RESUMEN
The prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in COVID-19 patients is highly variable, depending on methodological and clinical factors, among which vaccination (1). The hypothesis of a possible protective role of vaccination in preventing pulmonary embolism (PE) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients has not been explored. The aim of the study was to evaluate PE prevalence in vaccinated versus unvaccinated hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We conducted a retrospective case-control study from 2021/11/01 to 2022/01/15; we reviewed all the chest computed topographies (chest-CT) performed because of a clinical suspicion for PE at our Institution. Sixty-two patients were included in the study: 27/62 (43.5%) were vaccinated and 35/62 (56.4%) were not. Vaccinated patients were older and with more comorbidities than unvaccinated people. Overall, PE was diagnosed in 19/62 patients (30.1% prevalence). CT Severity Score (CT-SS) differs between the two groups; not vaccinated patients had a more severe CT imaging than the vaccinated (< 0.00005). PE prevalence in ICU was 43.2% (16/37 patients), while in the Internal Medicine ward, it was 12% (3/25 cases). PE was significantly higher among unvaccinated people: 16/35 (45.7%) vs 3/27 (11.1%), OR p = 0.04. We observed a strong association between vaccination and protection from PE in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: morbidity was significantly lower in vaccinated versus not vaccinated patients. The issue of the protective role of vaccination in COVID-19-associated VTE should be addressed in adequately designed and powered future prospective studies.
RESUMEN
Objective: To analyze the diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasonography (LUS) and high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), to detect COVID-19. Materials and Methods: This study recruited all patients admitted to the emergency medicine unit, due to a suspected COVID-19 infection, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. These patients also who underwent a standardized LUS examination and a chest HRCT. The signs detected by both LUS and HRCT were reported, as well as the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for LUS and HRCT. Results: This cohort included 159 patients, 101 (63%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. COVID-19 patients showed more often confluent subpleural consolidations and parenchymal consolidations in lower lung regions of LUS. They also had "ground glass” opacities and "crazy paving” on HRCT, while pleural effusion and pulmonary consolidations were more common in non-COVID-19 patients. LUS had a sensitivity of 0.97 (95% CI 0.92–0.99) and a specificity of 0.24 (95% CI 0.07–0.5) for COVID-19 lung infections. HRCT abnormalities resulted in a 0.98 sensitivity (95% CI 0.92–0.99) and 0.1 specificity (95% CI 0.04–0.23) for COVID-19 lung infections. Conclusion: In this cohort, LUS proved to be a noninvasive, diagnostic tool with high sensitivity for lung abnormalities that were likewise detected by HRCT. Furthermore, LUS, despite its lower specificity, has a high sensitivity for COVID-19, which could prove to be as effective as HRCT in excluding a COVID-19 lung infection.