However, there are no data comparing POCUS and chest-X ray, a technique widely used. Patients and methods: Retrospective analysis in stable COVID-19 patients. Schalekamp radiological lung scale and LUZ-Score ultrasound scale were compared. Primary end-point was in-hospital death and/or need for Intensive Care Unit admission. Results: A total of 138 patients were included. Median Schalekamp scale was 2 (2) and median LUZ-Score scale was 21 (10). No significant correlation was observed between both techniques. Patients with a LUZ-Score ≥ 21 points at admission had worse lung function and higher concentrations of LDH, CRP and Interleuquine-6. Schalekamp scale failed to identify patients at a higher risk at admission for the primary end-point. Addition of POCUS to a previous clinical model, improved risk prediction (AUC 0.805 [95% CI: 0.662-0.948]; P = <0.001). Conclusions: Chest X-ray and POCUS showed no correlation at admission in this analysis. Only POCUS identified a group of patients with greater clinical and analytical involvement. POCUS improved, previous clinical model, while chest X-ray did not add relevant predictive information for the primary endpoint.

Antecedentes: La ecografía torácica es una técnica novedosa para estratificar el riesgo de los pacientes COVID-19. Sin embargo, no existen datos que comparen dicha técnica con la radiografía de tórax, una técnica ampliamente utilizada en esta enfermedad. Pacientes y métodos: Análisis retrospectivo en pacientes estables COVID-19. Se compararon la escala de daño pulmonar radiológica de Schalekamp y ecográfica de LUZ-Score. El objetivo primario fue la muerte intrahospitalaria o la necesidad de ingreso en la UCI para tratamiento con ventilación mecánica. Resultados: Se reclutaron 138 pacientes. La mediana de la escala de Schalekamp fue de 2 (2) y la del LUZ-Score de 21 (10). No se objetivó una correlación significativa entre ambas escalas. Los pacientes con un LUZ-Score ≥ 21 puntos al ingreso presentaron peor función pulmonar y mayores concentraciones de LDH, PCR e interleucina-6. La escala radiológica de Schalekamp no logró identificar a una población de mayor riesgo. Únicamente la adición de la ecografía pulmonar a un modelo de valoración clínica mejoró de manera significativa el área bajo la curva para el objetivo primario (ABC 0,805 [IC 95%: 0,662−0,948]; p ≤ 0,001). Conclusiones: No se objetivó una correlación entre la afectación radiológica y la ecográfica. Únicamente la ecografía pulmonar identificó un subgrupo de pacientes con una mayor afectación clínico-analítica. La ecografía pulmonar mejoró el modelo de predicción clínico, mientras que la radiografía de tórax no añadió información relevante.

Comparative analysis of chest radiography and lung ultrasound to predict intra-hospital prognosis of patients admitted for acute SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (COVID-19). / Análisis comparativo de la radiografía de tórax y la ecografía pulmonar para predecir el pronóstico intrahospitalario de pacientes ingresados por neumonía secundaria a SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: Point of care lung ultrasound (POCUS) has been recently used to assess prognosis in COVID-19 patients. However, there are no data comparing POCUS and chest-X ray, a technique widely used. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis in stable COVID-19 patients. Schalekamp radiological lung scale and LUZ-Score ultrasound scale were compared. Primary end-point was in-hospital death and/or need for Intensive Care Unit admission. RESULTS: A total of 138 patients were included. Median Schalekamp scale was 2 (2) and median LUZ-Score scale was 21 (10). No significant correlation was observed between both techniques. Patients with a LUZ-Score ≥21points at admission had worse lung function and higher concentrations of LDH, CRP and Interleuquine-6. Schalekamp scale failed to identify patients at a higher risk at admission for the primary end-point. Addition of POCUS to a previous clinical model, improved risk prediction (AUC 0.805 [95%CI: 0.662-0.948]; P=<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Chest X-ray and POCUS showed no correlation at admission in this analysis. Only POCUS identified a group of patients with greater clinical and analytical involvement. POCUS improved, previous clinical model, while chest X-ray did not add relevant predictive information for the primary endpoint.

Multiple Approaches at Admission Based on Lung Ultrasound and Biomarkers Improves Risk Identification in COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification of COVID-19 patients is fundamental to improving prognosis and selecting the right treatment. We hypothesized that a combination of lung ultrasound (LUZ-score), biomarkers (sST2), and clinical models (PANDEMYC score) could be useful to improve risk stratification. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study designed to analyze the prognostic value of lung ultrasound, sST2, and PANDEMYC score in COVID-19 patients. The primary endpoint was in-hospital death and/or admission to the intensive care unit. The total length of hospital stay, increase of oxygen flow, or escalated medical treatment during the first 72 h were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: a total of 144 patients were included; the mean age was 57.5 ± 12.78 years. The median PANDEMYC score was 243 (52), the median LUZ-score was 21 (10), and the median sST2 was 53.1 ng/mL (30.9). Soluble ST2 showed the best predictive capacity for the primary endpoint (AUC = 0.764 (0.658-0.871); p = 0.001), towards the PANDEMYC score (AUC = 0.762 (0.655-0.870); p = 0.001) and LUZ-score (AUC = 0.749 (0.596-0.901); p = 0.002). Taken together, these three tools significantly improved the risk capacity (AUC = 0.840 (0.727-0.953); p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The PANDEMYC score, lung ultrasound, and sST2 concentrations upon admission for COVID-19 are independent predictors of intra-hospital death and/or the need for admission to the ICU for mechanical ventilation. The combination of these predictive tools improves the predictive power compared to each one separately. The use of decision trees, based on multivariate models, could be useful in clinical practice.

Point-of-care lung ultrasound assessment for risk stratification and therapy guiding in COVID-19 patients: a prospective noninterventional study.

BACKGROUND: Lung ultrasound is feasible for assessing lung injury caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the prognostic meaning and time-line changes of lung injury assessed by lung ultrasound in COVID-19 hospitalised patients are unknown. METHODS: Prospective cohort study designed to analyse prognostic value of lung ultrasound in COVID-19 patients by using a quantitative scale (lung ultrasound Zaragoza (LUZ)-score) during the first 72 h after admission. The primary end-point was in-hospital death and/or admission to the intensive care unit. Total length of hospital stay, increase of oxygen flow and escalation of medical treatment during the first 72 h were secondary end-points. RESULTS: 130 patients were included in the final analysis; mean±sd age was 56.7±13.5 years. Median (interquartile range) time from the beginning of symptoms to admission was 6 (4-9) days. Lung injury assessed by LUZ-score did not differ during the first 72 h (21 (16-26) points at admission versus 20 (16-27) points at 72 h; p=0.183). In univariable logistic regression analysis, estimated arterial oxygen tension/inspiratory oxygen fraction ratio (PAFI) (hazard ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.98-0.99; p=0.027) and LUZ-score >22 points (5.45, 1.42-20.90; p=0.013) were predictors for the primary end-point. CONCLUSIONS: LUZ-score is an easy, simple and fast point-of-care ultrasound tool to identify patients with severe lung injury due to COVID-19, upon admission. Baseline score is predictive of severity along the whole period of hospitalisation. The score facilitates early implementation or intensification of treatment for COVID-19 infection. LUZ-score may be combined with clinical variables (as estimated by PAFI) to further refine risk stratification.

Early Measurement of Blood sST2 Is a Good Predictor of Death and Poor Outcomes in Patients Admitted for COVID-19 Infection.

Although several biomarkers have shown correlation to prognosis in COVID-19 patients, their clinical value is limited because of lack of specificity, suboptimal sensibility or poor dynamic behavior. We hypothesized that circulating soluble ST2 (sST2) could be associated to a worse outcome in COVID-19. In total, 152 patients admitted for confirmed COVID-19 were included in a prospective non-interventional, observational study. Blood samples were drawn at admission, 48-72 h later and at discharge. sST2 concentrations and routine blood laboratory were analyzed. Primary endpoints were admission at intensive care unit (ICU) and mortality. Median age was 57.5 years [Standard Deviation (SD: 12.8)], 60.4% males. 10% of patients (n = 15) were derived to ICU and/or died during admission. Median (IQR) sST2 serum concentration (ng/mL) rose to 53.1 (30.9) at admission, peaked at 48-72 h (79.5(64)) and returned to admission levels at discharge (44.9[36.7]). A concentration of sST2 above 58.9 ng/mL was identified patients progressing to ICU admission or death. Results remained significant after multivariable analysis. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of sST2 for endpoints was 0.776 (p = 0.001). In patients admitted for COVID-19 infection, early measurement of sST2 was able to identify patients at risk of severe complications or death.