Background Previous studies have reported on myocardial injury in patients with coronavirus infectious disease 19 (COVID-19) defined as elevated cardiac biomarkers. Whether elevated biomarkers truly represent myocardial dysfunction is not known. The aim of this study was to explore the incidence of ventricular dysfunction and assess its relationship with biomarker analyses. Methods This cross-sectional study ran from April 1 to May 12, 2020, and consisted of all consecutively admitted patients to the Radboud university medical Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (

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.

contributed equally to this study.Registration: This study is registered with trialregister.nl, Trial NL8497.Funding and support: By JACEP Open policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org). The authors have stated that no such relationships exist.Background: Assessing the extent of lung involvement is important for the triage and care of COVID-19 pneumonia. We sought to determine the utility of point-ofcare ultrasound (POCUS) for characterizing lung involvement and, thereby, clinical risk determination in COVID-19 pneumonia.Methods: This multicenter, prospective, observational study included patients with COVID-19 who received 12-zone lung ultrasound and chest computed tomography (CT) scanning in the emergency department (ED). We defined lung disease severity using the lung ultrasound score (LUS) and chest CT severity score (CTSS). We assessed the association between the LUS and poor outcome (ICU admission or 30-day all-cause mortality). We also assessed the association between the LUS and hospital length of stay. We examined the ability of the LUS to differentiate between disease severity groups. Lastly, we estimated the correlation between the LUS and CTSS and the interrater agreement for the LUS. We handled missing data by multiple imputation with chained equations and predictive mean matching.

No abstract

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.

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) integrates imaging into the physical examination at the bedside. This offers the advantage of instant clinical information and has shown to speed up the diagnostic process, and to improve diagnostic accuracy and correct treatment.

Review question / Objective: To summarize the existing literature on point-of-care ultrasound in dyspnea, nontraumatic hypotension, and shock. Condition being studied: Patients with dyspnea, nontraumatic hypotension, and shock who were assessed using point-of-care ultrasound. Information sources: The electronic databases PubMed and Embase were searched. In addition we reviewed the reference lists of included papers.

Purpose Patients with COVID-19 have an increased risk for venous thrombo-embolism (VTE), especially pulmonary embolism. The exact prevalence of asymptomatic DVT is not known, as is the usefulness of screening for DVT in patients admitted to ward with COVID-19. We have studied the prevalence of asymptomatic DVT. Methods We performed a cross-sectional observational multi-center study at four university medical centers in The Netherlands. All adult patients admitted with COVID-19 to a medical ward were eligible for inclusion, including patients who were transferred back from the ICU to the ward. The study protocol consisted of weekly cross-sectional rounds of compression ultrasound. Results In total, 125 patients were included in the study. A significant proportion of patients (N = 34 (27%)) had developed a VTE during their admission for COVID-19 before the study ultrasound was performed. In most VTE cases (N = 27 (79%)) this concerned pulmonary embolism. A new asymptomatic DVT was found in 5 of 125 patients (4.0%; 95% CI 1.3–9.1%) (Table 2). Nine patients (7.2%; 95% CI 3.3–13.2%) developed a VTE (all PE) diagnosed within 28 days after the screening US was performed. Conclusion We have shown a low prevalence (4%) of newly discovered asymptomatic DVT outside the ICU-setting in COVID-19 patients. Despite this low prevalence, nine patients developed PE (7%) within 28 days after ultrasound. This favors the hypothesis of local thrombus formation in the lungs. Based on our findings and literature, we do not recommend US-screening of asymptomatic patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ward.