Risk Stratification in COVID-19 Pneumonia - Determining the Role of Lung Ultrasound.

LUS patterns of COVID-19 pneumonia have been described and shown to be characteristic. The aim of the study was to predict the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, using a score based on LUS findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An observational, retrospective study was conducted on patients admitted to Niguarda hospital with a diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia during the period of a month, from March 2nd to April 3rd 2020. Demographics, clinical, laboratory, and radiological findings were collected. LUS was performed in all patients. The chest was divided into 12 areas. The LUS report was drafted using a score from 0 to 3 with 0 corresponding to A pattern, 1 corresponding to well separated vertical artifacts (B lines), 2 corresponding to white lung and small consolidations, 3 corresponding to wide consolidations. The total score results from the sum of the scores for each area. The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation, no active further management, or death. The secondary outcome was discharge from the emergency room (ER). RESULTS: 255 patients were enrolled. 93.7 % had a positive LUS. ETI was performed in 43 patients, and 24 received a DNI order. The general mortality rate was 15.7 %. Male sex (OR 3.04, p = 0.014), cardiovascular disease and hypertension (OR 2.75, p = 0.006), P/F (OR 0.99, p < 0.001) and an LUS score > 20 (OR 2.52, p = 0.046) were independent risk factors associated with the primary outcome. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for an LUS score > 20 was performed with an AUC of 0.837. Independent risk factors associated with the secondary outcome were age (OR 0.96, p = 0.073), BMI (OR 0.87, p = 0,13), P/F (OR 1.03, p < 0.001), and LUS score < 10 (OR 20.9, p = 0.006). ROC curve analysis was performed using an LUS score < 10 with an AUC 0.967. CONCLUSION: The extent of lung abnormalities evaluated by LUS score is a predictor of a worse outcome, ETI, or death. Moreover, the LUS score could be an additional tool for the safe discharge of patient from the ER.

Multicentre external validation of the Canadian Syncope Risk Score to predict adverse events and comparison with clinical judgement.

BACKGROUND: The Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) has been proposed for syncope risk stratification in the emergency department (ED). The aim of this study is to perform an external multicenter validation of the CSRS and to compare it with clinical judgement. METHODS: Using patients previously included in the SyMoNE database, we enrolled subjects older than 18 years who presented reporting syncope at the ED. For each patient, we estimated the CSRS and recorded the physician judgement on the patients' risk of adverse events. We performed a 30-day follow-up. RESULTS: From 1 September 2015 to 28 February 2017, we enrolled 345 patients; the median age was 71 years (IQR 51-81), 174 (50%) were men and 29% were hospitalised. Serious adverse events occurred in 43 (12%) of the patients within 30 days. The area under the curve of the CSRS and clinical judgement was 0.75 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.81) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.74), respectively. The risk of adverse events of patients at low risk according to the CSRS and clinical judgement was 6.7% and 2%, with a sensitivity of 70% (95% CI 54% to 83%) and 95% (95% CI 84% to 99%), respectively. CONCLUSION: This study represents the first validation analysis of CSRS outside Canada. The overall predictive accuracy of the CSRS is similar to the clinical judgement. However, patients at low risk according to clinical judgement had a lower incidence of adverse events as compared with patients at low risk according to the CSRS. Further studies showing that the adoption of the CSRS improve patients' outcomes is warranted before its widespread implementation.

Clinical characteristics and respiratory support of 310 COVID-19 patients, diagnosed at the emergency room: a single-center retrospective study.

An ongoing outbreak of pneumonia associated with severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) occurred at the end of February 2020 in Lombardy, Italy. We analyzed data from a retrospective, single-center case series of 310 consecutive patients, with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, admitted to the emergency room. We aimed to describe the clinical course, treatment and outcome of a cohort of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, with special attention to oxygen delivery and ventilator support. Throughout the study period, 310 consecutive patients, with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, attended the Emergency Room (ER), of these, 34 were discharged home directly from the ER. Of the remaining 276 patients, the overall mortality was 30.4%: 7 patients died in the ER and 77 during hospitalization. With respect to oxygen delivery: 22 patients did not need any oxygen support (8.0%), 151 patients were treated with oxygen only (54.7%), and 49 (17.8%) were intubated. 90 patients (32.6%) were treated with CPAP (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure) or NIV (Non Invasive Ventilation); in this group, 27 patients had a Do Not Intubate (DNI) order and were treated with CPAP/NIV as an upper threshold therapy, showing high mortality rate (88.9%). Among the 63 patients treated with CPAP/NIV without DNI, NIV failure occurred in 36 patients (57.1%), with mortality rate of 47.2%. Twenty-seven (27) patients were treated with CPAP/NIV without needing mechanical ventilation and 26 were discharged alive (96.3%). The study documents the poor prognosis of patients with severe respiratory failure, although a considerable minority of patients treated with CPAP/NIV had a positive outcome.

Accuracy of point of care ultrasound to identify the source of infection in septic patients: a prospective study.

Sepsis is a rapidly evolving disease with a high mortality rate. The early identification of sepsis and the implementation of early evidence-based therapies have been recognized to improve outcome and decrease sepsis-related mortality. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of the standard diagnostic work-up of septic patients with an integrated approach using early point of care ultrasound (POCUS) to identify the source of infection and to speed up the time to diagnosis. We enrolled a consecutive sample of adult patients admitted to the ED who met the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) criteria for sepsis. For every patient, the emergency physician was asked to identify the septic source after the initial clinical assessment and after POCUS. Patients were then addressed to the standard predefined work-up. The impression at the initial clinical assessment and POCUS-implemented diagnosis was compared with the final diagnosis of the septic source, determined by independent review of the entire medical record after discharge. Two hundred consecutive patients entered the study. A final diagnosis of the septic source was obtained in 178 out of 200 patients (89 %). POCUS-implemented diagnosis had a sensitivity of 73 % (95 % CI 66-79 %), a specificity of 95 % (95 % CI 77-99 %), and an accuracy of 75 %. Clinical impression after the initial clinical assessment (T0) had a sensitivity of 48 % (CI 95 % 41-55 %) and a specificity of 86 % (CI 95 % 66-95 %). POCUS improved the sensitivity of the initial clinical impression by 25 %. POCUS-implemented diagnoses were always obtained within 10 min. Instead the septic source was identified within 1 h in only 21.9 % and within 3 h in 52.8 % with a standard work-up. POCUS-implemented diagnosis is an effective and reliable tool for the identification of septic source, and it is superior to the initial clinical evaluation alone. It is likely that a wider use of POCUS in an emergency setting will allow a faster diagnosis of the septic source, leading to more appropriate and prompt antimicrobial therapy and source control strategies.