Dataset Information

Imaging evaluation of COVID-19 in the emergency department.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:The purpose of this study is to elucidate the chest imaging findings of suspected COVID-19 patients presenting to the emergency department and the relationship with their demographics and RT-PCR testing results. METHODS:Patients presenting to the ED between March 12 and March 28, 2020, with symptoms suspicious for COVID-19 and subsequent CXR and/or CT exam were selected. Patients imaged for other reasons with findings suspicious for COVID-19 were also included. Demographics, laboratory test results, and history were extracted from the medical record. Descriptive statistics were used to explore the relationship between imaging and these factors. RESULTS:A total of 227 patients from the emergency department were analyzed (224 CXRs and 25 CTs). Of the 192 patients with COVID-19 results, 173 (90.1%) had COVID-19 RT-PCR (+). Abnormal imaging (CXR, 85.7% and/or CT, 100%) was noted in 155 (89.6%) of COVID-19 RT-PCR (+) cases. The most common imaging findings were mixed airspace/interstitial opacities (39.8%) on CXR and peripheral GGOs on CT (92%). The most common demographic were African Americans (76.8%). Furthermore, 97.1% of African Americans were RT-PCR (+) compared to 65.8% of Caucasians. CONCLUSION:We found a similar spectrum of thoracic imaging findings in COVID-19 patients as previous studies. The most common demographic were African Americans (76.8%). Furthermore, 97.1% of African Americans were RT-PCR (+) compared to 65.8% of Caucasians. Both CT and CXR can accurately identify COVID-19 pneumonitis in 89.6% of RT-PCR (+) cases, 89.5% of false negatives, and 72.7% of cases with no RT-PCR result.

SUBMITTER: Pakray A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7246086 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Imaging evaluation of COVID-19 in the emergency department.

Pakray Amir A Walker David D Figacz Alexander A Kilanowski Stephen S Rhodes Casey C Doshi Shashin S Coffey Mary M

Emergency radiology 20200525 6

<h4>Purpose</h4>The purpose of this study is to elucidate the chest imaging findings of suspected COVID-19 patients presenting to the emergency department and the relationship with their demographics and RT-PCR testing results.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients presenting to the ED between March 12 and March 28, 2020, with symptoms suspicious for COVID-19 and subsequent CXR and/or CT exam were selected. Patients imaged for other reasons with findings suspicious for COVID-19 were also included. Demographic ...[more]

PMID: 32449099

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDuring the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period, the use of emergency services with pediatric non-COVID patients has decreased considerably. We aimed to examine whether there was a change in the demographic data, triage profile, causes, management, and cost of pediatric emergency department (PED) visits of non-COVID patients during the pandemic period.MethodsThis study was a retrospective, single-center, observational comparative study that was conducted at the PED. Patient records were examined during "the pandemic spring" and the same period of the previous year. Patient demographics, waiting time, and outcome of the PED visit were analyzed in the entire population of children admitted to the PED during the study period, whereas more precise data such as the reason for PED use, duration of symptoms, urgency levels according to the Emergency Severity Index (ESI), final diagnosis, management, and cost of patient care were analyzed in a sample of admitted patients. We used the chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and Mann-Whitney U test for statistical analyses.ResultsA total of 62,593 PED visits occurred. During the pandemic period, PED visits showed a decrease of 55.8% compared to the previous year. Patients included in the sampling study group were selected using a systematic random sampling method. The median waiting time during the pandemic period was significantly shorter than the previous year (median 14 min [IQR: 5-32] vs. median 5 min [IQR: 2-16]; p<0.001). The median duration of symptoms was 1 day (1-2) in both groups. Emergency Severity Index (ESI) levels I, II, and III showed a significant increase (27.7% vs. 37.3%) in triage scoring compared to levels IV and V (72.3% vs. 62.7%) during the pandemic period (p<0.001). The median cost per patient during the pandemic period was statistically higher compared to the previous year ($19.57 [19.57-40.50] vs. $25.34 [31.50-52.01]; p<0.001). Overall costs during the pandemic period had a 1.6-fold decline.ConclusionWe highlighted the changes in an ordinary PED profile during an extraordinary period. A shift in ESI levels in a more emergent direction was observed. While the number of nonurgent patients, especially those with infections, decreased, the rates of surgical cases, acute neurological and heart diseases, home accidents, and poisoning increased relative to the pre-pandemic period.

Project description:ObjectivesEmergency department (ED) health care personnel (HCP) are at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study was to determine the attributable risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from providing ED care, describe personal protective equipment use, and identify modifiable ED risk factors. We hypothesized that providing ED patient care increases the probability of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of 1,673 ED physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), nurses, and nonclinical staff at 20 U.S. centers over 20 weeks (May to December 2020; before vaccine availability) to detect a four-percentage point increased SARS-CoV-2 incidence among HCP related to direct patient care. Participants provided monthly nasal and serology specimens and weekly exposure and procedure information. We used multivariable regression and recursive partitioning to identify risk factors.ResultsOver 29,825 person-weeks, 75 participants (4.5%) acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection (31 were asymptomatic). Physicians/APPs (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.56-2.03) did not have higher risk of becoming infected compared to nonclinical staff, but nurses had a marginally increased risk (aOR 1.91; 95% CI 0.99-3.68). Over 99% of participants used CDC-recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), but PPE lapses occurred in 22.1% of person-weeks and 32.1% of SARS-CoV-2-infected patient intubations. The following factors were associated with infection: household SARS-CoV-2 exposure; hospital and community SARS-CoV-2 burden; community exposure; and mask non-use in public. SARS-CoV-2 intubation was not associated with infection (attributable risk fraction 13.8%; 95% CI -2.0-38.2%), and nor were PPE lapses.ConclusionsAmong unvaccinated U.S. ED HCP during the height of the pandemic, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was similar in nonclinical staff and HCP engaged in direct patient care. Many identified risk factors were related to community exposures.

Project description:Study objectiveLittle is known about COVID-19 booster vaccine hesitancy. We sought to determine the uptake of booster vaccines, as well as the prevalence of and reasons for booster hesitancy in emergency department (ED) patients.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional survey study of adult patients at 5 safety-net hospital EDs in 4 US cities from mid-January to mid-July 2022. Participants were fluent in English or Spanish and had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine. We assessed the following parameters: (1) the prevalence of nonboosted status and reasons for not getting a booster; (2) the prevalence of booster vaccine hesitancy and reasons for hesitancy; and (3) the association of hesitancy with demographic variables.ResultsOf 802 participants, 373 (47%) were women, 478 (60%) were non-White, 182 (23%) lacked primary care, 110 (14%) primarily spoke Spanish, and 370 (46%) were publicly insured. Of the 771 participants who completed their primary series, 316 (41%) had not received a booster vaccine; the primary reason for nonreceipt was lack of opportunity (38%). Of the nonboosted participants, 179 (57%) expressed hesitancy, citing need for more information (25%), concerns about side effects (24%), and the belief that a booster was unnecessary after the initial series (20%). In the multivariable analysis, Asian participants were less likely to be booster hesitant than White participants (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05 to 0.93), non-English-speaking participants were more likely to be booster hesitant than English-speaking participants (aOR 2.35, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.71), and Republican participants were more likely to be booster hesitant than Democrat participants (aOR 6.07, 95% CI 4.21 to 8.75).ConclusionOf almost half of this urban ED population who had not received a COVID-19 booster vaccine, more than one third stated that lack of opportunity to receive one was the primary reason. Furthermore, more than half of the nonboosted participants were booster hesitant, with many expressing concerns or a desire for more information that may be addressed with booster vaccine education.

Dataset Information

Imaging evaluation of COVID-19 in the emergency department.

Publications

Imaging evaluation of COVID-19 in the emergency department.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets