Objective Accurate diagnostic testing to identify SARS–CoV-2 infection is critical. Although highly specific, SARS–CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), has shown, in clinical practice, to be affected by a non-insignificant proportion of false negative results. The study sought to explore whether the integration of lung ultrasound (LUS) with clinical evaluation is associated with increased sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia, and therefore may facilitate the identification of false negative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results. Methods This prospective cohort study enrolled consecutive adult patients with symptoms potentially related to SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to the emergency department (ED) of an Italian academic hospital. Immediately after the initial assessment, a LUS evaluation was performed and the likelihood SARS-CoV-2 infection, based on both clinical and LUS findings (“integrated” assessment), was recorded. RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 detection was subsequently performed. Results We enrolled 228 patients; 107 patients (46.9%) had SARS-CoV-2 infection. Sensitivity and negative predictive value of the clinical-LUS integrated assessment were higher than first RT-PCR [94.4% (95% CI 88.2-97.9), vs. 80.4% (95% CI 71.6-87.4); 95% (95% CI 89.5-98.2), vs. 85.2% (95% CI 78.3-90.6)]. Among the 142 patients who initially had negative RT-PCR, 21 resulted positive at a subsequent molecular test performed within 72 hours. All these false negative cases were correctly identified by the integrated assessment. Conclusion This study suggests that, in patients presenting to the ED with symptoms commonly associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the integration of LUS with clinical evaluation has high sensitivity and specificity for COVID-19 pneumonia and it may help to identify false negative results occurring with RT-PCR.

No abstract

Plasma-derived AAT (Prolastin C) given as an adjunct to reperfusion powerfully limits the final infarct size across a wide range of experiments in the mouse reproducing clinically relevant scenarios, such as variable duration of ischemia, delay in administration in the drug, and a large therapeutic index.

Objectives Physicians’ gestalt is central in the diagnostic pipeline of suspected COVID‐19, due to the absence of a single tool allowing conclusive rule in or rule out. The aim of this study was to estimate the diagnostic test characteristics of physician's gestalt for COVID‐19 in the emergency department (ED), based on clinical findings or on a combination of clinical findings and bedside imaging results. Methods From April 1 to April 30, 2020, patients with suspected COVID‐19 were prospectively enrolled in two EDs. Physicians prospectively dichotomized patients in COVID‐19 likely or unlikely twice: after medical evaluation of clinical features (clinical gestalt [CG]) and after evaluation of clinical features and results of lung ultrasound or chest x‐ray (clinical and bedside imaging–integrated gestalt [CBIIG]). The final diagnosis was adjudicated after independent review of 30‐day follow‐up data. Results Among 838 ED enrolled patients, 193 (23%) were finally diagnosed with COVID‐19. The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of CG and CBIIG for COVID‐19 were 80.8% and 91.6% (p < 0.01), 82.9% and 91.4% (p = 0.01), and 78.6% and 91.8% (p < 0.01), respectively. CBIIG had similar AUC and sensitivity to reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) for SARS‐CoV‐2 on the first nasopharyngeal swab per se (93.5%, p = 0.24; and 87%, p = 0.17, respectively). CBIIG plus RT‐PCR had a sensitivity of 98.4% for COVID‐19 (p < 0.01 vs. RT‐PCR alone) compared to 95.9% for CG plus RT‐PCR (p = 0.05). Conclusions In suspected COVID‐19, CG and CBIIG have fair diagnostic accuracy, in line with physicians’ gestalt for other acute conditions. Negative RT‐PCR plus low probability based on CBIIG can rule out COVID‐19 with a relatively low number of false‐negative cases.

We investigated the impact of suboptimal platelet reactivity on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We enrolled 500 patients with stable coronary artery disease undergoing elective PCI. Platelet reactivity was measured before PCI using the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay. Primary endpoint was the incidence of ischemic or bleeding events at 1 month and 5 years. Patients with high platelet reactivity (HPR) showed significantly higher rates of ischemic events both during the 1st month after PCI (HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.02-4.06), and beyond 1 month compared with patients without HPR (HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.02-2.95). Conversely, compared with patients without low platelet reactivity (LPR), patients with LPR presented significantly higher rates of bleeding only during the 1st month (HR 3.67, 95% CI 1.68-8.02). In conclusion, pre-procedural HPR is associated with ischemic events even beyond the 1st month after PCI. The association of LPR with bleeding events seems to be confined to the periprocedural period.