Can clinicians identify community-acquired pneumonia on ultralow-dose CT? A diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Without increasing radiation exposure, ultralow-dose computed tomography (CT) of the chest provides improved diagnostic accuracy of radiological pneumonia diagnosis compared to a chest radiograph. Yet, radiologist resources to rapidly report the chest CTs are limited. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of emergency clinicians' assessments of chest ultralow-dose CTs for community-acquired pneumonia using a radiologist's assessments as reference standard. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study. Ten emergency department clinicians (five junior clinicians, five consultants) assessed chest ultralow-dose CTs from acutely hospitalised patients suspected of having community-acquired pneumonia. Before assessments, the clinicians attended a focused training course on assessing ultralow-dose CTs for pneumonia. The reference standard was the assessment by an experienced emergency department radiologist. Primary outcome was the presence or absence of pulmonary opacities consistent with community-acquired pneumonia. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated using generalised estimating equations. RESULTS: All clinicians assessed 128 ultralow-dose CTs. The prevalence of findings consistent with community-acquired pneumonia was 56%. Seventy-eight percent of the clinicians' CT assessments matched the reference assessment. Diagnostic accuracy estimates were: sensitivity = 83% (95%CI: 77-88), specificity = 70% (95%CI: 59-81), positive predictive value = 80% (95%CI: 74-84), negative predictive value = 78% (95%CI: 73-82). CONCLUSION: This study found that clinicians could assess chest ultralow-dose CTs for community-acquired pneumonia with high diagnostic accuracy. A higher level of clinical experience was not associated with better diagnostic accuracy.

Clinical characteristics, factors associated with urinary tract infection and outcome in acutely admitted patients with infection; an exploratory cross-sectional cohort study.

Background: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) remain a leading infectious disease cause of admission to the emergency department (ED) and antibiotic prescription. Heterogeneity of disease presentation challenges early diagnostics, leading to improper antibiotic prescription and delayed diagnosis. Prior studies have relied on positive urine cultures for diagnosis, but its performance suffers from false positives and false negatives. This study aimed to identify factors associated with UTIs and describe patient characteristics and outcomes while not using positive urine culture as an obligatory part of diagnosis. Methods: Adult patients admitted to the ED suspected of infection were prospectively included in an exploratory cross-sectional cohort study. An expert panel retrospectively determined the final diagnosis. Factors associated with a UTI were identified using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis, outcomes were evaluated with adjusted Cox regression analysis, and length of stay was compared with a zero-inflated negative binomial logistic regression model. Results: Of 966 patients who were enrolled, 200 were diagnosed with a UTI by the expert panel. We found a significant association between a UTI diagnosis and the typical UTI symptoms: dysuria (OR 7.8), change of urine appearance (OR 3.9), suprapubic or flank pain (OR 3.7), and increased urinary frequency (OR 3.2). Urinary dipstick analysis for white blood cells (WBCs) (OR 6.0-24.0), nitrite (OR 4.7), and blood (OR 3.6-12.0) was also significantly associated. Subgroup analysis of urinary dipstick analysis of men and women still showed significance in both groups. No significant difference in outcome or length of stay was found. Conclusion: Typical UTI symptoms are associated with a UTI diagnosis, which underlines the importance of exploring a patient's medical history. Urinary dipstick analysis for WBC, nitrite, and blood is also strongly associated and should be considered when evaluating patients admitted to the ED with suspicion of infection.

Community-acquired pneumonia: use of clinical characteristics of acutely admitted patients for the development of a diagnostic model - a cross-sectional multicentre study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe the clinical characteristics of adults with suspected acute community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) on hospitalisation, evaluate their prediction performance for CAP and compare the performance of the model to the initial assessment of the physician. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, multicentre study. SETTING: The data originated from the INfectious DisEases in Emergency Departments study and were collected prospectively from patient interviews and medical records. The study included four Danish medical emergency departments (EDs) and was conducted between 1 March 2021 and 28 February 2022. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 954 patients admitted with suspected infection were included in the study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME: The primary outcome was CAP diagnosis assessed by an expert panel. RESULTS: According to expert evaluation, CAP had a 28% prevalence. 13 diagnostic predictors were identified using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression to build the prediction model: dyspnoea, expectoration, cough, common cold, malaise, chest pain, respiratory rate (>20 breaths/min), oxygen saturation (<96%), abnormal chest auscultation, leucocytes (<3.5×109/L or >8.8×109/L) and neutrophils (>7.5×109/L). C reactive protein (<20 mg/L) and having no previous event of CAP contributed negatively to the final model. The predictors yielded good prediction performance for CAP with an area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.85 (CI 0.77 to 0.92). However, the initial diagnosis made by the ED physician performed better, with an AUC of 0.86 (CI 84% to 89%). CONCLUSION: Typical respiratory symptoms combined with abnormal vital signs and elevated infection biomarkers were predictors for CAP on admission to an ED. The clinical value of the prediction model is questionable in our setting as it does not outperform the clinician's assessment. Further studies that add novel diagnostic tools and use imaging or serological markers are needed to improve a model that would help diagnose CAP in an ED setting more accurately. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04681963.

Point-of-Care Lung Ultrasound in Emergency Medicine: A Scoping Review With an Interactive Database.

BACKGROUND: This scoping review was conducted to provide an overview of the evidence of point-of-care lung ultrasound (LUS) in emergency medicine. By emphasizing clinical topics, time trends, study designs, and the scope of the primary outcomes, a map is provided for physicians and researchers to guide their future initiatives. RESEARCH QUESTION: Which study designs and primary outcomes are reported in published studies of LUS in emergency medicine? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a systematic search in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for LUS studies published prior to May 13, 2023. Study characteristics were synthesized quantitatively. The primary outcomes in all papers were categorized into the hierarchical Fryback and Thornbury levels. RESULTS: A total of 4,076 papers were screened and, following selection and handsearching, 406 papers were included. The number of publications doubled from January 2020 to May 2023 (204 to 406 papers). The study designs were primarily observational (n = 375 [92%]), followed by randomized (n = 18 [4%]) and case series (n = 13 [3%]). The primary outcome measure concerned diagnostic accuracy in 319 papers (79%), diagnostic thinking in 32 (8%), therapeutic changes in 4 (1%), and patient outcomes in 14 (3%). No increase in the proportions of randomized controlled trials or the scope of primary outcome measures was observed with time. A freely available interactive database was created to enable readers to search for any given interest (https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/blinded/viz/LUSinEM_240216/INFO). INTERPRETATION: Observational diagnostic studies have been produced in abundance, leaving a paucity of research exploring clinical utility. Notably, research exploring whether LUS causes changes to clinical decisions is imperative prior to any further research being made into patient benefits.

Empirical antibiotic treatment for community-acquired pneumonia and accuracy for Legionella pneumophila, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Clamydophila pneumoniae: a descriptive cross-sectional study of adult patients in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Many factors determine empirical antibiotic treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). We aimed to describe the empirical antibiotic treatment CAP patients with an acute hospital visit and to determine if the current treatment algorithm provided specific and sufficient coverage against Legionella pneumophila, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Clamydophila pneumoniae (LMC). METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional, multicenter study of all adults with an acute hospital visit in the Region of Southern Denmark between January 2016 and March 2018 was performed. Using medical records, we retrospectively identified the empirical antibiotic treatment and the microbiological etiology for CAP patients. CAP patients who were prescribed antibiotics within 24 h of admission and with an identified bacterial pathogen were included. The prescribed empirical antibiotic treatment and its ability to provide specific and sufficient coverage against LMC pneumonia were determined. RESULTS: Of the 19,133 patients diagnosed with CAP, 1590 (8.3%) patients were included in this study. Piperacillin-tazobactam and Beta-lactamase sensitive penicillins were the most commonly prescribed empirical treatments, 515 (32%) and 388 (24%), respectively. Our analysis showed that 42 (37%, 95% CI: 28-47%) of 113 patients with LMC pneumonia were prescribed antibiotics with LMC coverage, and 42 (12%, 95% CI: 8-15%) of 364 patients prescribed antibiotics with LMC coverage had LMC pneumonia. CONCLUSION: Piperacillin-tazobactam, a broad-spectrum antibiotic recommended for uncertain infectious focus, was the most frequent CAP treatment and prescribed to every third patient. In addition, the current empirical antibiotic treatment accuracy was low for LMC pneumonia. Therefore, future research should focus on faster diagnostic tools for identifying the infection focus and precise microbiological testing.

Improved diagnostics of infectious diseases in emergency departments: a protocol of a multifaceted multicentre diagnostic study.

BACKGROUND: The major obstacle in prescribing an appropriate and targeted antibiotic treatment is insufficient knowledge concerning whether the patient has a bacterial infection, where the focus of infection is and which bacteria are the agents of the infection. A prerequisite for the appropriate use of antibiotics is timely access to accurate diagnostics such as point-of-care (POC) testing.The study aims to evaluate diagnostic tools and working methods that support a prompt and accurate diagnosis of hospitalised patients suspected of an acute infection. We will focus on the most common acute infections: community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and acute pyelonephritis (APN). The objectives are to investigate (1) patient characteristics and treatment trajectory of the different acute infections, (2) diagnostic and prognostic accuracy of infection markers, (3) diagnostic accuracy of POC urine flow cytometry on diagnosing and excluding bacteriuria, (4) how effective the addition of POC analysis of sputum to the diagnostic set-up for CAP is on antibiotic prescriptions, (5) diagnostic accuracy of POC ultrasound and ultralow dose (ULD) computerized tomography (CT) on diagnosing CAP, (6) diagnostic accuracy of specialist ultrasound on diagnosing APN, (7) diagnostic accuracy of POC ultrasound in diagnosing hydronephrosis in patients suspected of APN. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: It is a multifaceted multicentre diagnostic study, including 1000 adults admitted with suspicion of an acute infection. Participants will, within the first 24 hours of admission, undergo additional diagnostic tests including infection markers, POC urine flow cytometry, POC analysis of sputum, POC and specialist ultrasound, and ULDCT. The primary reference standard is an assigned diagnosis determined by a panel of experts. ETHICS, DISSEMINATION AND REGISTRATION: Approved by Regional Committees on Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark, Danish Data Protection Agency and clinicaltrials.gov. Results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals, and positive, negative and inconclusive results will be published. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT04661085, NCT04681963, NCT04667195, NCT04652167, NCT04686318, NCT04686292, NCT04651712, NCT04645030, NCT04651244.