Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Outperforms Quantitative Chest CT Imaging Parameters for Mortality Prediction in COVID-19 ARDS.

(1) Background: Respiratory insufficiency with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and multi-organ dysfunction leads to high mortality in COVID-19 patients. In times of limited intensive care unit (ICU) resources, chest CTs became an important tool for the assessment of lung involvement and for patient triage despite uncertainties about the predictive diagnostic value. This study evaluated chest CT-based imaging parameters for their potential to predict in-hospital mortality compared to clinical scores. (2) Methods: 89 COVID-19 ICU ARDS patients requiring mechanical ventilation or continuous positive airway pressure mask ventilation were included in this single center retrospective study. AI-based lung injury assessment and measurements indicating pulmonary hypertension (PA-to-AA ratio) on admission CT, oxygenation indices, lung compliance and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores on ICU admission were assessed for their diagnostic performance to predict in-hospital mortality. (3) Results: CT severity scores and PA-to-AA ratios were not significantly associated with in-hospital mortality, whereas the SOFA score showed a significant association (p < 0.001). In ROC analysis, the SOFA score resulted in an area under the curve (AUC) for in-hospital mortality of 0.74 (95%-CI 0.63-0.85), whereas CT severity scores (0.53, 95%-CI 0.40-0.67) and PA-to-AA ratios (0.46, 95%-CI 0.34-0.58) did not yield sufficient AUCs. These results were consistent for the subgroup of more critically ill patients with moderate and severe ARDS on admission (oxygenation index <200, n = 53) with an AUC for SOFA score of 0.77 (95%-CI 0.64-0.89), compared to 0.55 (95%-CI 0.39-0.72) for CT severity scores and 0.51 (95%-CI 0.35-0.67) for PA-to-AA ratios. (4) Conclusions: Severe COVID-19 disease is not limited to lung (vessel) injury but leads to a multi-organ involvement. The findings of this study suggest that risk stratification should not solely be based on chest CT parameters but needs to include multi-organ failure assessment for COVID-19 ICU ARDS patients for optimized future patient management and resource allocation.

Interpretation of Thoracic Radiography Shows Large Discrepancies Depending on the Qualification of the Physician-Quantitative Evaluation of Interobserver Agreement in a Representative Emergency Department Scenario.

(1) Background: Chest radiography (CXR) is still a key diagnostic component in the emergency department (ED). Correct interpretation is essential since some pathologies require urgent treatment. This study quantifies potential discrepancies in CXR analysis between radiologists and non-radiology physicians in training with ED experience. (2) Methods: Nine differently qualified physicians (three board-certified radiologists [BCR], three radiology residents [RR], and three non-radiology residents involved in ED [NRR]) evaluated a series of 563 posterior-anterior CXR images by quantifying suspicion for four relevant pathologies: pleural effusion, pneumothorax, pneumonia, and pulmonary nodules. Reading results were noted separately for each hemithorax on a Likert scale (0-4; 0: no suspicion of pathology, 4: safe existence of pathology) adding up to a total of 40,536 reported pathology suspicions. Interrater reliability/correlation and Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed for statistical analysis. (3) Results: While interrater reliability was good among radiologists, major discrepancies between radiologists' and non-radiologists' reading results could be observed in all pathologies. Highest overall interrater agreement was found for pneumothorax detection and lowest agreement in raising suspicion for malignancy suspicious nodules. Pleural effusion and pneumonia were often suspected with indifferent choices (1-3). In terms of pneumothorax detection, all readers mainly decided for a clear option (0 or 4). Interrater reliability was usually higher when evaluating the right hemithorax (all pathologies except pneumothorax). (4) Conclusions: Quantified CXR interrater reliability analysis displays a general uncertainty and strongly depends on medical training. NRR can benefit from radiology reporting in terms of time efficiency and diagnostic accuracy. CXR evaluation of long-time trained ED specialists has not been tested.

Anthropometric analysis of body habitus and outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

AIMS: This study aimed to determine whether anthropometric markers of thoracic skeletal muscle and abdominal visceral fat tissue correlate with outcome parameters in critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed thoracic CT-scans of 67 patients in four ICUs at a university hospital. Thoracic skeletal muscle (total cross-sectional area (CSA); pectoralis muscle area (PMA)) and abdominal visceral fat tissue (VAT) were quantified using a semi-automated method. Point-biserial-correlation-coefficient, Spearman-correlation-coefficient, Wilcoxon rank-sum test and logistic regression were used to assess the correlation and test for differences between anthropometric parameters and death, ventilator- and ICU-free days and initial inflammatory laboratory values. RESULTS: Deceased patients had lower CSA and PMA values, but higher VAT values (p < 0.001). Male patients with higher CSA values had more ventilator-free days (p = 0.047) and ICU-free days (p = 0.017). Higher VAT/CSA and VAT/PMA values were associated with higher mortality (p < 0.001), but were negatively correlated with ICU length of stay in female patients only (p < 0.016). There was no association between anthropometric parameters and initial inflammatory biomarker levels. Logistic regression revealed no significant independent predictor for death. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that pathologic body composition assessed by planimetric measurements using thoracic CT-scans is associated with worse outcome in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Differences in Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Markers Between Patients With COVID-19-associated Myocardial Injury and Patients With Clinically Suspected Myocarditis.

PURPOSE: Coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) has been shown to affect the myocardium, resulting in a worse clinical outcome. In this registry study, we aimed to identify differences in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) between COVID-19 and all-cause myocarditis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined CMRI of patients with COVID-19 and elevated high-sensitivity serum troponin levels performed between March 31st and May 5th and compared them to CMRI of patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection with suspected myocarditis in the same time period. For this purpose, we evaluated Lake-Louise Criteria for myocarditis by determining nonischemic myocardial injury via T1-mapping, extracellular volume, late gadolinium enhancement, and myocardial edema (ME) by T2-mapping and fat-saturated T2w imaging (T2Q). RESULTS: A total of 15 of 18 (89%) patients with COVID-19 had abnormal findings. The control group consisted of 18 individuals. There were significantly fewer individuals with COVID-19 who had increased T2 (5 vs. 10; P=0.038) and all-cause ME (7 vs. 15; P=0.015); thus, significantly fewer patients with COVID-19 fulfilled Lake-Louise Criteria (6 vs. 17; P<0.001). In contrast, nonischemic myocardial injury was not significantly different. In the COVID-19 group, indexed end-diastolic volume of the left ventricle showed a significant correlation to the extent of abnormal T1 (R2=0.571; P=0.017) and extracellular volume (R2=0.605; P=0.013) and absolute T1, T2, and T2Q (R2=0.644; P=0.005, R2=0.513; P=0.035 and R2=0.629; P=0.038, respectively); in the control group, only extracellular volume showed a weak correlation (R2=0.490; P=0.046). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac involvement in COVID-19 seems to show less ME than all-cause myocarditis. Abnormal CMRI markers correlated to left ventricle dilation only in the COVID-19 group. Larger comparative studies are needed to verify our findings.

Risk Stratification for ECMO Requirement in COVID-19 ICU Patients Using Quantitative Imaging Features in CT Scans on Admission.

(1) Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapy in intensive care units (ICUs) remains the last treatment option for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with severely affected lungs but is highly resource demanding. Early risk stratification for the need of ECMO therapy upon admission to the hospital using artificial intelligence (AI)-based computed tomography (CT) assessment and clinical scores is beneficial for patient assessment and resource management; (2) Methods: Retrospective single-center study with 95 confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to the participating ICUs. Patients requiring ECMO therapy (n = 14) during ICU stay versus patients without ECMO treatment (n = 81) were evaluated for discriminative clinical prediction parameters and AI-based CT imaging features and their diagnostic potential to predict ECMO therapy. Reported patient data include clinical scores, AI-based CT findings and patient outcomes; (3) Results: Patients subsequently allocated to ECMO therapy had significantly higher sequential organ failure (SOFA) scores (p < 0.001) and significantly lower oxygenation indices on admission (p = 0.009) than patients with standard ICU therapy. The median time from hospital admission to ECMO placement was 1.4 days (IQR 0.2-4.0). The percentage of lung involvement on AI-based CT assessment on admission to the hospital was significantly higher in ECMO patients (p < 0.001). In binary logistic regression analyses for ECMO prediction including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), SOFA score on admission, lactate on admission and percentage of lung involvement on admission CTs, only SOFA score (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.08-1.62) and lung involvement (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.11) were significantly associated with subsequent ECMO allocation. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.83 (95% CI 0.73-0.94) for lung involvement on admission CT and 0.82 (95% CI 0.72-0.91) for SOFA scores on ICU admission. A combined parameter of SOFA on ICU admission and lung involvement on admission CT yielded an AUC of 0.91 (0.84-0.97) with a sensitivity of 0.93 and a specificity of 0.84 for ECMO prediction; (4) Conclusions: AI-based assessment of lung involvement on CT scans on admission to the hospital and SOFA scoring, especially if combined, can be used as risk stratification tools for subsequent requirement for ECMO therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 disease to improve resource management in ICU settings.

Evaluation of patients with respiratory infections during the first pandemic wave in Germany: characteristics of COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Characteristics of COVID-19 patients have mainly been reported within confirmed COVID-19 cohorts. By analyzing patients with respiratory infections in the emergency department during the first pandemic wave, we aim to assess differences in the characteristics of COVID-19 vs. Non-COVID-19 patients. This is particularly important regarding the second COVID-19 wave and the approaching influenza season. METHODS: We prospectively included 219 patients with suspected COVID-19 who received radiological imaging and RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2. Demographic, clinical and laboratory parameters as well as RT-PCR results were used for subgroup analysis. Imaging data were reassessed using the following scoring system: 0 - not typical, 1 - possible, 2 - highly suspicious for COVID-19. RESULTS: COVID-19 was diagnosed in 72 (32,9%) patients. In three of them (4,2%) the initial RT-PCR was negative while initial CT scan revealed pneumonic findings. 111 (50,7%) patients, 61 of them (55,0%) COVID-19 positive, had evidence of pneumonia. Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia showed higher body temperature (37,7 ± 0,1 vs. 37,1 ± 0,1 °C; p = 0.0001) and LDH values (386,3 ± 27,1 vs. 310,4 ± 17,5 U/l; p = 0.012) as well as lower leukocytes (7,6 ± 0,5 vs. 10,1 ± 0,6G/l; p = 0.0003) than patients with other pneumonia. Among abnormal CT findings in COVID-19 patients, 57 (93,4%) were evaluated as highly suspicious or possible for COVID-19. In patients with negative RT-PCR and pneumonia, another third was evaluated as highly suspicious or possible for COVID-19 (14 out of 50; 28,0%). The sensitivity in the detection of patients requiring isolation was higher with initial chest CT than with initial RT-PCR (90,4% vs. 79,5%). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients show typical clinical, laboratory and imaging parameters which enable a sensitive detection of patients who demand isolation measures due to COVID-19.

Myocardial Inflammation and Dysfunction in COVID-19-Associated Myocardial Injury.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial injury, defined by elevated troponin levels, is associated with adverse outcome in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The frequency of cardiac injury remains highly uncertain and confounded in current publications; myocarditis is one of several mechanisms that have been proposed. METHODS: We prospectively assessed patients with myocardial injury hospitalized for COVID-19 using transthoracic echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and endomyocardial biopsy. RESULTS: Eighteen patients with COVID-19 and myocardial injury were included in this study. Echocardiography revealed normal to mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction of 52.5% (46.5%-60.5%) but moderately to severely reduced left ventricular global longitudinal strain of -11.2% (-7.6% to -15.1%). Cardiac magnetic resonance showed any myocardial tissue injury defined by elevated T1, extracellular volume, or late gadolinium enhancement with a nonischemic pattern in 16 patients (83.3%). Seven patients (38.9%) demonstrated myocardial edema in addition to tissue injury fulfilling the Lake-Louise criteria for myocarditis. Combining cardiac magnetic resonance with speckle tracking echocardiography demonstrated functional or morphological cardiac changes in 100% of investigated patients. Endomyocardial biopsy was conducted in 5 patients and revealed enhanced macrophage numbers in all 5 patients in addition to lymphocytic myocarditis in 1 patient. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was not detected in any biopsy by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Finally, follow-up measurements of left ventricular global longitudinal strain revealed significant improvement after a median of 52.0 days (-11.2% [-9.2% to -14.7%] versus -15.6% [-12.5% to -19.6%] at follow-up; P=0.041). CONCLUSIONS: In this small cohort of COVID-19 patients with elevated troponin levels, myocardial injury was evidenced by reduced echocardiographic left ventricular strain, myocarditis patterns on cardiac magnetic resonance, and enhanced macrophage numbers but not predominantly lymphocytic myocarditis in endomyocardial biopsies.

COVID-19 Pandemic and Upcoming Influenza Season-Does an Expert's Computed Tomography Assessment Differentially Identify COVID-19, Influenza and Pneumonias of Other Origin?

(1) Background: Time-consuming SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR suffers from limited sensitivity in early infection stages whereas fast available chest CT can already raise COVID-19 suspicion. Nevertheless, radiologists' performance to differentiate COVID-19, especially from influenza pneumonia, is not sufficiently characterized. (2) Methods: A total of 201 pneumonia CTs were identified and divided into subgroups based on RT-PCR: 78 COVID-19 CTs, 65 influenza CTs and 62 Non-COVID-19-Non-influenza (NCNI) CTs. Three radiology experts (blinded from RT-PCR results) raised pathogen-specific suspicion (separately for COVID-19, influenza, bacterial pneumonia and fungal pneumonia) according to the following reading scores: 0-not typical/1-possible/2-highly suspected. Diagnostic performances were calculated with RT-PCR as a reference standard. Dependencies of radiologists' pathogen suspicion scores were characterized by Pearson's Chi2 Test for Independence. (3) Results: Depending on whether the intermediate reading score 1 was considered as positive or negative, radiologists correctly classified 83-85% (vs. NCNI)/79-82% (vs. influenza) of COVID-19 cases (sensitivity up to 94%). Contrarily, radiologists correctly classified only 52-56% (vs. NCNI)/50-60% (vs. COVID-19) of influenza cases. The COVID-19 scoring was more specific than the influenza scoring compared with suspected bacterial or fungal infection. (4) Conclusions: High-accuracy COVID-19 detection by CT might expedite patient management even during the upcoming influenza season.

COVID-19 Pandemic and Upcoming Influenza Season—Does an Expert’s Computed Tomography Assessment Differentially Identify COVID-19, Influenza and Pneumonias of Other Origin?

(1) Background: Time-consuming SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR suffers from limited sensitivity in early infection stages whereas fast available chest CT can already raise COVID-19 suspicion. Nevertheless, radiologists’performance to differentiate COVID-19, especially from influenza pneumonia, is not sufficiently characterized. (2) Methods: A total of 201 pneumonia CTs were identified and divided into subgroups based on RT-PCR: 78 COVID-19 CTs, 65 influenza CTs and 62 Non-COVID-19-Non-influenza (NCNI) CTs. Three radiology experts (blinded from RT-PCR results) raised pathogen-specific suspicion (separately for COVID-19, influenza, bacterial pneumonia and fungal pneumonia) according to the following reading scores: 0—not typical/1—possible/2—highly suspected. Diagnostic performances were calculated with RT-PCR as a reference standard. Dependencies of radiologists’pathogen suspicion scores were characterized by Pearson’s Chi2 Test for Independence. (3) Results: Depending on whether the intermediate reading score 1 was considered as positive or negative, radiologists correctly classified 83–85% (vs. NCNI)/79–82% (vs. influenza) of COVID-19 cases (sensitivity up to 94%). Contrarily, radiologists correctly classified only 52–56% (vs. NCNI)/50–60% (vs. COVID-19) of influenza cases. The COVID-19 scoring was more specific than the influenza scoring compared with suspected bacterial or fungal infection. (4) Conclusions: High-accuracy COVID-19 detection by CT might expedite patient management even during the upcoming influenza season.

Prognostic Value of Admission Chest CT Findings for Invasive Ventilation Therapy in COVID-19 Pneumonia

(1) Background: To assess the value of chest CT imaging features of COVID-19 disease upon hospital admission for risk stratification of invasive ventilation (IV) versus no or non-invasive ventilation (non-IV) during hospital stay. (2) Methods: A retrospective single-center study was conducted including all patients admitted during the first three months of the pandemic at our hospital with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 disease and admission chest CT scans (n = 69). Using clinical information and CT imaging features, a 10-point ordinal risk score was developed and its diagnostic potential to differentiate a severe (IV-group) from a more moderate course (non-IV-group) of the disease was tested. (3) Results: Frequent imaging findings of COVID-19 pneumonia in both groups were ground glass opacities (91.3%), consolidations (53.6%) and crazy paving patterns (31.9%). Characteristics of later stages such as subpleural bands were observed significantly more often in the IV-group (52.2% versus 26.1%, p = 0.032). Using information directly accessible during a radiologist’s reporting, a simple risk score proved to reliably differentiate between IV- and non-IV-groups (AUC: 0.89 (95% CI 0.81–0.96), p <0.001). (4) Conclusions: Information accessible from admission CT scans can effectively and reliably be used in a scoring model to support risk stratification of COVID-19 patients to improve resource and allocation management of hospitals.