Background The viral illness severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), more commonly known as coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), has become a global pandemic, infecting over 100 million individuals worldwide. Objectives The objective of this study was to compare the test characteristics of point-of-care lung ultrasound (LUS) with chest x-ray (CXR) at radiographically detecting COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods This was a single-center, prospective, observational study at an urban university hospital with >105,000 patient visits annually. Patients > 18 years old, who presented to the emergency department with predefined signs and symptoms of COVID-19, were eligible for enrollment. Each patient received a LUS using a portable, handheld ultrasound followed by a single view, portable anteroposterior CXR. Patients with an abnormal LUS or CXR underwent a non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography (NCCT). The primary outcome was the radiographic diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia on NCCT. Results 110 patients underwent LUS, CXR, and NCCT. 99 LUS and 73 CXRs were interpreted as positive. 81 NCCT were interpreted as positive providing a prevalence of COVID-19 pneumonia of 75% (95% CI 66-83.2) in our study population. LUS sensitivity was 97.6% (95% CI 91.6-99.7) vs 69.9% (95% CI 58.8-79.5) for CXR. LUS specificity was 33.3% (95% CI 16.5-54) vs 44.4% (95% CI 25.5-64.7) for CXR. LUS positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 81.8% (95% CI 72.8-88.9) and 81.8% (95% CI 48.2-97.7) vs. 79.5% (95% CI 68.4-88) and 32.4% (95% CI 18-49.8) for CXR. Conclusion LUS was more sensitive than CXR at radiographically identifying COVID-19 pneumonia.

No abstract

Objectives: Arthrocentesis is commonly performed in the emergency department, but success rates vary based on location. Presently, there is a paucity of data assessing the utility of ultrasound-guided (USG) medium-sized joint arthrocentesis. The objective of this study was to compare the success of USG and landmark-guided (LMG) medium-sized joint arthrocentesis. Methods:This was a single-center, prospective, randomized clinical trial (NCT03327584) of a convenience sample of adult patients who presented to an urban, university hospital with > 105,000 visits annually. Patients with a suspected medium-sized joint effusion (defined as elbow, wrist, or ankle) undergoing arthrocentesis were randomized into LMG or USG using the GE Logiq e linear transducer (4-10 MHz). The following patients were excluded: on anticoagulation, with soft tissue infection overlying the joint, or involving an artificial joint. Statistical analysis included the Fisher exact, Mann-Whitney U-test, and t-test.Results: Overall, 44 patients were enrolled with 23 patients randomized into the LMG group and 21 patients into the USG arm. USG was significantly better than LMG with an overall success of 94.1% versus 60% for LMG (difference = 34.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.90 to 58.83). USG first-pass success was 82.4% versus 46.7% for LMG (difference = 35.7%, 95% CI = 2.76 to 60.37) and a mean of 1.35 attempts versus 2.00 for LMG (difference = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.005 to 1.296). Of the 14 LMG failures, eight had no effusion present on USG crossover. Four patients in the USG group had no effusion present. Conclusions:Ultrasound guidance improved first-pass and overall successful arthrocentesis of medium-sized joint effusions.

No abstract

No abstract