Background: COVID-19 pandemia is a major challenge to worldwide health care systems. Whereas the majority of disease presents with mild symptoms that can be treated as outpatients, severely ill COVID-19 patients and patients presenting with similar symptoms cross their ways in the emergency department. Especially, the variety of symptoms is challenging with primary triage. Are there parameters to distinguish between proven COVID-19 and without before? How can a safe and efficient management of these inpatients be achieved? Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 314 consecutive inpatient patients who presented with possible symptoms of COVID-19 in a German emergency department between March and April 2020 and were tested with a SARS-Cov-2 nasopharyngeal swab. Clinical parameters, Manchester Triage System categories, and lab results were compared between patients with positive and negative test results for SARS-Cov-2. Furthermore, we present the existing COVID-19 workflow model of the university hospital in Essen which proved to be efficient during pandemia. Results: Forty-three of the 314 patients (13.7%) were tested positive for COVID-19 by SARS-Cov-2 nasopharyngeal swab. We did not find any laboratory parameter to distinguish safely between patients with COVID-19 and those with similar symptoms. Dysgeusia was the only clinical symptom that was significantly more frequent among COVID-19 patients. Conclusion: Dysgeusia seems to be a typical symptom for COVID-19, which occurred in 14% of our COVID-19 patients. However, no valid parameters could be found to distinguish clinically between COVID-19 and other diseases with similar symptoms. Therefore, early testing, a strict isolation policy, and proper personal protection are crucial to maintain workflow and safety of patients and ED staff for the months to come.

Background: COVID-19 pandemia is a major challenge to worldwide health care systems. Whereas the majority of disease presents with mild symptoms that can be treated as outpatients, severely ill COVID-19 patients and patients presenting with similar symptoms cross their ways in the Emergency Department. Especially the variety of symptoms is challenging with primary triage. Are there parameters to distinguish between proven COVID-19 and without before? How can a safe and efficient management of these inpatients be achieved?Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 314 consecutive inpatient patients who presented with possible symptoms of COVID-19 in a German emergency department between March and April 2020 and were tested with a SARS-Cov-2 nasopharyngeal swab. Clinical parameters, Manchester Triage System categories and lab results were compared between patients with positive and negative test results for SARS-Cov-2. Furthermore, we present the existing COVID-19 workflow model of the university hospital in Essen which proved to be efficient during pandemia.Results: 43 of the 314 patients (13.7%) were tested positive for COVID-19 by SARS-Cov-2 nasopharyngeal swab. We did not find any laboratory parameter to distinguish safely between patients with COVID-19 and those with similar symptoms. Dysgeusia was the only clinical symptom that was significantly more frequent among COVID-19 patients. Conclusion: Dysgeusia seems to be a typical symptom for COVID-19, which occurred in 14% of our COVID-19 patients. However, no valid parameters could be found to distinguish clinically between COVID-19 and other diseases with similar symptoms. Therefore, early testing, a strict isolation policy and proper personal protection are crucial to maintain workflow and safety of patients and ED staff for the months to come.Trial registration: URL: https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00021675

The use of Antigen point of care tests (AgPOCT) might be an essential tool to fight the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Manufacturer information indicates a specificity of about 95% and there is a growing interest to use these tests area‐wide. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify whether AgPOCT can be used safely for “rule‐in” (detection of positive patients) and for “rule‐out” (valid negative testing). Two thousand three hundred and seventy‐five patients received polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing and AgPOCT for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) regardless of symptoms. The positive predictive value of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients was compared with a cut‐off threshold cycle ( C t ) value of ≤30 and in total. Five hundrded and fifty‐one patients tested positive for the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus by PCR, of whom 35.2% presented without symptoms. In all patients, regardless of their symptoms or C t values, a sensitivity of 68.9% and a specificity of 99.6% were calculated for AgPOCT. In patients with C t values ≤30, a sensitivity of 80.5% (95% confidence interval: ±1.62) and a specificity of 99.6% were shown for all tests (symptomatic/asymptomatic). Highly infectious patients ( C t ≤ 20), regardless of symptoms, were reliably detected by the AgPOCT. In infectious patients with C t values ≤30, the test has a sensitivity of about 80% regardless of COVID‐19 typical symptoms, which is apparently less than the 96.52% specificity indicated by the manufacturer. Relevant improvement in test sensitivity by querying the patients who are symptomatic and asymptomatic is also not feasible. We strongly suggest that we critically question the use of AgPOCT for “rule‐out,” as they only provide a supposed safety.

Background The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic remains a major challenge for worldwide health care systems and in particular emergency medicine. An early and safe triage in the emergency department (ED) is especially crucial for proper therapy. Clinical symptoms of COVID-19 comprise those of many common diseases; thus, differential diagnosis remains challenging. Method We performed a retrospective study of 314 ED patients presenting with conceivable COVID-19 symptoms during the first wave in Germany. All were tested for COVID-19 with SARS-Cov-2-nasopharyngeal swabs. Forty-seven patients were positive. We analyzed the 267 COVID-19 negative patients for their main diagnosis and compared COVID-19 patients with COVID-19 negative respiratory infections for differences in laboratory parameters, symptoms, and vital signs. Results Among the 267 COVID-19 negative patients, 42.7% had respiratory, 14.2% had other infectious, and 11.2% had cardiovascular diseases. Further, 9.0% and 6.7% had oncological and gastroenterological diagnoses, respectively. Compared to COVID-19 negative airway infections, COVID-19 patients showed less dyspnea (OR 0.440; p = 0.024) but more dysgeusia (OR 7.631; p = 0.005). Their hospital stay was significantly longer (9.0 vs. 5.6 days; p = 0.014), and their mortality significantly higher (OR 3.979; p = 0.014). Conclusion For many common ED diagnoses, COVID-19 should be considered a differential diagnosis. COVID-19 cannot be distinguished from COVID-19 negative respiratory infections by clinical signs, symptoms, or laboratory results. When hospitalization is necessary, the clinical course of COVID-19 airway infections seems to be more severe compared to other respiratory infections. Trial registration: German Clinical Trial Registry DRKS, DRKS-ID of the study: DRKS00021675 date of registration: May 8th, 2020, retrospectively registered.

Zusammenfassung Einleitung Wenig ist bisher bekannt über die optimale Ersteinschätzung fußläufiger Patienten mit Verdacht auf COVID-19-Infektion oder bereits bestätigter Infektion. Insbesondere der zu erwartende Massenanfall von Erkrankten verlangt nach einer raschen, effizienten und sicheren Unterscheidung zwischen ambulanter Therapieführung, stationärer Überwachung und ggf. Intensivtherapie. Methode Wir präsentieren das in der Universitätsmedizin Essen (UME) entwickelte und verwendete Modell einer möglichst sicheren und effizienten Triage außerhalb des Katastrophenfalls. Das beschriebene Modell der UME ist eine Kombination aus klinischer Einschätzung durch Vitalparameter und Manchester-Triage-Skala (MTS), optional ergänzt durch POCT-Labor, EKG, CT-Pulmonalisangiografie, SARS-CoV-2-PCR sowie ausführlichere Labordiagnostik. Es erfolgte eine Validierung anhand von 100 konsekutiven Patienten. 3 konkrete Patientenbeispiele verdeutlichen das Modell. Ergebnisse Im Rahmen des Regelbetriebs ergab sich in den ersten 2 Wochen eine gute Trennschärfe zwischen stationär behandlungsbedürftigen und ambulanten Patienten. 16 Patienten wurden primär stationär aufgenommen. Bei den 84 initial „ambulant“ klassifizierten Patienten kam es zu 7 Wiedervorstellungen binnen 14 Tagen, 3 hiervon aus anderen Gründen. Eine Patientin musste hierbei aufgrund von progredienter Dyspnoe stationär aufgenommen werden. Fazit Das vorgestellte Triage-Modell bewährt sich in der Praxis, wobei weitere Anpassungen je nach Erfahrung und Patientenanfall vorgesehen sind.