No abstract

No abstract

Background During the current second wave of COVID-19, the radiologists are expected to face great challenges in differentiation between COVID-19 and other virulent influenza viruses, mainly H1N1. Accordingly, this study was performed in order to find any differentiating CT criteria that would help during the expected clinical overlap during the current Influenza season. Results This study was retrospectively conducted during the period from June till November 2020, on acute symptomatic 130 patients with no history of previous pulmonary diseases; 65 patients had positive PCR for COVID-19 including 50 mild patients and 15 critical or severe patients; meanwhile, the other 65 patients had positive PCR for H1N1 including 50 mild patients and 15 critical or severe patients. They included 74 males and 56 females (56.9%:43.1%). Their age ranged 14–90 years (mean age 38.9 ± 20.3 SD). HRCT findings were analyzed by four expert consultant radiologists in consensus. All patients with COVID-19 showed parenchymal or alveolar HRCT findings; only one of them had associated airway involvement. Among the 65 patients with H1N1; 56 patients (86.2%) had parenchymal or alveolar HRCT findings while six patients (9.2%) presented only by HRCT signs of airway involvement and three patients (4.6%) had mixed parenchymal and airway involvement. Regarding HRCT findings of airway involvement (namely tree in bud nodules, air trapping, bronchial wall thickening, traction bronchiectasis, and mucous plugging), all showed significant p value (ranging from 0.008 to 0.04). On the other hand, HRCT findings of parenchymal or alveolar involvement (mainly ground glass opacities) showed no significant relation. Conclusion HRCT can help in differentiation between non-severe COVID-19 and H1N1 based on signs of airway involvement.

Background COVID-19 vasculopathy is a critical condition that impacts the disease prognosis including vasculitis and thromboembolic complications. This study aimed to provide the Egyptian experience about the COVID-19 vasculopathy during the past two years of the pandemic and to collectively include the different modalities and imaging techniques for the diagnosis of cerebrovascular, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and peripheral arterial vascular complications. Results This is a multi-center retrospective analysis of 3500 PCR-proved COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and December 2021. A cohort of 282 consecutive patients with COVID-19 vasculopathy was considered for inclusion. They included 204 males and 78 females (72:28%). The mean age was 68 years, and age ranged from 48 to 90 years. Five radiologists evaluated the different imaging examinations in consensus including computed tomography (CT), CT-angiography (CTA), CT-perfusion (CTP), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), MR-arteriography (MRA), and MR-venography (MRV). 244/282 (86.5%) patients suffered from non-hemorrhagic cerebral ischemic infarctions. 13/282 (4.6%) patients suffered from hemorrhagic cerebral infarctions. 5/282 (1.8%) patients suffered from cerebral vasculitis. Pulmonary vascular angiopathy was detected in 10/282 (3.5%) patients, including pulmonary embolism in 10/10 patients, pulmonary infarctions in 8/10 patients, pulmonary vascular enlargement in 5/10 patients, and vascular "tree-in-bud" sign in 2/10 patients. Intestinal ischemia and small bowel obstruction were detected in 3/282 patients (1%) while GIT bleeding was encountered in 4/282 patients (1.4%). Lower limb arterial ischemia was found in 3/282 patients (1%). Additionally; 39/282 (13.8%) patients developed peripheral deep venous thrombosis (DVT) due to prolonged ICU recumbence while 28/282 (10%) patients developed jugular vein thrombosis sequel to prolonged catheterization. A p value (0.002) and (r) = 0.8 statistically proved strong significant relation between COVID-19 vasculopathy and D-dimer levels. Conclusions Multi-system vasculopathy was a serious complication of COVID-19 which impacted the patients' morbidity and mortality. An Egyptian experience about the COVID-19 vasculopathy during the past two years of the pandemic was provided. It encountered the different modalities and imaging techniques for the diagnosis of cerebrovascular, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and peripheral arterial COVID-19 vascular complications.

Background Birth defects and congenital anomalies are different words used to describe developmental abnormalities that occur at birth. Congenital anomalies diagnosis during pregnancy is a difficult topic to which ultrasonography has made significant contributions. The availability of a generally safe, independent technique in the evaluation of prenatal anomalies would be a welcomed clinical and scientific alternative. Ultrasound (US) is the predominant modality for evaluating disorders related to fetus and pregnancy. In most situations, this examination by a professional operator offers sufficient information about fetal morphology, surroundings, and well-being. The abnormalities revealed by ultrasound can be subtle or inconclusive at times. MRI has been demonstrated to be useful in such circumstances in various studies. So the effective use of fetal MRI in the evaluation of non-CNS abnormalities of the body is a reason for adopting fetal MRI as an adjunct to US in obstetric imaging. This study aimed to examine the role of fetal MRI as a complementary method to the antenatal US in assessing non-CNS anomalies and how it changed or modified the diagnosis of anomalies. Results By analyzing the data of 30 pregnant females with fetal non-CNS congenital anomalies, the diagnostic accuracy of prenatal ultrasound alone in the detection of congenital anomalies was 76%, with a sensitivity of about 76%. And diagnostic accuracy of MRI alone was 96.6%, with a sensitivity of approximately 96.6%. Moreover, the diagnostic accuracy of combined prenatal US and prenatal MRI in the detection of congenital anomalies was 100%, with sensitivity about 100% and PPV about 100%. Conclusion Fetal MRI raises confidence in non-CNS malformation assessment. Compared to US, MRI overcomes many of the obstacles faced by the antenatal US. MRI is superior to the US in refining, changing, or adding more diagnostic information about the disease.