Monitoring of pulmonary involvement in critically ill COVID-19 patients - should lung ultrasound be preferred over CT?

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if relevant changes in pulmonary involvement in critically ill COVID-19 patients can be reliably detected by the CT severity score (CTSS) and lung ultrasound score (LUSS), or if these changes have prognostic implications. In addition, it has been argued that adding pleural abnormalities to the LUSS could improve its prognostic value. The objective of this study was to compare LUSS and CTSS for the monitoring of COVID-19 pulmonary involvement through: first, establishing the correlation of LUSS (± pleural abnormalities) and CTSS throughout admission; second, assessing agreement and measurement error between raters for LUSS, pleural abnormalities, and CTSS; third, evaluating the association of the LUSS (± pleural abnormalities) and CTSS with mortality at different timepoints. METHODS: This is a prospective, observational study, conducted during the second COVID-19 wave at the AmsterdamUMC, location VUmc. Adult COVID-19 ICU patients were prospectively included when a CT or a 12-zone LUS was performed at admission or at weekly intervals according to local protocol. Patients were followed 90 days or until death. We calculated the: (1) Correlation of the LUSS (± pleural abnormalities) and CTSS throughout admission with mixed models; (2) Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and smallest detectable changes (SDCs) between raters; (3) Association between the LUSS (± pleural abnormalities) and CTSS with mixed models. RESULTS: 82 consecutive patients were included. Correlation between LUSS and CTSS was 0.45 (95% CI 0.31-0.59). ICCs for LUSS, pleural abnormalities, and CTSS were 0.88 (95% CI 0.73-0.95), 0.94 (95% CI 0.90-0.96), and 0.84 (95% CI 0.65-0.93), with SDCs of 4.8, 1.4, and 3.9. The LUSS was associated with mortality in week 2, with a score difference between patients who survived or died greater than its SDC. Addition of pleural abnormalities was not beneficial. The CTSS was associated with mortality only in week 1, but with a score difference less than its SDC. CONCLUSIONS: LUSS correlated with CTSS throughout ICU admission but performed similar or better at agreement between raters and mortality prognostication. Given the benefits of LUS over CT, it should be preferred as initial monitoring tool.

Concise Versus Extended Lung Ultrasound Score to Monitor Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Lung ultrasound (LUS) can be used to monitor critically ill patients with COVID-19, but the optimal number of examined lung zones is disputed. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study. The objective was to investigate whether concise (6 zones) and extended (12 zones) LUS scoring protocols are clinically equivalent in critically ill ICU subjects with COVID-19. The primary outcome of this study was (statistical) agreement between concise and extended LUS score index evaluated in both supine and prone position. Agreement was determined using correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots to detect systematic differences between protocols. Secondary outcomes were difference between LUS score index in supine and prone position using similar methods. RESULTS: We included 130 LUS examinations in 40 subjects (mean age 69.0 ± 8.5y, 75% male). Agreement between concise and extended LUS score index had no clinically relevant constant or proportional bias and limits of agreement were below the smallest detectable change. Across position changes, supine LUS score index was 8% higher than prone LUS score index and had limits above the smallest detectable change, indicating true LUS score index differences between protocols may occur due to the position change itself. Lastly, inter-rater and intra-rater agreement were very good. CONCLUSIONS: Concise LUS was equally informative as extended LUS for monitoring critically ill subjects with COVID-19 in supine or prone position. Clinicians can monitor patients undergoing position changes but must be wary that LUS score index alterations may result from the position change itself rather than disease progression or clinical improvement.

Evolution of Respiratory Muscles Thickness in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Given the long ventilation times of patients with COVID-19 that can cause atrophy and contractile weakness of respiratory muscle fibers, assessment of changes at the bedside would be interesting. As such, the aim of this study was to determine the evolution of respiratory muscle thickness assessed by ultrasound. METHODS: Adult (> 18 y old) patients admitted to the ICU who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and were ventilated for < 24 h were consecutively included. The first ultrasound examination (diaphragm, rectus abdominis, and lateral abdominal wall muscles) was performed within 24 h of intubation and regarded as baseline measurement. After that, each following day an additional examination was performed, for a maximum of 8 examinations per subject. RESULTS: In total, 30 subjects were included, of which 11 showed ≥ 10% decrease in diaphragm thickness from baseline; 10 showed < 10% change, and 9 showed ≥ 10% increase from baseline. Symptom duration before intubation was highest in the decrease group (12 [11-14] d, P = .03). Total time ventilated within the first week was lowest in the increase group (156 [129-172] h, P = .03). Average initial diaphragm thickness was 1.4 (1.1-1.6) mm and did not differ from final average thickness (1.3 [1.1-1.5] mm, P = .54). The rectus abdominis did not show statistically significant changes, whereas lateral abdominal wall thickness decreased from 14 [10-16] mm at baseline to 11 [9-13] mm on the last day of mechanical ventilation (P = .08). Mixed-effect linear regression demonstrated an association of atrophy and neuromuscular-blocking agent (NMBA) use (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: In ventilated subjects with COVID-19, overall no change in diaphragm thickness was observed. Subjects with decreased or unchanged thickness had a longer ventilation time than those with increased thickness. NMBA use was associated with decreased thickness. Rectus muscle thickness did not change over time, whereas lateral abdominal muscle thickness decreased but this change was not statistically significant.

Optimal use of procalcitonin to rule out bacteremia in patients with possible viral infections.

Objective: During the winter, many patients present with suspected infection that could be a viral or a bacterial (co)infection. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the optimal use of procalcitonin (PCT) is different in patients with and without proven viral infections for the purpose of excluding bacteremia. We hypothesize that when a viral infection is confirmed, this lowers the probability of bacteremia and, therefore, influences the appropriate cutoff of procalcitonin. Methods: This study was conducted in the emergency department of an academic medical center in The Netherlands in the winter seasons of 2019 and 2020. Adults (>18 years) with suspected infection, in whom a blood culture and a rapid polymerase chain reaction test for influenza was performed were included. Results: A total of 546 patients were included of whom 47 (8.6%) had a positive blood culture. PCT had an area under the curve of 0.85, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.80-0.91, for prediction of bacteremia. In patients with a proven viral infection (N = 212) PCT < 0.5 µg/L had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 63.1-100) and specificity of 81.2% (95% CI 75.1-86.3) to exclude bacteremia. In patients without a viral infection, the procalcitonin cutoff point of < 0.25 µg/L showed a sensitivity of 87.2% (95% CI 72.6-95.7) and specificity of 64.1 % (95% CI 58.3-69.6). Conclusion: In patients with a viral infection, our findings suggest that a PCT concentration of <0.50 µg/L makes bacteremia unlikely. However, this finding needs to be confirmed in a larger population of patients with viral infections, especially because the rate of coinfection in our cohort was low.

Comparing lung ultrasound: extensive versus short in COVID-19 (CLUES): a multicentre, observational study at the emergency department

BackgroundBedside lung ultrasound (LUS) is an affordable diagnostic tool that could contribute to identifying COVID-19 pneumonia. Different LUS protocols are currently used at the emergency department (ED) and there is a need to know their diagnostic accuracy.DesignA multicentre, prospective, observational study, to compare the diagnostic accuracy of three commonly used LUS protocols in identifying COVID-19 pneumonia at the ED.Setting/patientsAdult patients with suspected COVID-19 at the ED, in whom we prospectively performed 12-zone LUS and SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription PCR.MeasurementsWe assessed diagnostic accuracy for three different ultrasound protocols using both PCR and final diagnosis as a reference standard.ResultsBetween 19 March 2020 and 4 May 2020, 202 patients were included. Sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value compared with PCR for 12-zone LUS were 91.4% (95% CI 84.4 to 96.0), 83.5% (95% CI 74.6 to 90.3) and 90.0% (95% CI 82.7 to 94.4). For 8-zone and 6-zone protocols, these results were 79.7 (95% CI 69.9 to 87.6), 69.0% (95% CI 59.6 to 77.4) and 81.3% (95% CI 73.8 to 87.0) versus 89.9% (95% CI 81.7 to 95.3), 57.5% (95% CI 47.9 to 66.8) and 87.8% (95% CI 79.2 to 93.2). Negative likelihood ratios for 12, 8 and 6 zones were 0.1, 0.3 and 0.2, respectively. Compared with the final diagnosis specificity increased to 83.5% (95% CI 74.6 to 90.3), 78.4% (95% CI 68.8 to 86.1) and 65.0% (95% CI 54.6 to 74.4), respectively, while the negative likelihood ratios were 0.1, 0.2 and 0.16.ConclusionIdentifying COVID-19 pneumonia at the ED can be aided by bedside LUS. The more efficient 6-zone protocol is an excellent screening tool, while the 12-zone protocol is more specific and gives a general impression on lung involvement.Trial registration numberNL8497.

Multi-organ point-of-care ultrasound for detection of pulmonary embolism in critically ill COVID-19 patients - A diagnostic accuracy study.

PURPOSE: Critically ill COVID-19 patients have an increased risk of developing pulmonary embolism (PE). Diagnosis of PE by point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) might reduce the need for computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA), while decreasing time-to-diagnosis. MATERIALS & METHODS: This prospective, observational study included adult ICU patients with COVID-19. Multi-organ (lungs, deep vein, cardiac) POCUS was performed within 24 h of CTPA, looking for subpleural consolidations, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and right ventricular strain (RVS). We reported the scan time, and calculated diagnostic accuracy measures for these signs separately and in combination. RESULTS: 70 consecutive patients were included. 23 patients (32.8%) had a PE. Median scan time was 14 min (IQR 11-17). Subpleural consolidations' diagnostic accuracy was: 42.9% (95%CI [34.1-52.0]). DVT's and RVS' diagnostic accuracy was: 75.6% (95%CI [67.1-82.9]) and 74.4% (95%CI [65.8-81.8]). Their sensitivity was: 24.0% (95%CI [9.4-45.1]), and 40.0% (95%CI [21.3-61.3]), while their specificity was: 88.8% (95%CI [80.8-94.3]), and: 83.0% (95%CI [74.2-89.8]), respectively. Multi-organ POCUS sensitivity was: 87.5% (95%CI [67.6-97.3]), and specificity was: 25% (95%CI [16.9-34.7]). CONCLUSIONS: Multi-organ rather than single-organ POCUS can be of aid in ruling out PE in critically ill COVID-19 and help select patients for CTPA. In addition, finding RVS can make PE more likely, while a DVT would preclude the need for a CTPA. REGISTRATION: www.trialregister.nl: NL8540.

A Lower Global Lung Ultrasound Score Is Associated with Higher Likelihood of Successful Extubation in Invasively Ventilated COVID-19 Patients.

Lung ultrasound (LUS) can be used to assess loss of aeration, which is associated with outcome in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presenting to the emergency department. We hypothesized that LUS scores are associated with outcome in critically ill COVID-19 patients receiving invasive ventilation. This retrospective international multicenter study evaluated patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with at least one LUS study within 5 days after invasive mechanical ventilation initiation. The global LUS score was calculated by summing the 12 regional scores (range 0-36). Pleural line abnormalities and subpleural consolidations were also scored. The outcomes were successful liberation from the ventilator and intensive care mortality within 28 days, analyzed with multistate, competing risk proportional hazard models. One hundred thirty-seven patients with COVID-19-related ARDS were included in our study. The global LUS score was associated with successful liberation from mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.91 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-0.96; P = 0.0007) independently of the ARDS severity, but not with 28 days mortality (HR: 1.03; 95% CI 0.97-1.08; P = 0.36). Subpleural consolidation and pleural line abnormalities did not add to the prognostic value of the global LUS score. Examinations within 24 hours of intubation showed no prognostic value. To conclude, a lower global LUS score 24 hours after invasive ventilation initiation is associated with increased probability of liberation from the mechanical ventilator COVID-19 ARDS patients, independently of the ARDS severity.

Assessing COVID-19 pneumonia-Clinical extension and risk with point-of-care ultrasound: A multicenter, prospective, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Assessing the extent of lung involvement is important for the triage and care of COVID-19 pneumonia. We sought to determine the utility of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) for characterizing lung involvement and, thereby, clinical risk determination in COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, observational study included patients with COVID-19 who received 12-zone lung ultrasound and chest computed tomography (CT) scanning in the emergency department (ED). We defined lung disease severity using the lung ultrasound score (LUS) and chest CT severity score (CTSS). We assessed the association between the LUS and poor outcome (ICU admission or 30-day all-cause mortality). We also assessed the association between the LUS and hospital length of stay. We examined the ability of the LUS to differentiate between disease severity groups. Lastly, we estimated the correlation between the LUS and CTSS and the interrater agreement for the LUS. We handled missing data by multiple imputation with chained equations and predictive mean matching. RESULTS: We included 114 patients treated between March 19, 2020, and May 4, 2020. An LUS ≥12 was associated with a poor outcome within 30 days (hazard ratio [HR], 5.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-24.80; P = 0.02). Admission duration was shorter in patients with an LUS <12 (adjusted HR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.47-3.40; P < 0.001). Mean LUS differed between disease severity groups: no admission, 6.3 (standard deviation [SD], 4.4); hospital/ward, 13.1 (SD, 6.4); and ICU, 18.0 (SD, 5.0). The LUS was able to discriminate between ED discharge and hospital admission excellently, with an area under the curve of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.75-0.91). Interrater agreement for the LUS was strong: κ = 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77-0.95). Correlation between the LUS and CTSS was strong: κ = 0.60 (95% CI, 0.48-0.71). CONCLUSIONS: We showed that baseline lung ultrasound - is associated with poor outcomes, admission duration, and disease severity. The LUS also correlates well with CTSS. Point-of-care lung ultrasound may aid the risk stratification and triage of patients with COVID-19 at the ED.

Chest CT in COVID-19 at the ED: Validation of the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) and CT Severity Score: A Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: CT is thought to play a key role in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnostic workup. The possibility of comparing data across different settings depends on the systematic and reproducible manner in which the scans are analyzed and reported. The COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) and the corresponding CT severity score (CTSS) introduced by the Radiological Society of the Netherlands (NVvR) attempt to do so. However, this system has not been externally validated. RESEARCH QUESTION: We aimed to prospectively validate the CO-RADS as a COVID-19 diagnostic tool at the ED and to evaluate whether the CTSS is associated with prognosis. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study in two tertiary centers in The Netherlands, between March 19 and May 28, 2020. We consecutively included 741 adult patients at the ED with suspected COVID-19, who received a chest CT and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) PCR (PCR). Diagnostic accuracy measures were calculated for CO-RADS, using PCR as reference. Logistic regression was performed for CTSS in relation to hospital admission, ICU admission, and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Seven hundred forty-one patients were included. We found an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.91 (CI, 0.89-0.94) for CO-RADS using PCR as reference. The optimal CO-RADS cutoff was 4, with a sensitivity of 89.4% (CI, 84.7-93.0) and specificity of 87.2% (CI, 83.9-89.9). We found a significant association between CTSS and hospital admission, ICU admission, and 30-day mortality; adjusted ORs per point increase in CTSS were 1.19 (CI, 1.09-1.28), 1.23 (1.15-1.32), 1.14 (1.07-1.22), respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficients for CO-RADS and CTSS were 0.94 (0.91-0.96) and 0.82 (0.70-0.90). INTERPRETATION: Our findings support the use of CO-RADS and CTSS in triage, diagnosis, and management decisions for patients presenting with possible COVID-19 at the ED.

Diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia in a pandemic setting: Lung Ultrasound versus CT (LUVCT) - a multicentre, prospective, observational study.

BACKGROUND: In this coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, fast and accurate testing is needed to profile patients at the emergency department (ED) and efficiently allocate resources. Chest imaging has been considered in COVID-19 workup, but evidence on lung ultrasound (LUS) is sparse. We therefore aimed to assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy of LUS and computed tomography (CT) in suspected COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This multicentre, prospective, observational study included adult patients with suspected COVID-19 referred to internal medicine at the ED. We calculated diagnostic accuracy measures for LUS and CT using both PCR and multidisciplinary team (MDT) diagnosis as reference. We also assessed agreement between LUS and CT, and between sonographers. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-seven patients were recruited between March 19 and May 4, 2020. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) was 0.81 (95% CI 0.75-0.88) for LUS and 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.94) for CT. Sensitivity and specificity for LUS were 91.9% (95% CI 84.0-96.7) and 71.0% (95% CI 61.1-79.6), respectively, versus 88.4% (95% CI 79.7-94.3) and 82.0% (95% CI 73.1-89.0) for CT. Negative likelihood ratio was 0.1 (95% CI 0.06-0.24) for LUS and 0.14 (95% CI 0.08-0.3) for CT. No patient with a false negative LUS required supplemental oxygen or admission. LUS specificity increased to 80% (95% CI 69.9-87.9) compared to MDT diagnosis, with an AUROC of 0.85 (95% CI 0.79-0.91). Agreement between LUS and CT was 0.65. Interobserver agreement for LUS was good: 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.93). CONCLUSION: LUS and CT have comparable diagnostic accuracy for COVID-19 pneumonia. LUS can safely exclude clinically relevant COVID-19 pneumonia and may aid COVID-19 diagnosis in high prevalence situations.