Feasibility of a New Lung Ultrasound Protocol to Determine the Extent of Lung Injury in COVID-19 Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Lung ultrasound (LUS) scanning is useful to diagnose and assess the severity of pulmonary lesions during COVID-19-related ARDS (CoARDS). A conventional LUS score is proposed to measure the loss of aeration during CoARDS. However, this score was validated during the pre-COVID-19 era in patients with ARDS in the ICU and does not consider the differences with CoARDS. An alternative LUS method is based on grading the percentage of extension of the typical signs of COVID-19 pneumonia on the lung surface (LUSext). RESEARCH QUESTION: Is LUSext feasible in patients with COVID-19 at the onset of disease, and does it correlate with the volumetric measure of severity of COVID-19 pneumonia lesions at CT scan (CTvol)? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This observational study enrolled a convenience sampling of patients in the ED with confirmed COVID-19 whose condition demonstrated pneumonia at bedside LUS and CT scan. LUSext was visually quantified. All CT scan studies were analyzed retrospectively by a specifically designed software to calculate the CTvol. The correlation between LUSext and CTvol, and the correlations of each score with Pao2/Fio2 ratio were calculated. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 179 patients. Feasibility of LUSext was 100%. Time to perform LUS scan was 5 ± 1.5 mins. LUSext and CTvol were correlated positively (R = 0.67; P < .0001). Both LUSext and CTvol showed negative correlation with Pao2/Fio2 ratio (R = -0.66 and R = -0.54; P < .0001, respectively). INTERPRETATION: LUSext is a valid measure of the severity of the lesions when compared with the CT scan. Not only are LUSext and CTvol correlated, but they also have similar inverse correlation with the severity of respiratory failure. LUSext is a practical and simple bedside measure of the severity of pneumonia in CoARDS, whose clinical and prognostic impact need to be investigated further.

Complications in COVID-19 patients: Characteristics of pulmonary embolism.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate chest CT imaging features, clinical characteristics, laboratory values of COVID-19 patients who underwent CTA for suspected pulmonary embolism. We also examined whether clinical, laboratory or radiological characteristics could be associated with a higher rate of PE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 84 consecutive patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 who underwent CTA for suspected PE. The presence and localization of PE as well as the type and extent of pulmonary opacities on chest CT exams were examined and correlated with the information on comorbidities and laboratory values for all patients. RESULTS: Of the 84 patients, pulmonary embolism was discovered in 24 patients. We observed that 87% of PE was found to be in lung parenchyma affected by COVID-19 pneumonia. Compared with no-PE patients, PE patients showed an overall greater lung involvement by consolidation (p = 0.02) and GGO (p < 0.01) and a higher level of D-Dimer (p < 0,01). Moreover, the PE group showed a lower level of saturation (p = 0,01) and required more hospitalization (p < 0,01). CONCLUSION: Our study showed a high incidence of PE in COVID-19 pneumonia. In 87% of patients, PE was found in lung parenchyma affected by COVID-19 pneumonia with a worse CT severity score and a greater number of lung lobar involvement compared with non-PE patients. CT severity, lower level of saturation, and a rise in D-dimer levels could be an indication for a CTPA. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Certain findings of non-contrast chest CT could be an indication for a CTPA.

Descriptive analysis of a comparison between lung ultrasound and chest radiography in patients suspected of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Lung ultrasound (LUS) and chest radiography (CXR) are the most used chest imaging tools in the early diagnosis of COVID-19 associated pneumonia. However, the relationship between LUS and CXR is not clearly defined. The aim of our study was to describe the comparison between LUS interpretation and CXR readings in the first approach to patients suspected of COVID-19. METHODS: In the time of the first COVID-19 pandemic surge, we prospectively evaluated adult patients presenting to an emergency department complaining of symptoms raising suspicion of COVID-19. Patients were studied by LUS and only those performing also CXR were analyzed. All the patients performed viral reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). LUS studies were classified in 4 categories of probabilities, based on the presence of typical or alternative signs of COVID-19-associated interstitial pneumonia. Accordingly, the CXR readings were retrospectively adapted by 2 experts in 4 categories following the standard language that describes the computed tomography (CT) findings. Patients were divided in two groups, based on the agreement of the LUS and CXR categories. Results were also compared to RT-PCR and, when available, to CT studies. RESULTS: We analyzed 139 cases (55 women, mean age 59.1 ± 15.5 years old). The LUS vs CXR results disagreed in 60 (43.2%) cases. RT-PCR was positive in 88 (63.3%) cases. In 45 cases, a CT scan was also performed and only 4 disagreed with LUS interpretation versus 24 in the comparison between CT and CXR. In 18 cases, LUS detected signs of COVID-19 pneumonia (high and intermediate probabilities) while CXR reading was negative; in 14 of these cases, a CT scan or a RT-PCR-positive result confirmed the LUS interpretation. In 6 cases, LUS detected signs of alternative diagnoses to COVID-19 pneumonia while CXR was negative; in 4 of these cases, CT scan confirmed atypical findings. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated a strong disagreement between LUS interpretation and CXR reading in the early approach to patients suspected of COVID-19. Comparison with CT studies and RT-PCR results seems to confirm the superiority of LUS over a second retrospective reading of CXR.

A New Rating Scale (SAVE-9) to Demonstrate the Stress and Anxiety in the Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Viral Epidemic.

The COVID-19 epidemic has been a major global public health problem during past months in Italy and in several other Countries and on the date of publication of this article, is still a serious public health problem. The health staff, engaged in the care of the sick and in the prevention of the spread of the infection have been subjected to a further increase in psychological difficulties and work-related stress, related to the workload for the continuous influx of sick and intense and close working shifts for the viral emergency. The SAVE-9 (Stress and Anxiety to Viral Epidemics - 9 items) scale has been developed as a tool for assessing work anxiety and stress in response to the viral epidemic of health professionals working to prevent the spread of the virus and to treat infected people.