Loop Drainage Is Noninferior to Traditional Incision and Drainage of Cutaneous Abscesses in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: There is limited research on loop drainage (LD) compared to incision and drainage (I&D) for treatment of cutaneous abscesses. We investigated whether LD was noninferior to I&D for abscess resolution and whether there was any difference in repeat ED visits or complication rates between these techniques. METHODS: We performed a prospective randomized controlled trial, using a convenience sample at an urban academic emergency department (ED). Subjects over 18 years who presented for first-time management of an abscess were eligible. Patients requiring specialist drainage or hospital admission or had previous treatment for the abscess were excluded. Enrolled subjects were seen 2 weeks after treatment for blinded reevaluation of abscess resolution, and the electronic medical record was reviewed for return ED visits/abscess complications. RESULTS: Of 2,889 patients screened, 238 subjects consented and were randomized to LD or I&D. Abscess resolution was achieved in 53/65 (81.5%) of patients in the I&D arm, compared to 66/75 (88%) in the LD arm. Fewer patients in the LD group compared to the I&D group returned to the ED for abscess-related management during the following 14 days (37.3% vs 67.1%, p = 0.002). Among returning subjects, there was a significant difference in mean visits per subject between LD and I&D groups (0.5 vs. 1.2, p = 0.001). There were fewer complications among LD than I&D subjects (9.3% vs. 24.6%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our study provides evidence that LD is noninferior to I&D in achieving complete abscess resolution at 14 days and is associated with fewer return ED visits and fewer complications. This makes it an attractive alternative treatment option for abscesses.

Point-of-care Lung Ultrasound Is More Sensitive than Chest Radiograph for Evaluation of COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Current recommendations for diagnostic imaging for moderately to severely ill patients with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) include chest radiograph (CXR). Our primary objective was to determine whether lung ultrasound (LUS) B-lines, when excluding patients with alternative etiologies for B-lines, are more sensitive for the associated diagnosis of COVID-19 than CXR. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients who presented to a single, academic emergency department in the United States between March 20 and April 6, 2020, and received LUS, CXR, and viral testing for COVID-19 as part of their diagnostic evaluation. The primary objective was to estimate the test characteristics of both LUS B-lines and CXR for the associated diagnosis of COVID-19. Our secondary objective was to evaluate the proportion of patients with COVID-19 that have secondary LUS findings of pleural abnormalities and subpleural consolidations. RESULTS: We identified 43 patients who underwent both LUS and CXR and were tested for COVID-19. Of these, 27/43 (63%) tested positive. LUS was more sensitive (88.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 71.1-97.0) for the associated diagnosis of COVID-19 than CXR (51.9%, 95% CI, 34.0-69.3; p = 0.013). LUS and CXR specificity were 56.3% (95% CI, 33.2-76.9) and 75.0% (95% CI, 50.0-90.3), respectively (p = 0.453). Secondary LUS findings of patients with COVID-19 demonstrated 21/27 (77.8%) had pleural abnormalities and 10/27 (37%) had subpleural consolidations. CONCLUSION: Among patients who underwent LUS and CXR, LUS was found to have a higher sensitivity than CXR for the evaluation of COVID-19. This data could have important implications as an aid in the diagnostic evaluation of COVID-19, particularly where viral testing is not available or restricted. If generalizable, future directions would include defining how to incorporate LUS into clinical management and its role in screening lower-risk populations.