Comparison of artificial intelligence versus real-time physician assessment of pulmonary edema with lung ultrasound.

BACKGROUND: Lung ultrasound can evaluate for pulmonary edema, but data suggest moderate inter-rater reliability among users. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been proposed as a model to increase the accuracy of B line interpretation. Early data suggest a benefit among more novice users, but data are limited among average residency-trained physicians. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of AI versus real-time physician assessment for B lines. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study of adult Emergency Department patients presenting with suspected pulmonary edema. We excluded patients with active COVID-19 or interstitial lung disease. A physician performed thoracic ultrasound using the 12-zone technique. The physician recorded a video clip in each zone and provided an interpretation of positive (≥3 B lines or a wide, dense B line) or negative (<3 B lines and the absence of a wide, dense B line) for pulmonary edema based upon the real-time assessment. A research assistant then utilized the AI program to analyze the same saved clip to determine if it was positive versus negative for pulmonary edema. The physician sonographer was blinded to this assessment. The video clips were then reviewed independently by two expert physician sonographers (ultrasound leaders with >10,000 prior ultrasound image reviews) who were blinded to the AI and initial determinations. The experts reviewed all discordant values and reached consensus on whether the field (i.e., the area of lung between two adjacent ribs) was positive or negative using the same criteria as defined above, which served as the gold standard. RESULTS: 71 patients were included in the study (56.3% female; mean BMI: 33.4 [95% CI 30.6-36.2]), with 88.3% (752/852) of lung fields being of adequate quality for assessment. Overall, 36.1% of lung fields were positive for pulmonary edema. The physician was 96.7% (95% CI 93.8%-98.5%) sensitive and 79.1% (95% CI 75.1%-82.6%) specific. The AI software was 95.6% (95% CI 92.4%-97.7%) sensitive and 64.1% (95% CI 59.8%-68.5%) specific. CONCLUSION: Both the physician and AI software were highly sensitive, though the physician was more specific. Future research should identify which factors are associated with increased diagnostic accuracy.

Three-Month Symptom Profiles Among Symptomatic Adults With Positive and Negative Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Tests: A Prospective Cohort Study From the INSPIRE Group.

BACKGROUND: Long-term symptoms following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are a major concern, yet their prevalence is poorly understood. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study comparing adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection (coronavirus disease-positive [COVID+]) with adults who tested negative (COVID-), enrolled within 28 days of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved SARS-CoV-2 test result for active symptoms. Sociodemographic characteristics, symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection (assessed with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] Person Under Investigation Symptom List), and symptoms of post-infectious syndromes (ie, fatigue, sleep quality, muscle/joint pains, unrefreshing sleep, and dizziness/fainting, assessed with CDC Short Symptom Screener for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) were assessed at baseline and 3 months via electronic surveys sent via text or email. RESULTS: Among the first 1000 participants, 722 were COVID+ and 278 were COVID-. Mean age was 41.5 (SD 15.2); 66.3% were female, 13.4% were Black, and 15.3% were Hispanic. At baseline, SARS-CoV-2 symptoms were more common in the COVID+ group than the COVID- group. At 3 months, SARS-CoV-2 symptoms declined in both groups, although were more prevalent in the COVID+ group: upper respiratory symptoms/head/eyes/ears/nose/throat (HEENT; 37.3% vs 20.9%), constitutional (28.8% vs 19.4%), musculoskeletal (19.5% vs 14.7%), pulmonary (17.6% vs 12.2%), cardiovascular (10.0% vs 7.2%), and gastrointestinal (8.7% vs 8.3%); only 50.2% and 73.3% reported no symptoms at all. Symptoms of post-infectious syndromes were similarly prevalent among the COVID+ and COVID- groups at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of COVID+ participants, as compared with one-quarter of COVID- participants, had at least 1 SARS-CoV-2 symptom at 3 months, highlighting the need for future work to distinguish long COVID. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04610515.

Severe Fatigue and Persistent Symptoms at 3 Months Following Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infections During the Pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron Time Periods: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Most research on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants focuses on initial symptomatology with limited longer-term data. We characterized prevalences of prolonged symptoms 3 months post-SARS-CoV-2 infection across 3 variant time-periods (pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron). METHODS: This multicenter prospective cohort study of adults with acute illness tested for SARS-CoV-2 compared fatigue severity, fatigue symptoms, organ system-based symptoms, and ≥3 symptoms across variants among participants with a positive ("COVID-positive") or negative SARS-CoV-2 test ("COVID-negative") at 3 months after SARS-CoV-2 testing. Variant periods were defined by dates with ≥50% dominant strain. We performed multivariable logistic regression modeling to estimate independent effects of variants adjusting for sociodemographics, baseline health, and vaccine status. RESULTS: The study included 2402 COVID-positive and 821 COVID-negative participants. Among COVID-positives, 463 (19.3%) were pre-Delta, 1198 (49.9%) Delta, and 741 (30.8%) Omicron. The pre-Delta COVID-positive cohort exhibited more prolonged severe fatigue (16.7% vs 11.5% vs 12.3%; P = .017) and presence of ≥3 prolonged symptoms (28.4% vs 21.7% vs 16.0%; P < .001) compared with the Delta and Omicron cohorts. No differences were seen in the COVID-negatives across time-periods. In multivariable models adjusted for vaccination, severe fatigue and odds of having ≥3 symptoms were no longer significant across variants. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection were more common among participants infected during pre-Delta than with Delta and Omicron; however, these differences were no longer significant after adjusting for vaccination status, suggesting a beneficial effect of vaccination on risk of long-term symptoms. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04610515.

Protocol for an extended scoping review on the use of virtual nominal group technique in research.

INTRODUCTION: Consensus group methods such as the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and Delphi method are commonly used in research to elicit and synthesize expert opinions when evidence is lacking. Traditionally, the NGT involves a face-to-face interaction. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many in-person meetings have moved to online settings. It is unclear to what extent the NGT has been undertaken in virtual settings. The overarching aim of this scoping review is to explore the use of the virtual NGT in research. Our specific objectives are to answer the following questions: To what extent has the NGT been used virtually? What modifications were made to accommodate this online format? What advantages and disadvantages were noted by authors in comparison with the face-to-face mode of the technique? MATERIALS AND METHODS: This scoping review will follow the steps outlined by Arksey and O'Malley and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Several pilot searches were completed to refine inclusion and exclusion criteria. Media Synchronicity Theory will provide a conceptual framework to inform the research, including data extraction and summarizing results. As an additional extension to the literature review, online interviews with corresponding authors will be conducted to gather further information.

Cross-sectional analysis of avoidable emergency department visits before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 had a significant impact on Emergency Departments (ED) with early data suggesting an initial decline in avoidable ED visits. However, the sustained impact over time is unclear. In this study, we analyzed ED discharges over a two-year time period after the COVID-19 pandemic began and compared it with a control time period pre-pandemic to evaluate the difference in ED visit categories, including total, avoidable, and unavoidable visits. METHODS: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study assessing the distribution of visits with ED discharges from two hospitals within a health system over a three-year time period (1/1/2019-12/31/2021). Visits were categorized using the expanded NYU-EDA algorithm modified to include COVID-19-related visits. Categories included: Emergent - Not Preventable/Avoidable, Emergent - Preventable/Avoidable, Emergent - Primary Care Treatable, Non-Emergent, Mental Health, Alcohol, Substance Abuse, Injury, and COVID-19. Chi-square testing was conducted to investigate differences within the time period before COVID-19 (1/1/2019-12/31/2019) and both initial (1/1/2020-12/31/2020) and delayed (1/1/2021-12/31/2021) COVID-19 time frames and ED visit categories, as well as post hoc testing using Fisher's exact tests with Bonferroni correction. ANOVA with post hoc Bonferroni testing was used to determine differences based on daily census for each ED visit category. RESULTS: A total of 228,010 ED discharges (Hospital #1 = 126,858; Hospital #2 = 101,152) met our inclusion criteria over the three-year period. There was a significant difference in the distribution of NYU-EDA categories between the two time periods (pre-COVID-19 versus during COVID-19) for the combined hospitals (p < 0.001), Hospital #1 (p < 0.001), and Hospital #2 (p < 0.001). When examining daily ED discharges, there was a decline in all categories from 2019 to 2020 except for "Emergent - Not Preventable/Avoidable" which remained stable and "Substance Abuse" which increased. From 2020 to 2021, there were no differences in ED avoidable visits. However, there were increases in discharged visits related to "Injuries", "Alcohol", and "Mental health" and a decrease in "COVID-19". CONCLUSION: Our study identified a sustained decline in discharged avoidable ED visits during the two years following the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, which was partially offset by the increase in COVID-19 visits. This work can help inform ED and healthcare systems in resource allocation, hospital staffing, and financial planning during future COVID-19 resurgences and pandemics.

Association of Initial SARS-CoV-2 Test Positivity With Patient-Reported Well-being 3 Months After a Symptomatic Illness.

Importance: Long-term sequelae after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection may impact well-being, yet existing data primarily focus on discrete symptoms and/or health care use. Objective: To compare patient-reported outcomes of physical, mental, and social well-being among adults with symptomatic illness who received a positive vs negative test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a planned interim analysis of an ongoing multicenter prospective longitudinal registry study (the Innovative Support for Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry [INSPIRE]). Participants were enrolled from December 11, 2020, to September 10, 2021, and comprised adults (aged ≥18 years) with acute symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection at the time of receipt of a SARS-CoV-2 test approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The analysis included the first 1000 participants who completed baseline and 3-month follow-up surveys consisting of questions from the 29-item Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29; 7 subscales, including physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, social participation, sleep disturbance, and pain interference) and the PROMIS Short Form-Cognitive Function 8a scale, for which population-normed T scores were reported. Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 status (positive or negative test result) at enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean PROMIS scores for participants with positive COVID-19 tests vs negative COVID-19 tests were compared descriptively and using multivariable regression analysis. Results: Among 1000 participants, 722 (72.2%) received a positive COVID-19 result and 278 (27.8%) received a negative result; 406 of 998 participants (40.7%) were aged 18 to 34 years, 644 of 972 (66.3%) were female, 833 of 984 (84.7%) were non-Hispanic, and 685 of 974 (70.3%) were White. A total of 282 of 712 participants (39.6%) in the COVID-19-positive group and 147 of 275 participants (53.5%) in the COVID-19-negative group reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up. After adjustment, improvements in well-being were statistically and clinically greater for participants in the COVID-19-positive group vs the COVID-19-negative group only for social participation (ß = 3.32; 95% CI, 1.84-4.80; P < .001); changes in other well-being domains were not clinically different between groups. Improvements in well-being in the COVID-19-positive group were concentrated among participants aged 18 to 34 years (eg, social participation: ß = 3.90; 95% CI, 1.75-6.05; P < .001) and those who presented for COVID-19 testing in an ambulatory setting (eg, social participation: ß = 4.16; 95% CI, 2.12-6.20; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, participants in both the COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative groups reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up. Although some individuals had clinically meaningful improvements over time, many reported moderate to severe impairments in well-being 3 months later. These results highlight the importance of including a control group of participants with negative COVID-19 results for comparison when examining the sequelae of COVID-19.

Virtual interviewing for graduate medical education recruitment and selection: A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 80.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused graduate medical education (GME) programs to pivot to virtual interviews (VIs) for recruitment and selection. This systematic review synthesizes the rapidly expanding evidence base on VIs, providing insights into preferred formats, strengths, and weaknesses. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, ERIC, PsycINFO, MedEdPublish, and Google Scholar were searched from 1 January 2012 to 21 February 2022. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, full texts, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument. Findings were reported according to Best Evidence in Medical Education guidance. RESULTS: One hundred ten studies were included. The majority (97%) were from North America. Fourteen were conducted before COVID-19 and 96 during the pandemic. Studies involved both medical students applying to residencies (61%) and residents applying to fellowships (39%). Surgical specialties were more represented than other specialties. Applicants preferred VI days that lasted 4-6 h, with three to five individual interviews (15-20 min each), with virtual tours and opportunities to connect with current faculty and trainees. Satisfaction with VIs was high, though both applicants and programs found VIs inferior to in-person interviews for assessing 'fit.' Confidence in ranking applicants and programs was decreased. Stakeholders universally noted significant cost and time savings with VIs, as well as equity gains and reduced carbon footprint due to eliminating travel. CONCLUSIONS: The use of VIs for GME recruitment and selection has accelerated rapidly. The findings of this review offer early insights that can guide future practice, policy, and research.

Awake Prone Positioning for Nonintubated Patients With COVID-19 and Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

Learn more about awake prone positioning for noninubated patients with COVID-19.

Clinical update on COVID-19 for the emergency clinician: Airway and resuscitation.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in millions of cases worldwide. As the pandemic has progressed, the understanding of this disease has evolved. OBJECTIVE: This narrative review provides emergency clinicians with a focused update of the resuscitation and airway management of COVID-19. DISCUSSION: Patients with COVID-19 and septic shock should be resuscitated with buffered/balanced crystalloids. If hypotension is present despite intravenous fluids, vasopressors including norepinephrine should be initiated. Stress dose steroids are recommended for patients with severe or refractory septic shock. Airway management is the mainstay of initial resuscitation in patients with COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 and ARDS should be managed similarly to those ARDS patients without COVID-19. Clinicians should not delay intubation if indicated. In patients who are more clinically stable, physicians can consider a step-wise approach as patients' oxygenation needs escalate. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) are recommended over elective intubation. Prone positioning, even in awake patients, has been shown to lower intubation rates and improve oxygenation. Strategies consistent with ARDSnet can be implemented in this patient population, with a goal tidal volume of 4-8 mL/kg of predicted body weight and targeted plateau pressures <30 cm H2O. Limited data support the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NBMA), recruitment maneuvers, inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). CONCLUSION: This review presents a concise update of the resuscitation strategies and airway management techniques in patients with COVID-19 for emergency medicine clinicians.

Clinical update on COVID-19 for the emergency clinician: Cardiac arrest in the out-of-hospital and in-hospital settings.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in millions of cases worldwide. As the pandemic has progressed, the understanding of this disease has evolved. Its impact on the health and welfare of the human population is significant; its impact on the delivery of healthcare is also considerable. OBJECTIVE: This article is another paper in a series addressing COVID-19-related updates to emergency clinicians on the management of COVID-19 patients with cardiac arrest. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. From a global perspective, as of February 23, 2022, 435 million infections have been noted with 5.9 million deaths (1.4%). Current data suggest an increase in the occurrence of cardiac arrest, both in the outpatient and inpatient settings, with corresponding reductions in most survival metrics. The frequency of out-of-hospital lay provider initial care has decreased while non-shockable initial cardiac arrest rhythms have increased. While many interventions, including chest compressions, are aerosol-generating procedures, the risk of contagion to healthcare personnel is low, assuming appropriate personal protective equipment is used; vaccination with boosting provides further protection against contagion for the healthcare personnel involved in cardiac arrest resuscitation. The burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on the delivery of cardiac arrest care is considerable and, despite multiple efforts, has adversely impacted the chain of survival. CONCLUSION: This review provides a focused update of cardiac arrest in the setting of COVID-19 for emergency clinicians.

Study protocol for the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-COV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE): A longitudinal study of the medium and long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Reports on medium and long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infections largely lack quantification of incidence and relative risk. We describe the rationale and methods of the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Registry (INSPIRE) that combines patient-reported outcomes with data from digital health records to understand predictors and impacts of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: INSPIRE is a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal study of individuals with symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection in eight regions across the US. Adults are eligible for enrollment if they are fluent in English or Spanish, reported symptoms suggestive of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and if they are within 42 days of having a SARS-CoV-2 viral test (i.e., nucleic acid amplification test or antigen test), regardless of test results. Recruitment occurs in-person, by phone or email, and through online advertisement. A secure online platform is used to facilitate the collation of consent-related materials, digital health records, and responses to self-administered surveys. Participants are followed for up to 18 months, with patient-reported outcomes collected every three months via survey and linked to concurrent digital health data; follow-up includes no in-person involvement. Our planned enrollment is 4,800 participants, including 2,400 SARS-CoV-2 positive and 2,400 SARS-CoV-2 negative participants (as a concurrent comparison group). These data will allow assessment of longitudinal outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection and comparison of the relative risk of outcomes in individuals with and without infection. Patient-reported outcomes include self-reported health function and status, as well as clinical outcomes including health system encounters and new diagnoses. RESULTS: Participating sites obtained institutional review board approval. Enrollment and follow-up are ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: This study will characterize medium and long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection among a diverse population, predictors of sequelae, and their relative risk compared to persons with similar symptomatology but without SARS-CoV-2 infection. These data may inform clinical interventions for individuals with sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Clinical update on COVID-19 for the emergency and critical care clinician: Medical management.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in millions of cases worldwide. As the pandemic has progressed, the understanding of this disease has evolved. OBJECTIVE: This is the second part in a series on COVID-19 updates providing a focused overview of the medical management of COVID-19 for emergency and critical care clinicians. DISCUSSION: COVID-19, caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. A variety of medical therapies have been introduced for use, including steroids, antivirals, interleukin-6 antagonists, monoclonal antibodies, and kinase inhibitors. These agents have each demonstrated utility in certain patient subsets. Prophylactic anticoagulation in admitted patients demonstrates improved outcomes. Further randomized data concerning aspirin in outpatients with COVID-19 are needed. Any beneficial impact of other therapies, such as colchicine, convalescent plasma, famotidine, ivermectin, and vitamins and minerals is not present in reliable medical literature. In addition, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are not recommended. CONCLUSION: This review provides a focused update of the medical management of COVID-19 for emergency and critical care clinicians to help improve care for these patients.

Clinical update on COVID-19 for the emergency clinician: Presentation and evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in millions of cases worldwide. As the pandemic has progressed, the understanding of this disease has evolved. OBJECTIVE: This first in a two-part series on COVID-19 updates provides a focused overview of the presentation and evaluation of COVID-19 for emergency clinicians. DISCUSSION: COVID-19, caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Several variants exist, including a variant of concern known as Delta (B.1.617.2 lineage) and the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529 lineage). The Delta variant is associated with higher infectivity and poor patient outcomes, and the Omicron variant has resulted in a significant increase in infections. While over 80% of patients experience mild symptoms, a significant proportion can be critically ill, including those who are older and those with comorbidities. Upper respiratory symptoms, fever, and changes in taste/smell remain the most common presenting symptoms. Extrapulmonary complications are numerous and may be severe, including the cardiovascular, neurologic, gastrointestinal, and dermatologic systems. Emergency department evaluation includes focused testing for COVID-19 and assessment of end-organ injury. Imaging may include chest radiography, computed tomography, or ultrasound. Several risk scores may assist in prognostication, including the 4C (Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium) score, quick COVID Severity Index (qCSI), NEWS2, and the PRIEST score, but these should only supplement and not replace clinical judgment. CONCLUSION: This review provides a focused update of the presentation and evaluation of COVID-19 for emergency clinicians.

Use of Telemedicine to Expedite and Expand Care During COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) created challenges with access to care including increased burden on healthcare systems and potential exposure risks for vulnerable patients. To address these needs, Rush University Medical Center created a virtual, urgent care program specifically designed to address these challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This was a retrospective study analyzing adult patients with COVID-19-related telemedicine visits performed between March 1-June 30, 2020. COVID-19-related telemedicine visits refer to those who used the "Concern for Coronavirus" module. We assessed the total number of telemedicine visits using this module, percentage with a subsequent emergency department (ED) visit within seven days, and outcomes (ie, hospitalization status, intubation, and death) of patients who presented to the ED for evaluation. Data are presented using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 2,974 adult patients accessed the program via the COVID-19 module over the four-month period. Of those, 142 patients (4.8%) had an ED visit within seven days. Only 14 patients (0.5%) required admission. One patient was intubated, and there were no deaths among the telemedicine population. CONCLUSION: The data suggests that telemedicine may be a safe and effective way to screen and treat patients with possible COVID-19, while reducing potential burdens on EDs.