RESUMO
Bloodstream infections (BSI) are an increasing cause of admissions to hospitals. Non-hospital-acquired BSI are defined by blood cultures that are positive less than 48 hours after admission, but a relevant difference exists between community-acquired and healthcare-associated (HCA) BSI in terms of risk of multidrug resistance (MDR). We planned a retrospective study in three different cohorts in order to develop and to temporally and spatially validate an easy and rapid prognostic model for identifying MDR non-hospital-acquired (non-HA) BSI. The pathogens most involved in BSI are Staphylococcus spp. and Escherichia coli, responsible for about 75% of all MDR isolated. The model includes age, gender, long-term care facility admission, immunocompromise, any recent invasive procedures and central line placement, recent intravenous treatment and antibiotic treatment. It shows an acceptable performance, especially for intermediate probabilities of MDR infection, with a C-index of 70%. The model was proposed in a nomogram that could allow better targeting of antibiotic therapy for non-HA BSI admitted in hospital. However, it should be further validated to determine its applicability in other populations.
RESUMO
During the COVID-19 pandemic, use of telemedicine with the aim of reducing the rate of viral transmission increased. This proof-of-concept observational study was planned to test the feasibility of a home-based lung ultrasound (LUS) follow-up performed by patients with mild COVID-19 infection on themselves. We enrolled patients presenting to the emergency department with SARS-CoV-2 infection without signs of pneumonia and indication to discharge. Each patient received a brief training on how to perform LUS and a handheld ultrasound probe. Then, patients were contacted on a daily basis, and LUS images were acquired by the patients themselves under "teleguidance" by the investigator. Twenty-one patients were enrolled with a median age of 44 years. All evaluations were of sufficient quality for a follow up. Probability of a better LUS quality was related to higher degree (odds ratio, OR, 1.42, 95% CI 0.5-3.99) and a lower quality to evaluation time (from 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.92 for less than 7 min, to 0.52, 95% CI 0.38-0.7, between 7 and 10 min, and to 0.29, 95% CI 0.2-0.43, for evaluations longer than 10 min). No effect related to gender or age was detected. LUS performed by patients and remotely overseen by expert providers seems to be a feasible and reliable telemedicine tool.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Lung Ultrasound Evaluation (LUS) is usefully applied in the Emergency Department (ED) to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Diaphragmatic Ultrasound (DUS) may provide additional insight into ventilatory function. This proof-of-concept study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of LUS and DUS in a third level ED during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Adult patients presenting with COVID-19 symptoms were eligible. After the physical examination, both LUS and DUS (i.e., diaphragmatic motion and thickness) were performed. All patients were followed after 30 days to determine their need for ventilation, admission, and/or a new ED evaluation after discharge. The diagnostic accuracies of diaphragm measurements in assessing the risk of the 30-day outcome were calculated as well as the measurements' usefulness. Bland-Altman plots were used for comparing bedside and off-line diaphragm measurements. RESULTS: 118 patients were enrolled. Median thickness and motion were 1.7 mm (iqr 0.4) and 1.8 cm (iqr 0.7), respectively, with a mean difference of 0.009 mm (95% CI -0.037-0.056 mm) and -0.051 cm (95% CI -0.108-0.006 cm), respectively. The 30-day outcome was associated with an increase in thickness (OR 5.84, 95% CI 0.96-35.4), and a lower motion (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.2-1.21). CONCLUSION: DUS seemed to be feasible and reliable in the ED in a population of patients presenting with symptoms related to COVID-19 infection.
