Is there a role for fibreoptic bronchoscopy in patients presenting with haemoptysis and negative CT? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Haemoptysis can be a feature of lung cancer and patients are typically fast-tracked for evaluation with chest radiography, contrast-enhanced CT and fibreoptic bronchoscopy (FOB). OBJECTIVE: We aim to explore whether FOB should be conducted as a component of the routine evaluation of non-massive haemoptysis, especially in the context of suspected lung cancer. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for studies comparing FOB with CT in the evaluation of non-massive haemoptysis while reporting at least one of the listed primary outcomes. Primary outcomes include sensitivity of diagnostic modality with respect to lung cancer. Secondary outcomes include detection of other aetiologies such as infection. Results were synthesised using a random effects meta-analysis. Sensitivity analysis was performed for patient age group and year of study. Risk of bias assessment was carried out with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. RESULTS: A total of 2273 citations were screened and 11 studies were included, comprising a total sample size of 2015 patients with 226 confirmed cases of lung cancer. A total of 1816 and 1734 patients received a CT scan and FOB, respectively. The pooled sensitivities for detection of lung cancer using CT scan and bronchoscopy were 98% (95% CI 93.0% to 99.0%) and 86% (95% CI 63.0% to 95.0%), respectively. The sensitivity of CT was higher than that of FOB for both primary and secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that bronchoscopy does not offer significant additional diagnostic benefit in the evaluation of patients presenting with non-massive haemoptysis and a negative CT scan.

Outcomes of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in the Management of Patients with Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pneumonia who are not Suitable for Invasive Ventilation.

BACKGROUND: The optimum management of respiratory failure in patients with coronavirus (COVID-19) infections has been a challenge for physicians across the globe. Many scientific societies have suggested the use of CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) in severe cases in an effort to reduce invasive ventilation. We investigated mortality outcomes in patients who needed CPAP but were not suitable for invasive ventilation. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the mortality outcomes of all consecutive COVID-19 cases with severe type 1 respiratory failure requiring FiO2 >0.6 who were admitted to our hospital between 12th March and 04th May'20. British Thoracic Society guidelines were followed for identifying patients needing CPAP. Their outcomes were recorded and compared with a similar group of patients who had oxygen as a ceiling of care. Prospectively collected data between 5th May and 7th June'20 in similar but smaller groups of patients was also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 104 COVID-19 patients with documented Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) decision required high fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) >0.6(to maintain peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2)> 92%(SpO2> 88% in COPD patients). Twenty-four patients received CPAP as the ceiling of care, with a mortality rate of 92.5%. The remaining 84 patients who were on oxygen as a ceiling of treatment had 91.7% mortality. Both population groups had a similar number of comorbidities but were less favorable in terms of age in the control group with standard O2 therapy than those who had CPAP support. Overall mortality outcomes from using CPAP therapy did not bring significant mortality benefit (p-value-0.89). CONCLUSION: CPAP did not appear to improve the survival of patients with severe respiratory failure due to COVID-19 related pneumonia and were not suitable for invasive ventilation. Further studies are warranted to adequately inform appropriate management strategies for this group of patients.

Utility of the FebriDx point-of-care test for rapid triage and identification of possible coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

OBJECTIVES: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is straining healthcare resources. Molecular testing turnaround time precludes having results at the point-of-care (POC) thereby exposing COVID-19/Non-COVID-19 patients while awaiting diagnosis. We evaluated the utility of a triage strategy including FebriDx, a 10-minute POC finger-stick blood test that differentiates viral from bacterial acute respiratory infection through detection of Myxovirus-resistance protein A (MxA) and C-reactive protein (CRP), to rapidly isolate viral cases requiring confirmatory testing. METHODS: This observational, prospective, single-center study enrolled patients presenting to/within an acute care hospital in England with suspected COVID-19 between March and April 2020. Immunocompetent patients ≥16 years requiring hospitalisation with pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome or influenza-like illness (fever and ≥1 respiratory symptom within 7 days of enrolment, or inpatients with new respiratory symptoms, fever of unknown cause or pre-existing respiratory condition worsening). The primary endpoint was diagnostic performance of FebriDx to identify COVID-19 as a viral infection; secondary endpoint was SARS-CoV-2 molecular test diagnostic performance compared with the reference standard COVID-19 Case Definition (molecular or antibody detection of SARS-CoV-2). RESULTS: Valid results were available for 47 patients. By reference standard, 35 had viral infections (34/35 COVID-19; 1/35 non-COVID-19; overall FebriDx viral sensitivity 97.1% (95%CI 83.3-99.9)). Of the COVID-19 cases, 34/34 were FebriDx viral positive (sensitivity 100%; 95%CI 87.4-100); 29/34 had an initial SARS-CoV-2 positive molecular test (sensitivity 85.3%; 95%CI 68.2-94.5). FebriDx was viral negative when the diagnosis was not COVID-19 and SARS-Cov-2 molecular test was negative (negative predictive value (NPV) 100% (13/13; 95%CI 71.7-100)) exceeding initial SARS-CoV-2 molecular test NPV 72.2% (13/19; 95%CI 46.4-89.3). The diagnostic specificity of FebriDx and initial SARS-CoV-2 molecular test was 100% (13/13; 95%CI 70-100 and 13/13; 95%CI 85.4-100, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: FebriDx could be deployed as part of a reliable triage strategy for identifying symptomatic cases as possible COVID-19 in the pandemic.

Case of idiopathic isolated unilateral hypoglossal nerve palsy with spontaneous recovery.

Isolated hypoglossal nerve palsy is uncommon because of its intimate relationship with the other lower cranial nerves. Keane reported that tumours, predominantly malignant, were the most common cause of hypoglossal nerve palsy. We report a case of isolated idiopathic unilateral hypoglossal nerve palsy in a 45-year-old Caucasian male where no cause could be identified despite extensive investigations. There was uncertainty around prognosis at onset due to the rarity of this condition. In the absence of a cause, an early referral to the speech and language therapist was made and interestingly our patient made an almost complete recovery within 18 months of onset. In a small case series, it has been reported that though rare, idiopathic hypoglossal nerve palsy has an excellent outcome in most cases, similar to the more common idiopathic seventh cranial nerve palsy (Bell's Palsy).We recommend an early referral for physiotherapy in such cases.