No abstract

AimsAlthough acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is a common cause of dyspnoea, its diagnosis still represents a challenge. Lung ultrasound (LUS) is an emerging point-of-care diagnostic tool, but its diagnostic performance for ADHF has not been evaluated in randomized studies. We evaluated, in patients with acute dyspnoea, accuracy and clinical usefulness of combining LUS with clinical assessment compared to the use of chest radiography (CXR) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in conjunction with clinical evaluation.This was a randomized trial conducted in two emergency departments. After initial clinical evaluation, patients with acute dyspnoea were classified by the treating physician according to presumptive aetiology (ADHF or non-ADHF). Patients were subsequently randomized to continue with either LUS or CXR/NT-proBNP. A new diagnosis, integrating the results of both initial assessment and the newly obtained findings, was then recorded. Diagnostic accuracy and clinical usefulness of LUS and CXR/NT-proBNP approaches were calculated. A total of 518 patients were randomized. Addition of LUS had higher accuracy [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.95] than clinical evaluation alone (AUC 0.88) in identifying ADHF (P < 0.01). In contrast, use of CXR/NT-proBNP did not significantly increase the accuracy of clinical evaluation alone (AUC 0.87 and 0.85, respectively; P > 0.05). The diagnostic accuracy of the LUS-integrated approach was higher then that of the CXR/Nt-proBNP-integrated approach (AUC 0.95 vs. 0.87, p < 0.01). Combining LUS with the clinical evaluation reduced diagnostic errors by 7.98 cases/100 patients, as compared to 2.42 cases/100 patients in the CXR/Nt-proBNP group.

Objective Accurate diagnostic testing to identify SARS–CoV-2 infection is critical. Although highly specific, SARS–CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), has shown, in clinical practice, to be affected by a non-insignificant proportion of false negative results. The study sought to explore whether the integration of lung ultrasound (LUS) with clinical evaluation is associated with increased sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia, and therefore may facilitate the identification of false negative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results. Methods This prospective cohort study enrolled consecutive adult patients with symptoms potentially related to SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to the emergency department (ED) of an Italian academic hospital. Immediately after the initial assessment, a LUS evaluation was performed and the likelihood SARS-CoV-2 infection, based on both clinical and LUS findings (“integrated” assessment), was recorded. RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 detection was subsequently performed. Results We enrolled 228 patients; 107 patients (46.9%) had SARS-CoV-2 infection. Sensitivity and negative predictive value of the clinical-LUS integrated assessment were higher than first RT-PCR [94.4% (95% CI 88.2-97.9), vs. 80.4% (95% CI 71.6-87.4); 95% (95% CI 89.5-98.2), vs. 85.2% (95% CI 78.3-90.6)]. Among the 142 patients who initially had negative RT-PCR, 21 resulted positive at a subsequent molecular test performed within 72 hours. All these false negative cases were correctly identified by the integrated assessment. Conclusion This study suggests that, in patients presenting to the ED with symptoms commonly associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the integration of LUS with clinical evaluation has high sensitivity and specificity for COVID-19 pneumonia and it may help to identify false negative results occurring with RT-PCR.

We appreciate the comments of Drs Cipriani and Ghittoni, which give us the opportunity to further clarify the message of our study. 1 We believe our study demonstrates that an integrated approach combining lung ultrasonography (LUS) and the standard clinical assessment significantly improves the accuracy of the diagnostic process for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). We do not believe that the study outcome can be summarized as "chest radiography (CXR) showed moderate accuracy in the identification of ADHF." The poor diagnostic performance of CXR for identifying ADHF is not a new finding. 2,3 Although very specific, detection of pulmonary venous congestion, interstitial edema, or alveolar edema on CXR has unacceptably low sensitivity. 3 Current guidelines, indeed, caution physicians from using CXR in the diagnosis of ADHF, instead highlighting the value of CXR in the identification of alternative pulmonary causes of a given patient's dyspnea. 4

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives Physicians’ gestalt is central in the diagnostic pipeline of suspected COVID‐19, due to the absence of a single tool allowing conclusive rule in or rule out. The aim of this study was to estimate the diagnostic test characteristics of physician's gestalt for COVID‐19 in the emergency department (ED), based on clinical findings or on a combination of clinical findings and bedside imaging results. Methods From April 1 to April 30, 2020, patients with suspected COVID‐19 were prospectively enrolled in two EDs. Physicians prospectively dichotomized patients in COVID‐19 likely or unlikely twice: after medical evaluation of clinical features (clinical gestalt [CG]) and after evaluation of clinical features and results of lung ultrasound or chest x‐ray (clinical and bedside imaging–integrated gestalt [CBIIG]). The final diagnosis was adjudicated after independent review of 30‐day follow‐up data. Results Among 838 ED enrolled patients, 193 (23%) were finally diagnosed with COVID‐19. The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of CG and CBIIG for COVID‐19 were 80.8% and 91.6% (p < 0.01), 82.9% and 91.4% (p = 0.01), and 78.6% and 91.8% (p < 0.01), respectively. CBIIG had similar AUC and sensitivity to reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) for SARS‐CoV‐2 on the first nasopharyngeal swab per se (93.5%, p = 0.24; and 87%, p = 0.17, respectively). CBIIG plus RT‐PCR had a sensitivity of 98.4% for COVID‐19 (p < 0.01 vs. RT‐PCR alone) compared to 95.9% for CG plus RT‐PCR (p = 0.05). Conclusions In suspected COVID‐19, CG and CBIIG have fair diagnostic accuracy, in line with physicians’ gestalt for other acute conditions. Negative RT‐PCR plus low probability based on CBIIG can rule out COVID‐19 with a relatively low number of false‐negative cases.

In addition to standard clinical evaluation, white blood cell count and platelet count may be used in patients at low pre-test probability to fine-tune risk assessment of AAS.