RESUMEN
Objectives: Little is known about the value of routine clinical assessment in identifying patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the emergency department (ED). We aimed to compare the exposure history, signs and symptoms, laboratory, and radiographic features of ED patients who tested positive and negative for COVID-19. Methods: This was a case-control study in 7 EDs in Hong Kong from 20 January to 29 February 2020. Thirty-seven patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were age- and sex-matched to 111 controls. We compared the groups with univariate analysis and calculated the odds ratio (OR) of having COVID-19 for each characteristic that was significantly different between the groups with adjustment for age and presumed location of acquiring the infection. Results: There were no significant differences in patient characteristics and reported symptoms between the groups. A positive contact history within 14 days (adjusted OR 37.61, 95% CI: 10.86-130.19), bilateral chest radiograph shadow (adjusted OR 13.19, 95% CI: 4.66-37.35), having prior medical consultation (adjusted OR 7.43, 95% 2.89-19.09), a lower white blood cell count (adjusted OR 1.30, 95% CI: 1.11-1.51), and a lower platelet count (adjusted OR 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01-1.12) were associated with a higher odds of COVID-19 separately. A higher neutrophil count was associated with a lower odds of COVID-19 (adjusted OR 0.77, 95% CI: 0.65-0.91). Conclusion: This study highlights a number of clinical features that may be useful in identifying high-risk patients for early testing and isolation while waiting for the test result. Further studies are warranted to verify the findings.
RESUMEN
Diagnosing influenza in children aged 5 years and under can be challenging because of their difficulty in verbalizing symptoms. This study aimed to explore the value of the triage heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), and temperature, either alone or when combined with individual symptoms and signs, in predicting influenza infection in this age group. This was a retrospective study covering 4 influenza seasons from 2017 to 2019 in an emergency department (ED) in Hong Kong. We recruited patients ≤5 years of age who had an reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction influenza test within 48 hours of ED presentation. The diagnostic performance of the triage HR, RR, and temperature was evaluated as dichotomized or categorized values with diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) calculated based on different age-appropriate thresholds. Linear discriminant analysis was performed to assess the combined discriminatory effect of age, HR, RR, and temperature as continuous variables. Of 322 patients (median age 26 months), 99 had influenza A and 13 had influenza B infection. For HR and RR dichotomized based on age-appropriate thresholds, the DORs ranged from 1.16 to 1.54 and 0.78 to 1.53, respectively. A triage temperature ≥39.0 °C had the highest DOR (3.32) among different degrees of elevation of temperature. The diagnostic criteria that were based on the presence of fever and cough and/or rhinitis symptoms had a higher DOR compared with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention influenza-like illness criteria (4.42 vs 2.41). However, combining HR, RR, or temperature with such diagnostic criteria added very little to the diagnostic performance. The linear discriminant analysis model had a high specificity of 92.5%, but the sensitivity (18.3%) was too low for clinical use. Triage HR, RR, and temperature had limited value in the diagnosis of influenza in children ≤5 years of age in the ED. Fever and cough and/or rhinitis symptoms had a better diagnostic performance than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention influenza-like illness criteria in predicting influenza in this age group.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The aerosol box and intubation tent are improvised barrier-enclosure devices developed during the novel coronavirus pandemic to protect health care workers from aerosol transmission. OBJECTIVE: Using time to intubation as a crude proxy, we aimed to compare the efficiency and usability of the aerosol box and intubation tent in a simulated manikin. METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized, crossover manikin study involving 28 participants (9 anesthetists, 16 emergency physicians, and 3 intensivists). Each participant performed rapid sequence intubations in a random sequence of three different scenarios: 1) no device use; 2) aerosol box; 3) intubation tent. We compared the time to intubation between different scenarios. RESULTS: The median total intubation time with no device use, aerosol box, and intubation tent were 23.7 s (interquartile range [IQR] 19.4-28.4 s), 30.9 s (IQR 24.1-52.5 s), and 26.0 s (IQR 22.1-30.8 s), respectively. Post hoc analysis showed a significantly longer intubation time using the aerosol box compared with no device use (p < 0.001) and compared with the intubation tent (p < 0.001). The difference between the intubation tent and no device use was not significant. The first-pass intubation success rate did not differ between the groups. Only aerosol box use had resulted in breaches of personal protective equipment. Participants considered intubation with the intubation tent more favorable than the aerosol box. CONCLUSIONS: The intubation tent seems to have a better barrier-enclosure design than the aerosol box, with a reasonable balance between efficiency and usability. Further evaluation of its efficacy in preventing aerosol dispersal and in human studies are warranted prior to recommendation of widespread adoption.