Search

Introduction: Current recommendations for diagnostic imaging for moderately to severely ill patients with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) include chest radiograph (CXR). Our primary objective was to determine whether lung ultrasound (LUS) B-lines, when excluding patients with alternative etiologies for B-lines, are more sensitive for the associated diagnosis of COVID-19 than CXR.Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients who presented to a single, academic emergency department in the United States between March 20 and April 6, 2020, and received LUS, CXR, and viral testing for COVID-19 as part of their diagnostic evaluation. The primary objective was to estimate the test characteristics of both LUS B-lines and CXR for the associated diagnosis of COVID-19. Our secondary objective was to evaluate the proportion of patients with COVID-19 that have secondary LUS findings of pleural abnormalities and subpleural consolidations.Results: We identified 43 patients who underwent both LUS and CXR and were tested for COVID-19. Of these, 27/43 (63%) tested positive. LUS was more sensitive (88.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 71.1-97.0) for the associated diagnosis of COVID-19 than CXR (51.9%, 95% CI, 34.0-69.3; p = 0.013). LUS and CXR specificity were 56.3% (95% CI, 33.2-76.9) and 75.0% (95% CI, 50.0-90.3), respectively (p = 0.453). Secondary LUS findings of patients with COVID-19 demonstrated 21/27 (77.8%) had pleural abnormalities and 10/27 (37%) had subpleural consolidations.Conclusion: Among patients who underwent LUS and CXR, LUS was found to have a higher sensitivity than CXR for the evaluation of COVID-19. This data could have important implications as an aid in the diagnostic evaluation of COVID-19, particularly where viral testing is not available or restricted. If generalizable, future directions would include defining how to incorporate LUS into clinical management and its role in screening lower-risk populations.

Introduction: Supporting an “ultrasound-first” approach to evaluating renal colic in the emergency department (ED) remains important for improving patient care and decreasing healthcare costs. Our primary objective was to compare emergency physician (EP) ultrasound to computed tomography (CT) detection of hydronephrosis severity in patients with suspected renal colic. We calculated test characteristics of hydronephrosis on EP-performed ultrasound for detecting ureteral stones or ureteral stone size >5mm. We then analyzed the association of hydronephrosis on EP-performed ultrasound, stone size >5mm, and proximal stone location with 30-day events.Methods: This was a prospective observational study of ED patients with suspected renal colic undergoing CT. Subjects had an EP-performed ultrasound evaluating for the severity of hydronephrosis. A chart review and follow-up phone call was performed.Results: We enrolled 302 subjects who had an EP-performed ultrasound. CT and EP ultrasound results were comparable in detecting severity of hydronephrosis (x2=51.7, p5mm less likely (NPV 89%; LR-0.39). Larger stone size > 5mm was associated with 30-day events (OR 2.30, p=0.03).Conclusion: Using an ultrasound-first approach to detect hydronephrosis may help physicians identify patients with renal colic. The lack of hydronephrosis on ultrasound makes the presence of a larger ureteral stone less likely. Stone size >5mm may be a useful predictor of 30-day events.

Introduction: Emergency departments (EDs) may be high-yield venues to address opioid deaths with education on both overdose prevention and appropriate actions in a witnessed overdose. In addition, the ED has the potential to equip patients with nasal naloxone kits as part of this effort. We evaluated the feasibility of an ED-based overdose prevention program and described the overdose risk knowledge, opioid use, overdoses, and overdose responses among participants who received overdose education and naloxone rescue kits (OEN) and participants who received overdose education only (OE).Methods: Program participants were surveyed by telephone after their ED visit about their substance use, overdose risk knowledge, history of witnessed and personal overdoses, and actions in a witnessed overdose including use of naloxone.Results: A total of 415 ED patients received OE or OEN between January 1, 2011 and February 28, 2012. Among those, 51 (12%) completed the survey; 37 (73%) of those received a naloxone kit, and 14 (27%) received OE only. Past 30-day opioid use was reported by 35% OEN and 36% OE, and an overdose was reported by 19% OEN and 29% OE. Among 53% (27/51) of participants who witnessed another individual experiencing an overdose, 95% OEN and 88% OE stayed with victim, 74% OEN and 38% OE called 911, 26% OEN and 25% OE performed rescue breathing, and 32% OEN (n=6) used a naloxone kit to reverse the overdose. We did not detect statistically significant differences between OEN and OE-only groups in opioid use, overdose or response to a witnessed overdose.Conclusion: This is the first study to demonstrate the feasibility of ED-based opioid overdose prevention education and naloxone distribution to trained laypersons, patients and their social network. The program reached a high-risk population that commonly witnessed overdoses and that called for help and used naloxone, when available, to rescue people. While the study was retrospective with a low response rate, it provides preliminary data for larger, prospective studies of ED-based overdose prevention programs. [West J Emerg Med. 2015;16(3):381–384.]