Dataset Information

Point-of-care lung ultrasonography for early identification of mild COVID-19: a prospective cohort of outpatients in a Swiss screening center.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Early identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection is important to guide quarantine and reduce transmission. This study evaluates the diagnostic performance of lung ultrasound (LUS), an affordable, consumable-free point-of-care tool, for COVID-19 screening.

Design, setting and participants

This prospective observational cohort included adults presenting with cough and/or dyspnoea at a SARS-CoV-2 screening centre of Lausanne University Hospital between 31 March and 8 May 2020.

Interventions

Investigators recorded standardised LUS images and videos in 10 lung zones per patient. Two blinded independent experts reviewed LUS recording and classified abnormal findings according to prespecified criteria to investigate their predictive value to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection according to PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs (COVID-19 positive vs COVID-19 negative).

Primary and secondary outcome measures

We finally combined LUS and clinical findings to derive a multivariate logistic regression diagnostic score.

Results

Of 134 included patients, 23% (n=30/134) were COVID-19 positive and 77% (n=103/134) were COVID-19 negative; 85%, (n=114/134) cases were previously healthy healthcare workers presenting within 2-5 days of symptom onset (IQR). Abnormal LUS findings were significantly more frequent in COVID-19 positive compared with COVID-19 negative (45% vs 26%, p=0.045) and mostly consisted of focal pathologic B lines. Combining clinical findings in a multivariate logistic regression score had an area under the receiver operating curve of 80.3% to detect COVID-19, and slightly improved to 84.5% with the addition of LUS features.

Conclusions

COVID-19-positive patients are significantly more likely to have lung pathology by LUS. However, LUS has an insufficient sensitivity and is not an appropriate screening tool in outpatients. LUS only adds little value to clinical features alone.

SUBMITTER: Schaad S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9234434 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite the relative ease with which breech presentation can be identified through ultrasound screening, the assessment of foetal presentation at term is often based on clinical examination only. Due to limitations in this approach, many women present in labour with an undiagnosed breech presentation, with increased risk of foetal morbidity and mortality. This study sought to determine the cost effectiveness of universal ultrasound scanning for breech presentation near term (36 weeks of gestational age [wkGA]) in nulliparous women.Methods and findingsThe Pregnancy Outcome Prediction (POP) study was a prospective cohort study between January 14, 2008 and July 31, 2012, including 3,879 nulliparous women who attended for a research screening ultrasound examination at 36 wkGA. Foetal presentation was assessed and compared for the groups with and without a clinically indicated ultrasound. Where breech presentation was detected, an external cephalic version (ECV) was routinely offered. If the ECV was unsuccessful or not performed, the women were offered either planned cesarean section at 39 weeks or attempted vaginal breech delivery. To compare the likelihood of different mode of deliveries and associated long-term health outcomes for universal ultrasound to current practice, a probabilistic economic simulation model was constructed. Parameter values were obtained from the POP study, and costs were mainly obtained from the English National Health Service (NHS). One hundred seventy-nine out of 3,879 women (4.6%) were diagnosed with breech presentation at 36 weeks. For most women (96), there had been no prior suspicion of noncephalic presentation. ECV was attempted for 84 (46.9%) women and was successful in 12 (success rate: 14.3%). Overall, 19 of the 179 women delivered vaginally (10.6%), 110 delivered by elective cesarean section (ELCS) (61.5%) and 50 delivered by emergency cesarean section (EMCS) (27.9%). There were no women with undiagnosed breech presentation in labour in the entire cohort. On average, 40 scans were needed per detection of a previously undiagnosed breech presentation. The economic analysis indicated that, compared to current practice, universal late-pregnancy ultrasound would identify around 14,826 otherwise undiagnosed breech presentations across England annually. It would also reduce EMCS and vaginal breech deliveries by 0.7 and 1.0 percentage points, respectively: around 4,196 and 6,061 deliveries across England annually. Universal ultrasound would also prevent 7.89 neonatal mortalities annually. The strategy would be cost effective if foetal presentation could be assessed for £19.80 or less per woman. Limitations to this study included that foetal presentation was revealed to all women and that the health economic analysis may be altered by parity.ConclusionsAccording to our estimates, universal late pregnancy ultrasound in nulliparous women (1) would virtually eliminate undiagnosed breech presentation, (2) would be expected to reduce foetal mortality in breech presentation, and (3) would be cost effective if foetal presentation could be assessed for less than £19.80 per woman.

Project description:Background Offering living kidney donation raised the concern that donors are exposed to unknown risks. All Swiss transplant centres therefore decided to start a prospective cohort study of living kidney donors in Switzerland. This paper describes the rationale for and implementation of this cohort study. Methods/design All kidney donors in Switzerland are registered and examined before donation and biennially after donation starting in the first year after nephrectomy. Before each follow-up visit, the study centre sends a package to the kidney donor containing the health questionnaire, blood and urine tubes and a prepaid envelope for sending the samples to the central laboratory. The donor makes an appointment with their family physician, who examines the donor and reports findings such as pain and other complaints, blood pressure, creatinine, albumin, all major health events and the state of mental and social well-being to the study centre. The family doctor draws the blood sample and mails it with the urine sample in the prepaid envelope. All data are centrally managed. All abnormal findings in the follow-up of individual donors are regularly discussed with the principal investigator, and necessary clinical changes made and recorded in the database. The health insurance of the recipient covers all costs of the donor follow-up. The main outcomes are the occurrence of albuminuria, hypertension and renal insufficiency. The secondary outcomes are major somatic and social events such as death, cardiovascular disease, stroke and depression. Discussion This prospective cohort offers unique opportunities to assess the risks of living kidney donation and will allow us to examine the risks associated with the methods used for nephrectomy in Switzerland (various forms of open surgery and laparoscopic nephrectomy). The prospective collection of all clinically relevant data and the regular monitoring of donors will allow timely interventions at early stages before serious kidney and general health problems occur.

Project description:BackgroundLung cancer is a major health problem. CT lung screening can reduce lung cancer mortality through early diagnosis by at least 20%. Screening high-risk individuals is most effective. Retrospective analyses suggest that identifying individuals for screening by accurate prediction models is more efficient than using categorical age-smoking criteria, such as the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria. This study prospectively compared the effectiveness of the USPSTF2013 and PLCOm2012 model eligibility criteria.MethodsIn this prospective cohort study, participants from the International Lung Screening Trial (ILST), aged 55-80 years, who were current or former smokers (ie, had ≥30 pack-years smoking history or ≤15 quit-years since last permanently quitting), and who met USPSTF2013 criteria or a PLCOm2012 risk threshold of at least 1·51% within 6 years of screening, were recruited from nine screening sites in Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, and the UK. After enrolment, patients were assessed with the USPSTF2013 criteria and the PLCOm2012 risk model with a threshold of at least 1·70% at 6 years. Data were collected locally and centralised. Main outcomes were the comparison of lung cancer detection rates and cumulative life expectancies in patients with lung cancer between USPSTF2013 criteria and the PLCOm2012 model. In this Article, we present data from an interim analysis. To estimate the incidence of lung cancers in individuals who were USPSTF2013-negative and had PLCOm2012 of less than 1·51% at 6 years, ever-smokers in the Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) who met these criteria and their lung cancer incidence were applied to the ILST sample size for the mean follow-up occurring in the ILST. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02871856. Study enrolment is almost complete.FindingsBetween June 17, 2015, and Dec 29, 2020, 5819 participants from the International Lung Screening Trial (ILST) were enrolled on the basis of meeting USPSTF2013 criteria or the PLCOm2012 risk threshold of at least 1·51% at 6 years. The same number of individuals was selected for the PLCOm2012 model as for the USPSTF2013 criteria (4540 [78%] of 5819). After a mean follow-up of 2·3 years (SD 1·0), 135 lung cancers occurred in 4540 USPSTF2013-positive participants and 162 in 4540 participants included in the PLCOm2012 of at least 1·70% at 6 years group (cancer sensitivity difference 15·8%, 95% CI 10·7-22·1%; absolute odds ratio 4·00, 95% CI 1·89-9·44; p<0·0001). Compared to USPSTF2013-positive individuals, PLCOm2012-selected participants were older (mean age 65·7 years [SD 5·9] vs 63·3 years [5·7]; p<0·0001), had more comorbidities (median 2 [IQR 1-3] vs 1 [1-2]; p<0·0001), and shorter life expectancy (13·9 years [95% CI 12·8-14·9] vs 14·8 [13·6-16·0] years). Model-based difference in cumulative life expectancies for those diagnosed with lung cancer were higher in those who had PLCOm2012 risk of at least 1·70% at 6 years than individuals who were USPSTF2013-positive (2248·6 years [95% CI 2089·6-2425·9] vs 2000·7 years [1841·2-2160·3]; difference 247·9 years, p=0·015).InterpretationPLCOm2012 appears to be more efficient than the USPSTF2013 criteria for selecting individuals to enrol into lung cancer screening programmes and should be used for identifying high-risk individuals who benefit from the inclusion in these programmes.FundingTerry Fox Research Institute, The UBC-VGH Hospital Foundation and the BC Cancer Foundation, the Alberta Cancer Foundation, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK and a consortium of funders, and the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation for the UK Lung Screen Uptake Trial.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To describe how general practitioners (GPs) use point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) and how it influences the diagnostic process and treatment of patients. DESIGN:Prospective observational study using an online questionnaire before and after POCUS. SETTING:Office-based general practice. PARTICIPANTS:Twenty GPs consecutively recruited all patients examined with POCUS in 1 month. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:We estimated the use of POCUS through the indication for use, the frequency of use, the time consumption, the extent of modification of the examination and the findings.The influence on the diagnostic process was estimated through change in the tentative diagnoses, change in confidence, the ability to produce ultrasound images and the relationship between confidence and organs scanned or tentative diagnoses.The influence of POCUS on patient treatment was estimated through change in plan for the patient, change in patient's treatment and the relationship between such changes and certain findings. RESULTS:The GPs included 574 patients in the study. POCUS was used in patient consultations with a median frequency of 8.6% (IQR: 4.9-12.6). Many different organs were scanned covering more than 100 different tentative diagnoses. The median time taken to perform POCUS was 5 min (IQR: 3-8). Across applications and GPs, POCUS entailed a change in diagnoses in 49.4% of patients; increased confidence in a diagnosis in 89.2% of patients; a change in the management plan for 50.9% of patients including an absolute reduction in intended referrals to secondary care from 49.2% to 25.6%; and a change in treatment for 26.5% of patients. CONCLUSIONS:The clinical utilisation of POCUS was highly variable among the GPs included in this study in terms of the indication for performing POCUS, examined scanning modalities and frequency of use. Overall, using POCUS altered the GPs' diagnostic process and clinical decision-making in nearly three out of four consultations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03375333.

Project description:BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is one of the quality measures in screening colonoscopy and is crucial for reducing colorectal cancer morbidity and mortality. Up to 25 % of adenomas are missed during colonoscopy. Endocuff is an easy-to-use device that is attached like a cap to the distal tip of the colonoscope in order to optimize visualization behind the folds of the colon and increase the ADR. This is the first prospective study of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EC) in a screening population with follow-up to determine the ADR and adverse events of EC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We prospectively enrolled asymptomatic patients referred for screening colonoscopy during the 4-month study period. We documented the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, cecal intubation rate, polyp detection rate, ADR, number of advanced adenomas, and number of adverse events. Colonoscopies were performed by five board-certified gastroenterologists. During follow-up, the patients were called 4 to 12 weeks after EC. RESULTS: A total of 104 EC procedures were performed. Cecal intubation was achieved in 99 % of the patients, with a median intubation time of 6 minutes. The polyp detection rate and ADR in our study were 72 % and 47 %, respectively, and 13.5 % of the lesions were advanced adenomas. A significant number of adenomas were detected in the right side of the colon. Considering all the adenomas and hyperplastic polyps above the sigmoid, we recommended that nearly 60 % of our patients repeat an endoscopic follow-up according to the existing Swiss guidelines. We noted no perforations or other serious adverse events, even in the patients with extensive diverticulosis. CONCLUSIONS: EC is feasible with the most commonly available colonoscopes without severe adverse events. EC seems to be a safe and effective device for increasing the ADR, including small adenomas in the right side of the colon. Therefore, this technique may be recommended in the future to increase the ADR in a screening population.

Project description:BackgroundLow-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening is effective in reducing lung cancer mortality in smokers; however, the evidence in nonsmokers is scarce.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the participant rate and effectiveness of one-off LDCT screening for lung cancer among smokers and nonsmokers.MethodsA population-based prospective cohort study was performed to enroll participants aged between 40 and 74 years from 2013 to 2019 from 4 cities in Zhejiang Province, China. Participants who were evaluated as having a high risk of lung cancer from an established risk score model were recommended to undergo LDCT screening. Follow-up outcomes were retrieved on June 30, 2020. The uptake rate of LDCT screening for evaluated high-risk participants and the detection rate of early-stage lung cancer (stage 0-I) were calculated. The lung cancer incidence, lung cancer mortality, and all-cause mortality were compared between the screened and nonscreened groups.ResultsAt baseline, 62.56% (18,818/30,079) of smokers and 6% (5483/91,455) of nonsmokers were identified as high risk (P<.001), of whom 41.9% (7885/18,818) and 66.31% (3636/5483) underwent LDCT screening (P<.001), respectively. After a median follow-up of 5.1 years, 1100 lung cancer cases and 456 all-cause death cases (116 lung cancer death cases) were traced. The proportion of early-stage lung cancer among smokers was 60.3% (173/287), which was lower than the proportion of 80.3% (476/593) among nonsmokers (P<.001). Among smokers, a higher proportion was found in the screened group (72/106, 67.9%) than the nonscreened group (56/114, 49.1%; P=.005), whereas no significance was found (42/44, 96% vs 10/12, 83%; P=.20) among nonsmokers. Compared with participants who were not screened, LDCT screening in smokers significantly increased lung cancer incidence (hazard ratio [HR] 1.39, 95% CI 1.09-1.76; P=.007) but reduced lung cancer mortality (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28-0.96; P=.04) and all-cause mortality (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.32-0.69; P<.001). Among nonsmokers, no significant results were found for lung cancer incidence (P=.06), all-cause mortality (P=.89), and lung cancer mortality (P=.17).ConclusionsLDCT screening effectively reduces lung cancer and all-cause mortality among high-risk smokers. Further efforts to define high-risk populations and explore adequate lung cancer screening modalities for nonsmokers are needed.