Three-month follow-up after severe COVID-19 infection: are chest CT results associated with respiratory outcomes and respiratory recovery in COVID-19 patients?

Background: CT Severity Score (CT-SS) can be used to assess the extent of severe coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pneumonia. Follow-up CT-SS in patients surviving COVID-19-associated hyperinflammation and its correlation with respiratory parameters remains unknown. This study aims to assess the association between CT-SS and respiratory outcomes, both in hospital and at three months after hospitalization. Methods: Patients from the COVID-19 High-intensity Immunosuppression in Cytokine storm Syndrome (CHIC) study surviving hospitalization due to COVID-19 associated hyperinflammation were invited for follow-up assessment at three months after hospitalization. Results of CT-SS three months after hospitalization were compared with CT-SS at hospital admission. CT-SS at admission and at 3-months were correlated with respiratory status during hospitalization and with patient reported outcomes as well as pulmonary- and exercise function tests at 3-months after hospitalization. Results: A total of 113 patients were included. Mean CT-SS decreased by 40.4% (SD 27.6) in three months (P 80%pred vs. 14.3 (3.2) in those with DLCO < 40%pred, P = 0.002). Conclusion: Patients surviving hospitalization for COVID-19-associated hyperinflammation with higher CT-SS have worse respiratory outcome, both in-hospital and at 3-months after hospitalization. Strict monitoring of patients with high CT-SS is therefore warranted

Pulmonary embolism in hospitalized COVID-19 patients:Short- and long-term clinical outcomes

Introduction: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a frequent complication in COVID-19. However, the influence of PE on the prognosis of COVID-19 remains unclear as previous studies were affected by misclassification bias. Therefore, we evaluated a cohort of COVID-19 patients whom all underwent systematic screening for PE (thereby avoiding misclassification) and compared clinical outcomes between patients with and without PE. Materials and methods: We included all COVID-19 patients who were admitted through the ED between April 2020 and February 2021. All patients underwent systematic work-up for PE in the ED using the YEARS-algorithm. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality and ICU admission. We also evaluated long-term outcomes including PE occurrence within 90 days after discharge and one-year all-cause mortality. Results: 637 ED patients were included in the analysis. PE was diagnosed in 46 of them (7.2%). The occurrence of the primary outcome did not differ between patients with PE and those without (28.3% vs. 26.9%, p = 0.68). The overall rate of PE diagnosed in-hospital (after an initial negative PE screening in the ED) and in the first 90 days after discharge was 3.9% and 1.2% respectively. One-year all-cause mortality was similar between patients with and without PE (26.1% vs. 24.4%, p = 0.83). Conclusions: In a cohort of COVID-19 patients who underwent systematic PE screening in the ED, we found no differences in mortality rate and ICU admissions between patients with and without PE. This may indicate that proactive PE screening, and thus timely diagnosis and treatment of PE, may limit further clinical deterioration and associated mortality in COVID-19 patients

CO-RADS:A Categorical CT Assessment Scheme for Patients Suspected of Having COVID-19 Definition and Evaluation

Background: A categorical CT assessment scheme for suspicion of pulmonary involvement of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19 provides a basis for gathering scientific evidence and improved communication with referring physicians. Purpose: To introduce the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) for use in the standardized assessment of pulmonary involvement of COVID-19 on unenhanced chest CT images and to report its initial interobserver agreement and performance. Materials and Methods: The Dutch Radiological Society developed CO-RADS based on other efforts for standardization, such as the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System or Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. CO-RADS assesses the suspicion for pulmonary involvement of COVID-19 on a scale from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). The system is meant to be used in patients with moderate to severe symptoms of COVID-19. The system was evaluated by using 105 chest CT scans of patients admitted to the hospital with clinical suspicion of COVID-19 and in whom reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was performed (mean, 62 years ± 16 [standard deviation]; 61 men, 53 with positive RT-PCR results). Eight observers used CO-RADS to assess the scans. Fleiss k value was calculated, and scores of individual observers were compared with the median of the remaining seven observers. The resulting area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) was compared with results from RTPCR and clinical diagnosis of COVID-19. Results: There was absolute agreement among observers in 573 (68.2%) of 840 observations. Fleiss k value was 0.47 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45, 0.47), with the highest k value for CO-RADS categories 1 (0.58, 95% CI: 0.54, 0.62) and 5 (0.68, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.72). The average AUC was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.97) for predicting RT-PCR outcome and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.91, 0.99) for clinical diagnosis. The false-negative rate for CO-RADS 1 was nine of 161 cases (5.6%; 95% CI: 1.0%, 10%), and the falsepositive rate for CO-RADS category 5 was one of 286 (0.3%; 95% CI: 0%, 1.0%). Conclusion: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) is a categorical assessment scheme for pulmonary involvement of COVID-19 at unenhanced chest CT that performs very well in predicting COVID-19 in patients with moderate to severe symptoms and has substantial interobserver agreement, especially for categories 1 and 5

Systematic screening versus clinical gestalt in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients in the emergency department.

BackgroundDiagnosing concomitant pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 patients remains challenging. As such, PE may be overlooked. We compared the diagnostic yield of systematic PE-screening based on the YEARS-algorithm to PE-screening based on clinical gestalt in emergency department (ED) patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe included all ED patients who were admitted because of COVID-19 between March 2020 and February 2021. Patients already receiving anticoagulant treatment were excluded. Up to April 7, 2020, the decision to perform CT-pulmonary angiography (CTPA) was based on physician's clinical gestalt (clinical gestalt cohort). From April 7 onwards, systematic PE-screening was performed by CTPA if D-dimer level was ≥1000 ug/L, or ≥500 ug/L in case of ≥1 YEARS-item (systematic screening cohort).Results1095 ED patients with COVID-19 were admitted. After applying exclusion criteria, 289 were included in the clinical gestalt and 574 in the systematic screening cohort. The number of PE diagnoses was significantly higher in the systematic screening cohort compared to the clinical gestalt cohort: 8.2% vs. 1.0% (3/289 vs. 47/574; p100 mg/L (OR 2.78, 95%CI 1.37-5.66, p = 0.005) were independently associated with PE.ConclusionIn ED patients with COVID-19, the number of PE diagnosis was significantly higher in the cohort that underwent systematic PE screening based on the YEARS-algorithm in comparison with the clinical gestalt cohort, with a number needed to test of 7.1 CTPAs to detect one PE

Systematic screening versus clinical gestalt in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients in the emergency department

Background Diagnosing concomitant pulmonary embolism (PE) in COVID-19 patients remains challenging. As such, PE may be overlooked. We compared the diagnostic yield of systematic PE-screening based on the YEARS-algorithm to PE-screening based on clinical gestalt in emergency department (ED) patients with COVID-19. Methods We included all ED patients who were admitted because of COVID-19 between March 2020 and February 2021. Patients already receiving anticoagulant treatment were excluded. Up to April 7, 2020, the decision to perform CT-pulmonary angiography (CTPA) was based on physician’s clinical gestalt (clinical gestalt cohort). From April 7 onwards, systematic PE-screening was performed by CTPA if D-dimer level was ≥1000 ug/L, or ≥500 ug/L in case of ≥1 YEARS-item (systematic screening cohort). Results 1095 ED patients with COVID-19 were admitted. After applying exclusion criteria, 289 were included in the clinical gestalt and 574 in the systematic screening cohort. The number of PE diagnoses was significantly higher in the systematic screening cohort compared to the clinical gestalt cohort: 8.2% vs. 1.0% (3/289 vs. 47/574; p100 mg/L (OR 2.78, 95%CI 1.37–5.66, p = 0.005) were independently associated with PE. Conclusion In ED patients with COVID-19, the number of PE diagnosis was significantly higher in the cohort that underwent systematic PE screening based on the YEARS-algorithm in comparison with the clinical gestalt cohort, with a number needed to test of 7.1 CTPAs to detect one PE