BackgroundIn this COVID-19 pandemic, fast and accurate testing is needed to profile patients at the emergency department (ED) and efficiently allocate resources. Chest imaging has been considered in COVID-19 workup, but evidence on lung ultrasound (LUS) is sparse. We therefore aimed to assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy of LUS and computed tomography (CT) in suspected COVID-19 patients.MethodsThis multi-centre, prospective, observational study included adult patients with suspected COVID-19 referred to internal medicine at the ED. We calculated diagnostic accuracy measures for LUS and CT using both PCR and multi-disciplinary team (MDT) diagnosis as reference. We also assessed agreement between LUS and CT, and between sonographers.ResultsBetween March 19 and May 4, 2020, 187 patients were included. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) was 0.81 (CI 0.75–0.88) for LUS and 0.89 (CI 0.84–0.94) for CT. Sensitivity and specificity for LUS were 91.9% (CI 84.0–96.7) and 71.0% (CI 61.1–79.6), versus 88.4% (CI 79.7–94.3) and 82.0% (CI 73.1–89.0) for CT. Negative likelihood ratio was 0.1 (CI 0.06–0.24) for LUS and 0.14 (0.08–0.3) for CT. No patient with a false negative LUS, required supplemental oxygen or admission. LUS specificity increased to 80% (CI 69.9–87.9) compared to MDT diagnosis, with an AUROC of 0.85 (CI 0.79–0.91). Agreement between LUS and CT was 0.65. Inter-observer agreement for LUS was good: 0.89 (CI 0.83–0.93).ConclusionLUS and CT have comparable diagnostic accuracy for COVID-19 pneumonia. LUS can safely exclude clinically relevant COVID-19 pneumonia and may aid COVID-19 diagnosis in high prevalence situations.

BackgroundFluid therapy is the first important step in patients with signs of shock but assessment of the volume status is difficult and invasive measurements are not readily available in the emergency department. We have investigated whether the respiratory variation in diameter of the inferior vena cava is a reliable parameter to predict fluid responsiveness in spontaneous breathing emergency department patients with signs of shock.MethodsAll patients admitted to the emergency department during a 15 week period were screened for signs of shock. If the attending physician planned to give a fluid challenge, the caval index was determined by transabdominal ultrasonography in supine position. Immediately afterwards 500 ml NaCl 0.9% was administered in 15 minutes and the clinical response was observed. An adequate response was defined as an increase in systolic blood pressure of at least 10 mm Hg. Based on this definition patients were divided into responders and non-responders.ResultsAfter selection a total number of 45 patients was included. A low caval index (< 36.5%) in patients with signs of shock reliably predicted the absence of an adequate response to fluid therapy (negative predictive value 92%). The positive predictive value of a high caval index was much lower (48%) despite the fact that responders had a significantly higher pre-infusion caval index than non-responders (48.7% vs 31.8%, p 0.014).ConclusionsIn spontaneously breathing patients with signs of shock in the emergency department, a high caval index (>36.5%) does not reliably predict fluid responsiveness in our study, while a low caval index (<36.5%) makes fluid responsiveness unlikely. An explanation for the absence of a blood pressure response in the group of patients with a low high caval index might be that these patients represent a group requiring more volume therapy than 500 ml.

BackgroundMore than one in five patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with (suspected) infection or sepsis deteriorate within 72 h from admission. Surprisingly little is known about vital signs in relation to deterioration, especially in the ED. The aim of our study was to determine whether repeated vital sign measurements in the ED can differentiate between patients who will deteriorate within 72 h and patients who will not deteriorate.MethodsWe performed a prospective observational study in patients presenting with (suspected) infection or sepsis to the ED of our tertiary care teaching hospital. Vital signs (heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), respiratory rate and body temperature) were measured in 30-min intervals during the first 3 h in the ED. Primary outcome was patient deterioration within 72 h from admission, defined as the development of acute kidney injury, liver failure, respiratory failure, intensive care unit admission or in-hospital mortality. We performed a logistic regression analysis using a base model including age, gender and comorbidities. Thereafter, we performed separate logistic regression analyses for each vital sign using the value at admission, the change over time and its variability. For each analysis, the odds ratios (OR) and area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) were calculated.ResultsIn total 106 (29.5%) of the 359 patients deteriorated within 72 h from admission. Within this timeframe, 18.3% of the patients with infection and 32.9% of the patients with sepsis at ED presentation deteriorated. Associated with deterioration were: age (OR: 1.02), history of diabetes (OR: 1.90), heart rate (OR: 1.01), MAP (OR: 0.96) and respiratory rate (OR: 1.05) at admission, changes over time of MAP (OR: 1.04) and respiratory rate (OR: 1.44) as well as the variability of the MAP (OR: 1.06). Repeated measurements of heart rate and body temperature were not associated with deterioration.ConclusionsRepeated vital sign measurements in the ED are better at identifying patients at risk for deterioration within 72 h from admission than single vital sign measurements at ED admission.