Lung ultrasound in the COVID-19 era: a lesson to be learned for the future.

Lung Ultrasound (LUS) is a reliable, radiation free and bedside imaging technique to assess several pulmonary diseases. Although the diagnosis of COVID-19 is made with the nasopharyngeal swab, detection of pulmonary involvement is key for a safe patient management. LUS is a valid alternative to explore, in paucisymptomatic self-presenting patients, the presence and extension of pneumonia compared to High Resolution Computed Tomography (HRCT) that represent the gold standard. This is a single-centre prospective study with 131 patients enrolled. Twelve lung areas were explored reporting a semiquantitative assessment to obtain the LUS score. Each patient performed reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction test (rRT-PCR), hemogasanalysis and HRCT. We observed an inverse correlation between LUSs and pO2, P/F, SpO2, AaDO2 (p value < 0.01), a direct correlation with LUSs and AaDO2 (p value < 0.01). Compared with HRCT, LUS showed sensitivity and specificity of 81.8% and 55.4%, respectively, and VPN 75%, VPP 65%. Therefore, LUS can represent an effective alternative tool to detect pulmonary involvement in COVID-19 compared to HRCT.

High-security closed devices are efficient and safe to protect human oocytes from potential risk of viral contamination during vitrification and storage especially in the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The main purpose and research question of the study are to compare the efficacy of high-security closed versus open devices for human oocytes' vitrification. METHODS: A prospective randomized study was conducted. A total of 737 patients attending the Infertility and IVF Unit at S.Orsola University Hospital (Italy) between October 2015 and April 2020 were randomly assigned to two groups. A total of 368 patients were assigned to group 1 (High-Security Vitrification™ - HSV) and 369 to group 2 (Cryotop® open system). Oocyte survival, fertilization, cleavage, pregnancy, implantation, and miscarriage rate were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed on survival rate (70.3% vs. 73.3%), fertilization rate (70.8% vs. 74.9%), cleavage rate (90.6% vs. 90.3%), pregnancy/transfer ratio (32.0% vs. 31.8%), implantation rate (19.7% vs. 19.9%), nor miscarriage rates (22.1% vs. 21.5%) between the two groups. Women's mean age in group 1 (36.18 ± 3.92) and group 2 (35.88 ± 3.88) was not significantly different (P = .297). A total of 4029 oocytes were vitrified (1980 and 2049 in groups 1 and 2 respectively). A total of 2564 were warmed (1469 and 1095 in groups 1 and 2 respectively). A total of 1386 morphologically eligible oocytes were inseminated by intracytoplasmic sperm injection (792 and 594 respectively, P = .304). CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that the replacement of the open vitrification system by a closed one has no impact on in vitro and in vivo survival, development, pregnancy and implantation rate. Furthermore, to ensure safety, especially during the current COVID-19 pandemic, the use of the closed device eliminates the potential samples' contamination during vitrification and storage.