Search

Background Lower muscle mass is a known predictor of unfavorable outcomes, but its prognostic impact on patients with COVID-19 is unknown. Purpose To investigate the contribution of CT-derived muscle status in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Materials and Methods Clinical or laboratory data and outcomes (intensive care unit [ICU] admission and death) were retrospectively retrieved for patients with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, who underwent chest CT on admission in four hospitals in Northern Italy from February 21 to April 30, 2020. The extent and type of pulmonary involvement, mediastinal lymphadenopathy, and pleural effusion were assessed. Cross-sectional areas and attenuation by paravertebral muscles were measured on axial CT images at the T5 and T12 vertebral level. Multivariable linear and binary logistic regression, including calculation of odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs, were used to build four models to predict ICU admission and death, which were tested and compared by using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Results A total of 552 patients (364 men and 188 women; median age, 65 years [interquartile range, 54-75 years]) were included. In a CT-based model, lower-than-median T5 paravertebral muscle areas showed the highest ORs for ICU admission (OR, 4.8; 95% CI: 2.7, 8.5; P < .001) and death (OR, 2.3; 95% CI: 1.0, 2.9; P = .03). When clinical variables were included in the model, lower-than-median T5 paravertebral muscle areas still showed the highest ORs for both ICU admission (OR, 4.3; 95%: CI: 2.5, 7.7; P < .001) and death (OR, 2.3; 95% CI: 1.3, 3.7; P = .001). At receiver operating characteristic analysis, the CT-based model and the model including clinical variables showed the same area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for ICU admission prediction (AUC, 0.83; P = .38) and were not different in terms of predicting death (AUC, 0.86 vs AUC, 0.87, respectively; P = .28). Conclusion In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, lower muscle mass on CT images was independently associated with intensive care unit admission and in-hospital mortality. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Introduction: The clinical course of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is highly heterogenous, ranging from asymptomatic to fatal forms. The identification of clinical and laboratory predictors of poor prognosis may assist clinicians in monitoring strategies and therapeutic decisions., Materials and Methods: In this study, we retrospectively assessed the prognostic value of a simple tool, the complete blood count, on a cohort of 664 patients ( F 260; 39%, median age 70 (56-81) years) hospitalized for COVID-19 in Northern Italy. We collected demographic data along with complete blood cell count; moreover, the outcome of the hospital in-stay was recorded., Results: At data cut-off, 221/664 patients (33.3%) had died and 453/664 (66.7%) had been discharged. Red cell distribution width (RDW) ( χ 2 10.4; p < 0.001), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte (NL) ratio ( χ 2 7.6; p = 0.006), and platelet count ( χ 2 5.39; p = 0.02), along with age ( χ 2 87.6; p < 0.001) and gender ( χ 2 17.3; p < 0.001), accurately predicted in-hospital mortality. Hemoglobin levels were not associated with mortality. We also identified the best cut-off for mortality prediction: a NL ratio > 4.68 was characterized by an odds ratio for in-hospital mortality (OR) = 3.40 (2.40-4.82), while the OR for a RDW > 13.7% was 4.09 (2.87-5.83); a platelet count > 166,000/ μ L was, conversely, protective (OR: 0.45 (0.32-0.63))., Conclusion: Our findings arise the opportunity of stratifying COVID-19 severity according to simple lab parameters, which may drive clinical decisions about monitoring and treatment., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2021 Mattia Bellan et al.)

Purpose: Optimization of CT scan practices can help achieve and maintain optimal radiation protection. The aim was to assess centering, scan length, and positioning of patients undergoing chest CT for suspected or known COVID-19 pneumonia and to investigate their effect on associated radiation doses., Methods: With respective approvals from institutional review boards, we compiled CT imaging and radiation dose data from four hospitals belonging to four countries (Brazil, Iran, Italy, and USA) on 400 adult patients who underwent chest CT for suspected or known COVID-19 pneumonia between April 2020 and August 2020. We recorded patient demographics and volume CT dose index (CTDI vol ) and dose length product (DLP). From thin-section CT images of each patient, we estimated the scan length and recorded the first and last vertebral bodies at the scan start and end locations. Patient mis-centering and arm position were recorded. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance (ANOVA)., Results: The extent and frequency of patient mis-centering did not differ across the four CT facilities (>0.09). The frequency of patients scanned with arms by their side (11-40% relative to those with arms up) had greater mis-centering and higher CTDI vol and DLP at 2/4 facilities (p = 0.027-0.05). Despite lack of variations in effective diameters (p = 0.14), there were significantly variations in scan lengths, CTDI vol and DLP across the four facilities (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Mis-centering, over-scanning, and arms by the side are frequent issues with use of chest CT in COVID-19 pneumonia and are associated with higher radiation doses., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Computer Tomography (CT) is currently being adapted for visualization of COVID-19 lung damage. Manual classification and characterization of COVID-19 may be biased depending on the expert's opinion. Artificial Intelligence has recently penetrated COVID-19, especially deep learning paradigms. There are nine kinds of classification systems in this study, namely one deep learning-based CNN, five kinds of transfer learning (TL) systems namely VGG16, DenseNet121, DenseNet169, DenseNet201 and MobileNet, three kinds of machine-learning (ML) systems, namely artificial neural network (ANN), decision tree (DT), and random forest (RF) that have been designed for classification of COVID-19 segmented CT lung against Controls. Three kinds of characterization systems were developed namely (a) Block imaging for COVID-19 severity index (CSI); (b) Bispectrum analysis; and (c) Block Entropy. A cohort of Italian patients with 30 controls (990 slices) and 30 COVID-19 patients (705 slices) was used to test the performance of three types of classifiers. Using K10 protocol (90% training and 10% testing), the best accuracy and AUC was for DCNN and RF pairs were 99.41 ± 5.12%, 0.991 (p < 0.0001), and 99.41 ± 0.62%, 0.988 (p < 0.0001), respectively, followed by other ML and TL classifiers. We show that diagnostics odds ratio (DOR) was higher for DL compared to ML, and both, Bispecturm and Block Entropy shows higher values for COVID-19 patients. CSI shows an association with Ground Glass Opacities (0.9146, p < 0.0001). Our hypothesis holds true that deep learning shows superior performance compared to machine learning models. Block imaging is a powerful novel approach for pinpointing COVID-19 severity and is clinically validated.

While image analysis of chest computed tomography (CT) for COVID-19 diagnosis has been intensively studied, little work has been performed for image-based patient outcome prediction. Management of high-risk patients with early intervention is a key to lower the fatality rate of COVID-19 pneumonia, as a majority of patients recover naturally. Therefore, an accurate prediction of disease progression with baseline imaging at the time of the initial presentation can help in patient management. In lieu of only size and volume information of pulmonary abnormalities and features through deep learning based image segmentation, here we combine radiomics of lung opacities and non-imaging features from demographic data, vital signs, and laboratory findings to predict need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission. To our knowledge, this is the first study that uses holistic information of a patient including both imaging and non-imaging data for outcome prediction. The proposed methods were thoroughly evaluated on datasets separately collected from three hospitals, one in the United States, one in Iran, and another in Italy, with a total 295 patients with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay positive COVID-19 pneumonia. Our experimental results demonstrate that adding non-imaging features can significantly improve the performance of prediction to achieve AUC up to 0.884 and sensitivity as high as 96.1%, which can be valuable to provide clinical decision support in managing COVID-19 patients. Our methods may also be applied to other lung diseases including but not limited to community acquired pneumonia. The source code of our work is available at https://github.com/DIAL-RPI/COVID19-ICUPrediction., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Clinical features and natural history of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) differ widely among different countries and during different phases of the pandemia. Here, we aimed to evaluate the case fatality rate (CFR) and to identify predictors of mortality in a cohort of COVID-19 patients admitted to three hospitals of Northern Italy between March 1 and April 28, 2020. All these patients had a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by molecular methods. During the study period 504/1697 patients died; thus, overall CFR was 29.7%. We looked for predictors of mortality in a subgroup of 486 patients (239 males, 59%; median age 71 years) for whom sufficient clinical data were available at data cut-off. Among the demographic and clinical variables considered, age, a diagnosis of cancer, obesity and current smoking independently predicted mortality. When laboratory data were added to the model in a further subgroup of patients, age, the diagnosis of cancer, and the baseline PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio were identified as independent predictors of mortality. In conclusion, the CFR of hospitalized patients in Northern Italy during the ascending phase of the COVID-19 pandemic approached 30%. The identification of mortality predictors might contribute to better stratification of individual patient risk.

Objectives: The goal of this study was to assess chest computed tomography (CT) diagnostic accuracy in clinical practice using RT-PCR as standard of reference., Methods: From March 4th to April 9th 2020, during the peak of the Italian COVID-19 epidemic, we enrolled a series of 773 patients that performed both non-contrast chest CT and RT-PCR with a time interval no longer than a week due to suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. The diagnostic performance of CT was evaluated according to sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and diagnostic accuracy, considering RT-PCR as the reference standard. An analysis on the patients with discrepant CT scan and RT-PCR result and on the patient with both negative tests was performed., Results: RT-PCR testing showed an overall positive rate of 59.8 %. CT sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 infection were 90.7 % [95 % IC, 87.7%-93.2%], 78.8 % [95 % IC, 73.8-83.2%], 86.4 % [95 % IC, 76.1 %-88.9 %], 85.1 % [95 % IC, 81.0 %-88.4] and 85.9 % [95 % IC 83.2-88.3%], respectively. Twenty-five/66 (37.6 %) patients with positive CT and negative RT-PCR results and 12/245 (4.9 %) patients with both negative tests were nevertheless judged as positive cases by the clinicians based on clinical and epidemiological criteria and consequently treated., Conclusions: In our experience, in a context of high pre-test probability, CT scan shows good sensitivity and a consistently higher specificity for the diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia than what reported by previous studies, especially when clinical and epidemiological features are taken into account., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)