Background: Lung Ultrasound Evaluation (LUS) is usefully applied in the Emergency Department (ED) to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Diaphragmatic Ultrasound (DUS) may provide additional insight into ventilatory function. This proof-of-concept study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of LUS and DUS in a third level ED during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Adult patients presenting with COVID-19 symptoms were eligible. After the physical examination, both LUS and DUS (i.e., diaphragmatic motion and thickness) were performed. All patients were followed after 30 days to determine their need for ventilation, admission, and/or a new ED evaluation after discharge. The diagnostic accuracies of diaphragm measurements in assessing the risk of the 30-day outcome were calculated as well as the measurements’ usefulness. Bland–Altman plots were used for comparing bedside and off-line diaphragm measurements. Results: 118 patients were enrolled. Median thickness and motion were 1.7 mm (iqr 0.4) and 1.8 cm (iqr 0.7), respectively, with a mean difference of 0.009 mm (95% CI −0.037–0.056 mm) and −0.051 cm (95% CI −0.108–0.006 cm), respectively. The 30-day outcome was associated with an increase in thickness (OR 5.84, 95% CI 0.96–35.4), and a lower motion (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.2–1.21). Conclusion: DUS seemed to be feasible and reliable in the ED in a population of patients presenting with symptoms related to COVID-19 infection.

No abstract

After the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, cases of SARSCoV- 2 infections may gradually decrease in the next months. Given the reduced prevalence of the disease, Emergency Departments (ED) are starting to receive more and more non- Covid19 patients. Thus, a way to quickly discriminate ED patients with potential Covid-19 infection from non-Covid19 patients is needed in order to keep potentially contagious patients isolated while awaiting second-level testing. In this paper, we present the derivation and validation of a simple, practical, and cheap score that could be helpful to rule out Covid-19 among ED patients with suspicious symptoms (fever and/or dyspnoea). The LCL score was derived from a cohort of 335 patients coming to the ED of our hospital from March 16th to April 1st, 2020. It was then retrospectively validated in a similar cohort of 173 patients admitted to our ED during April. The score is based on blood values of lactate dehydrogenase, C-reactive protein, and lymphocyte count. The LCL score performed well both in the derivation and in the validation cohort, with an AUC respectively of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77 – 0.86) and of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.63 – 0.78), given the difference in Covid- 19 prevalence between the two cohorts (57% vs 41% respectively). An LCL score equal to 0 had a negative predictive value of 0.92 in the derivation cohort and of 0.81 in the validation cohort, with a negative likelihood ratio respectively of 0.08 and 0.36 for Covid- 19 exclusion. This score could, therefore, constitute a useful tool to help physicians manage patients in the ED.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, use of telemedicine with the aim of reducing the rate of viral transmission increased. This proof-of-concept observational study was planned to test the feasibility of a home-based lung ultrasound (LUS) follow-up performed by patients with mild COVID-19 infection on themselves. We enrolled patients presenting to the emergency department with SARS-CoV-2 infection without signs of pneumonia and indication to discharge. Each patient received a brief training on how to perform LUS and a handheld ultrasound probe. Then, patients were contacted on a daily basis, and LUS images were acquired by the patients themselves under “teleguidance” by the investigator. Twenty-one patients were enrolled with a median age of 44 years. All evaluations were of sufficient quality for a follow up. Probability of a better LUS quality was related to higher degree (odds ratio, OR, 1.42, 95% CI 0.5–3.99) and a lower quality to evaluation time (from 0.71, 95% CI 0.55–0.92 for less than 7 min, to 0.52, 95% CI 0.38–0.7, between 7 and 10 min, and to 0.29, 95% CI 0.2–0.43, for evaluations longer than 10 min). No effect related to gender or age was detected. LUS performed by patients and remotely overseen by expert providers seems to be a feasible and reliable telemedicine tool.