Search

BackgroundBedside lung ultrasound (LUS) is an affordable diagnostic tool that could contribute to identifying COVID-19 pneumonia. Different LUS protocols are currently used at the emergency department (ED) and there is a need to know their diagnostic accuracy.DesignA multicentre, prospective, observational study, to compare the diagnostic accuracy of three commonly used LUS protocols in identifying COVID-19 pneumonia at the ED.Setting/patientsAdult patients with suspected COVID-19 at the ED, in whom we prospectively performed 12-zone LUS and SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription PCR.MeasurementsWe assessed diagnostic accuracy for three different ultrasound protocols using both PCR and final diagnosis as a reference standard.ResultsBetween 19 March 2020 and 4 May 2020, 202 patients were included. Sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value compared with PCR for 12-zone LUS were 91.4% (95% CI 84.4 to 96.0), 83.5% (95% CI 74.6 to 90.3) and 90.0% (95% CI 82.7 to 94.4). For 8-zone and 6-zone protocols, these results were 79.7 (95% CI 69.9 to 87.6), 69.0% (95% CI 59.6 to 77.4) and 81.3% (95% CI 73.8 to 87.0) versus 89.9% (95% CI 81.7 to 95.3), 57.5% (95% CI 47.9 to 66.8) and 87.8% (95% CI 79.2 to 93.2). Negative likelihood ratios for 12, 8 and 6 zones were 0.1, 0.3 and 0.2, respectively. Compared with the final diagnosis specificity increased to 83.5% (95% CI 74.6 to 90.3), 78.4% (95% CI 68.8 to 86.1) and 65.0% (95% CI 54.6 to 74.4), respectively, while the negative likelihood ratios were 0.1, 0.2 and 0.16.ConclusionIdentifying COVID-19 pneumonia at the ED can be aided by bedside LUS. The more efficient 6-zone protocol is an excellent screening tool, while the 12-zone protocol is more specific and gives a general impression on lung involvement.Trial registration numberNL8497.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic presents a challenge for healthcare worldwide. In this context, rapid, correct diagnosis and early isolation of infected persons is of great importance. Pneumonia as an expression of COVID-19 is responsible for the most part of morbidity and mortality. Lung ultrasound can provide valuable information about the diagnosis of a COVID-19 pneumonia in daily practice. A normal ultrasound excludes COVID-19 pneumonia. Conversely, finding abnormalities matching with a COVID-19 pneumonia can be useful for isolation policy. Follow up lung ultrasound visualizes the development of the pneumonia and a possible alternative diagnosis can thereby be determined in the event of a deviating clinical course.

Summary Background Validated diagnostic algorithms in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism are often not used correctly or only benefit subgroups of patients, leading to overuse of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). The YEARS clinical decision rule that incorporates differential D-dimer cutoff values at presentation, has been developed to be fast, to be compatible with clinical practice, and to reduce the number of CTPA investigations in all age groups. We aimed to prospectively evaluate this novel and simplified diagnostic algorithm for suspected acute pulmonary embolism. Methods We did a prospective, multicentre, cohort study in 12 hospitals in the Netherlands, including consecutive patients with suspected pulmonary embolism between Oct 5, 2013, to July 9, 2015. Patients were managed by simultaneous assessment of the YEARS clinical decision rule, consisting of three items (clinical signs of deep vein thrombosis, haemoptysis, and whether pulmonary embolism is the most likely diagnosis), and D-dimer concentrations. In patients without YEARS items and D-dimer less than 1000 ng/mL, or in patients with one or more YEARS items and D-dimer less than 500 ng/mL, pulmonary embolism was considered excluded. All other patients had CTPA. The primary outcome was the number of independently adjudicated events of venous thromboembolism during 3 months of follow-up after pulmonary embolism was excluded, and the secondary outcome was the number of required CTPA compared with the Wells' diagnostic algorithm. For the primary outcome regarding the safety of the diagnostic strategy, we used a per-protocol approach. For the secondary outcome regarding the efficiency of the diagnostic strategy, we used an intention-to-diagnose approach. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Registry, number NTR4193. Findings 3616 consecutive patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism were screened, of whom 151 (4%) were excluded. The remaining 3465 patients were assessed of whom 456 (13%) were diagnosed with pulmonary embolism at baseline. Of the 2946 patients (85%) in whom pulmonary embolism was ruled out at baseline and remained untreated, 18 patients were diagnosed with symptomatic venous thromboembolism during 3-month follow-up (0·61%, 95% CI 0·36–0·96) of whom six had fatal pulmonary embolism (0·20%, 0·07–0·44). CTPA was not indicated in 1651 (48%) patients with the YEARS algorithm compared with 1174 (34%) patients, if Wells' rule and fixed D-dimer threshold of less than 500 ng/mL would have been applied, a difference of 14% (95% CI 12–16). Interpretation In our study pulmonary embolism was safely excluded by the YEARS diagnostic algorithm in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. The main advantage of the YEARS algorithm in our patients is the absolute 14% decrease of CTPA examinations in all ages and across several relevant subgroups. Funding This study was supported by unrestricted grants from the participating hospitals.