Dataset Information

Ruling out COVID-19 by chest CT at emergency admission when prevalence is low: the prospective, observational SCOUT study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

It is essential to avoid admission of patients with undetected corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to hospitals' general wards. Even repeated negative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results do not rule-out COVID-19 with certainty. The study aimed to evaluate a rule-out strategy for COVID-19 using chest computed tomography (CT) in adults being admitted to the emergency department and suspected of COVID-19.

Methods

In this prospective, single centre, diagnostic accuracy cohort study, consecutive adults (≥ 18 years) presenting with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 or previous contact to infected individuals, admitted to the emergency department and supposed to be referred to general ward were included in March and April 2020. All participants underwent low-dose chest CT. RT-PCR- and specific antibody tests were used as reference standard. Main outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity of chest CT. Predictive values were calculated based on the theorem of Bayes using Fagan's nomogram.

Results

Of 165 participants (56.4% male, 71 ± 16 years) included in the study, the diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed with RT-PCR and AB tests in 13 participants (prevalence 7.9%). Sensitivity and specificity of chest CT were 84.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 54.6-98.1) and 94.7% (95% CI, 89.9-97.7), respectively. Positive and negative likelihood ratio of chest CT were 16.1 (95% CI, 7.9-32.8) and 0.16 (95% CI, 0.05-0.58) and positive and negative predictive value were 57.9% (95% CI, 40.3-73.7) and 98.6% (95% CI, 95.3-99.6), respectively.

Conclusion

At a low prevalence of COVID-19, chest CT could be used as a complement to repeated RT-PCR testing for early COVID-19 exclusion in adults with suspected infection before referral to hospital's general wards. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04357938 April 22, 2020.

SUBMITTER: Teichgraber U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7802980 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Some guidelines advocate for managing patients with penetrating thoracic wounds in trauma centres with cardiothoracic surgery. This systematic approach is questionable. Only 15% of these patients require surgery. It is known that clinical examination fails to detect hemopneumothorax in penetrating trauma. However, no studies have evaluated the combined diagnostic performance of vital signs and the clinical evaluation of wounds. The clinical characteristics of wounds have not been investigated. We aimed to evaluate the ability of combinations of pre-hospital signs to rule out invasive chest stab trauma. METHODS:This was a prospective observational study. All consecutive adult patients hospitalized in the perioperative acute care unit of a tertiary university hospital were included. Injury diagnoses were provided by exploratory surgery and imaging tests. Patients with a final diagnosis of invasive wounds (IWs) and patients with only superficial wounds were compared. Data regarding management and outcome were analysed. RESULTS:A total of 153 patients were included. After imaging or surgery, 58 (38%) patients were diagnosed with only superficial wounds, and 95 (62%) were diagnosed with thoracic or abdominal IWs. The false-negative rate of pre-hospital evaluations in the diagnosis of IWs was 42% [31-51]IQR25-75. In stable patients, pre-hospital data could not rule out IWs, with a negative predictive value of 58% and a positive predictive value of 70%. Twenty-nine (19%) patients required early emergent cardiothoracic surgery. Among these patients, 8 (28%) had no evidence of IWs in the pre-hospital period. Among the 59 patients without pre-hospital signs of IWs, 19 (33%) underwent at least one emergent procedure. CONCLUSIONS:The combination of pre-hospital vital signs, visual evaluation of wounds, and physical examination failed to rule out IWs in patients with chest stab wounds. This implies that caution is needed in triage decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundUnnecessary diagnostic imaging leads to higher costs, longer emergency department stays, and increased patient exposure to ionizing radiation. We sought to prospectively derive and validate two decision instruments (DIs) for selective chest computed tomography (CT) in adult blunt trauma patients.Methods and findingsFrom September 2011 to May 2014, we prospectively enrolled blunt trauma patients over 14 y of age presenting to eight US, urban level 1 trauma centers in this observational study. During the derivation phase, physicians recorded the presence or absence of 14 clinical criteria before viewing chest imaging results. We determined injury outcomes by CT radiology readings and categorized injuries as major or minor according to an expert-panel-derived clinical classification scheme. We then employed recursive partitioning to derive two DIs: Chest CT-All maximized sensitivity for all injuries, and Chest CT-Major maximized sensitivity for only major thoracic injuries (while increasing specificity). In the validation phase, we employed similar methodology to prospectively test the performance of both DIs. We enrolled 11,477 patients-6,002 patients in the derivation phase and 5,475 patients in the validation phase. The derived Chest CT-All DI consisted of (1) abnormal chest X-ray, (2) rapid deceleration mechanism, (3) distracting injury, (4) chest wall tenderness, (5) sternal tenderness, (6) thoracic spine tenderness, and (7) scapular tenderness. The Chest CT-Major DI had the same criteria without rapid deceleration mechanism. In the validation phase, Chest CT-All had a sensitivity of 99.2% (95% CI 95.4%-100%), a specificity of 20.8% (95% CI 19.2%-22.4%), and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.8% (95% CI 98.9%-100%) for major injury, and a sensitivity of 95.4% (95% CI 93.6%-96.9%), a specificity of 25.5% (95% CI 23.5%-27.5%), and a NPV of 93.9% (95% CI 91.5%-95.8%) for either major or minor injury. Chest CT-Major had a sensitivity of 99.2% (95% CI 95.4%-100%), a specificity of 31.7% (95% CI 29.9%-33.5%), and a NPV of 99.9% (95% CI 99.3%-100%) for major injury and a sensitivity of 90.7% (95% CI 88.3%-92.8%), a specificity of 37.9% (95% CI 35.8%-40.1%), and a NPV of 91.8% (95% CI 89.7%-93.6%) for either major or minor injury. Regarding the limitations of our work, some clinicians may disagree with our injury classification and sensitivity thresholds for injury detection.ConclusionsWe prospectively derived and validated two DIs (Chest CT-All and Chest CT-Major) that identify blunt trauma patients with clinically significant thoracic injuries with high sensitivity, allowing for a safe reduction of approximately 25%-37% of unnecessary chest CTs. Trauma evaluation protocols that incorporate these DIs may decrease unnecessary costs and radiation exposure in the disproportionately young trauma population.