Optimal@NRW: optimized acute care of nursing home residents using an intersectoral telemedical cooperation network - study protocol for a stepped-wedge trial.

BACKGROUND: Increasing life expectancy is associated with a growing number of people living in nursing homes, while the availability of outpatient medical care, especially from family doctors, is stagnating in this sector. Consequently, numerous and often avoidable, low-threshold hospitalizations of nursing home residents are observed. This results in unnecessary use of resources such as emergency services and emergency rooms as well as in potential health risks to the nursing home residents related to hospitalization. This study aims to improve this healthcare gap by implementing an intersectoral telemedicine approach. METHODS: Twenty-five nursing homes are participating and provided with telemedical equipment to perform teleconsultations. Additionally, an early warning system and a digital patient record system are implemented. Telephysicians based at RWTH Aachen University Hospital are ready to support the nursing homes around the clock if the family doctor or an emergency service practice is not available in time. Mobile non-physician practice assistants from the telemedicine centre can be dispatched to perform delegable medical activities. General practitioners and the medical emergency practices also have access to the telemedical infrastructure and the non-physician practice assistants. DISCUSSION: Optimal@NRW adds a telemedicine component to standard care - combining elements of outpatient and inpatient health care as well as emergency service practices - to enable timely medical consultation for nursing home residents in case of the development of an acute medical condition. In addition to optimized medical care, the goal is to reduce unnecessary hospital admissions. The intersectoral approach allows for the appropriate use of resources to match the individually needed medical treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04879537 . Registered on May 10, 2021.

Accuracy of Chest CT for Differentiating COVID-19 from COVID-19 Mimics.

PURPOSE: To determine the performance of radiologists with different levels of expertise regarding the differentiation of COVID-19 from other atypical pneumonias. Chest CT to identify patients suffering from COVID-19 has been reported to be limited by its low specificity for distinguishing COVID-19 from other atypical pneumonias ("COVID-19 mimics"). Meanwhile, the understanding of the morphologic patterns of COVID-19 has improved and they appear to be fairly specific. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 02/2020 and 04/2020, 60 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia underwent chest CT in our department. Cases were matched with a comparable control group of 60 patients of similar age, sex, and comorbidities, who underwent chest CT prior to 01/2020 for atypical pneumonia caused by other pathogens. Included were other viral, fungal, and bacterial pathogens. All 120 cases were blinded to patient history and were reviewed independently by two radiologists and two radiology residents. Readers rated the probability of COVID-19 pneumonia according to the COV-RADS classification system. Results were analyzed using Clopper-Pearson 95 % confidence intervals, Youden's Index for test quality criteria, and Fleiss' kappa statistics. RESULTS: Overall, readers were able to correctly identify the presence of COVID-19 pneumonia in 219/240 (sensitivity: 91 %; 95 %-CI; 86.9 %-94.5 %), and to correctly attribute CT findings to COVID-19 mimics in 159/240 ratings (specificity: 66.3 %; 59.9 %-72.2 %), yielding an overall diagnostic accuracy of 78.8 % (378/480; 74.8 %-82.3 %). Individual reader accuracy ranged from 74.2 % (89/120) to 84.2 % (101/120) and did not correlate significantly with reader expertise. Youden's Index was 0.57. Between-reader agreement was moderate (κ = 0.53). CONCLUSION: In this enriched cohort, radiologists were able to distinguish COVID-19 from "COVID-19 mimics" with moderate diagnostic accuracy. Accuracy did not correlate with reader expertise. KEY POINTS: · In a scenario of direct comparison (no negative findings), CT allows the differentiation of COVID-19 from other atypical pneumonias ("COVID mimics") with moderate accuracy.. · Reader expertise did not significantly influence these results.. · Despite similar patterns and distributions of pulmonary findings, radiologists were able to estimate the probability of COVID-19 pneumonia using the COV-RADS classification in a standardized manner in the larger proportion of cases.. CITATION FORMAT: · Sähn M, Yüksel C, Keil S et al. Accuracy of Chest CT for Differentiating COVID-19 from COVID-19 Mimics. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 1081 - 1091.

Low-Dose Chest CT for the Diagnosis of COVID-19­A Systematic, Prospective Comparison With PCR

BACKGROUND: Only limited evidence has been available to date on the accuracy of systematic low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) use in the diagnosis of COVID-19 in patients with non-specific clinical symptoms. METHODS: The COVID-19 Imaging Registry Study Aachen (COVID-19-Bildgebungs-Register Aachen, COBRA) collects data on imaging in patients with COVID-19. Two of the COBRA partner hospitals (RWTH Aachen University Hospital and Dueren Hospital) systematically perform reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from nasopharyngeal swabs as well as LDCT in all patients presenting with manifestations that are compatible with COVID-19. In accordance with the COV-RADS protocol, the LDCT scans were prospectively evaluated before the RT-PCR findings were available in order to categorize the likelihood of COVID-19. RESULTS: From 18 March to 5 May 2020, 191 patients with COVID-19 manifestations (117 male, age 65 ± 16 years) underwent RT-PCR testing and LDCT. The mean time from the submission of the sample to the availability of the RT-PCR findings was 491 minutes (interquartile range [IQR: 276-1066]), while that from the performance of the CT to the availability of its findings was 9 minutes (IQR: 6-11). A diagnosis of COVID-19 was made in 75/191 patients (39%). The LDCT was positive in 71 of these 75 patients and negative in 106 of the 116 patients without COVID-19, corresponding to 94.7% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [86.9; 98.5]), 91.4% specificity [84.7; 95.8], positive and negative predictive values of 87.7% [78.5; 93.9] and 96.4% [91.1; 98.6], respectively, and an AUC (area under the curve) of 0.959 [0.930; 0.988]. The initial RT-PCR test results were falsely negative in six patients, yielding a sensitivity of 92.0% [83.4; 97.0]; these six patients had positive LDCT findings. 47.4% of the LDCTs that were negative for COVID-19 (55/116) exhibited pathological pulmonary changes, including infiltrates, that were correctly distinguished from SARS-CoV-2 related changes. CONCLUSION: In patients with symptoms compatible with COVID-19, LDCT can esablish the diagnosis of COVID-19 with comparable sensitivity to RT-PCR testing. In addition, it offers a high specificity for distinguishing COVID-19 from other diseases associated with the same or similar clinical symptoms. We propose the systematic use of LDCT in addition to RT-PCR testing because it helps correct false-negative RT-PCR results, because its results are available much faster than those of RT-PCRtesting, and because it provides additional diagnostic information useful for treatment planning regardless of the type of the infectious agent.

Optimizing inhalation technique using web-based videos in obstructive lung diseases.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled agents are widely used in the treatment of chronic airway diseases. Correct technique is required to ensure appropriate drug deposition, but poor technique is common. This study investigated whether inhalation technique could be improved by patient training using short videos from the German Airway League. METHODS: Outpatients from a university hospital respiratory clinic who had incorrect inhalation technique were asked to demonstrate this again immediately after viewing the training videos, and after 4-8 weeks' follow-up. Inhalation technique was rated by a study nurse using specific checklists. RESULTS: One hundred and twelve patients with obstructive lung disease treated with inhaled bronchodilators or corticosteroids were included. More than half (51.8%) had at least one mistake in inhalation technique at baseline. Of these, most (88%) understood the training videos, 76% demonstrated correct device use immediately after training, and 72% were still able to demonstrate correct inhalation technique at follow-up (p = 0.0008 for trend). In addition, the number of mistakes decreased significantly after video training (by 1.82 [95% confidence interval 1.39-2.25]; p < 0.0001 vs. baseline). CONCLUSIONS: German Airway League inhalation technique training videos were easy to understand and effectively improved inhalation technique in patients with airway diseases.

Nebulized versus Standard Local Application of Lidocaine during Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Endobronchial administration of local anesthetics such as lidocaine is often used for cough suppression during bronchoscopy. To achieve a better distribution of lidocaine in the tracheobronchial tree, spray catheters have been developed, allowing nebulization of the local anesthetic solution. However, there are little data on the efficacy and safety of this approach, or on the consumption of sedative drugs and lidocaine during nebulized administration. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the tolerability of nebulized lidocaine compared to conventional lidocaine administration via syringe through the working channel of the bronchoscope in patients undergoing bronchoscopy. Consumption of sedative drugs and lidocaine was also compared between the two lidocaine administration approaches. METHODS: Patients requiring bronchoscopy with endobronchial or transbronchial biopsy were randomly assigned to receive topical lidocaine either via syringe or via nebulizer. Endpoints were consumption of lidocaine and sedative drugs, as well as patient tolerance and safety. RESULTS: Thirty patients were included, 15 in each group. Patients in the nebulizer group required lower doses of endobronchial lidocaine (184.7 ± 67.98 vs. 250.7 ± 21.65 mg, p = 0.0045) and intravenous fentanyl (0.033 ± 0.041 vs. 0.067 ± 0.045 mg, p = 0.0236) than those in the syringe group; midazolam or propofol dosages did not differ between the two groups. In addition, there were no between-group differences in patient tolerance or safety (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Endobronchial administration of lidocaine during bronchoscopy via nebulizer was found to be well tolerated and safe and was associated with reduced lidocaine and fentanyl dosages compared to administration via syringe.