Preoperative computerized tomography screening for COVID-19 pneumonia in asymptomatic patients: experiences from two centers

Diagnostic performance of standardized typical CT findings for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To meta-analyze diagnostic performance measures of standardized typical CT findings for COVID-19 and examine these measures by region and national income.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were searched from January 2020 to April 2022 for diagnostic studies using the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) classification or the COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) for COVID-19. Patient and study characteristics were extracted. We pooled the diagnostic performance of typical CT findings in the RSNA and CO-RADS systems and interobserver agreement. Meta-regression was performed to examine the effect of potential explanatory factors on the diagnostic performance of the typical CT findings.

RESULTS

We included 42 diagnostic performance studies with 6777 PCR-positive and 9955 PCR-negative patients from 18 developing and 24 developed countries covering the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Africa. The pooled sensitivity was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 65%, 74%; I² = 92%), and the pooled specificity was 90% (95% CI 86%, 93%; I² = 94%) for the typical CT findings of COVID-19. The sensitivity and specificity of the typical CT findings did not differ significantly by national income and the region of the study (p > 0.1, respectively). The pooled interobserver agreement from 19 studies was 0.72 (95% CI 0.63, 0.81; I² = 99%) for the typical CT findings and 0.67 (95% CI 0.61, 0.74; I² = 99%) for the overall CT classifications.

CONCLUSION

The standardized typical CT findings for COVID-19 provided moderate sensitivity and high specificity globally, regardless of region and national income, and were highly reproducible between radiologists.

CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Standardized typical CT findings for COVID-19 provided a reproducible high diagnostic accuracy globally.

KEY POINTS

Standardized typical CT findings for COVID-19 provide high sensitivity and specificity. Typical CT findings show high diagnosability regardless of region or income. The interobserver agreement for typical findings of COVID-19 is substantial.

Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 Infection Screening before Thoracic Surgery during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVES

During coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, preoperative screening before thoracic surgery is paramount in order to protect patients and staff from undetected infections. This study aimed to determine which preoperative COVID-19 screening tool was the most effective strategy before thoracic surgery.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort multicenter study was performed at 3 Italian thoracic surgery centers. All adult patients scheduled for thoracic surgery procedures from 4th March until 24th April, 2020, and submitted to COVID-19 preoperative screenings were included. The primary outcome was the yield of screening of the different strategies.

RESULTS

A total of 430 screenings were performed on 275 patients; 275 anamnestic questionnaires were administered. 77 patients were screened by an anamnestic questionnaire and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). 78 patients were selected to combine screening with anamnestic questionnaire and chest computed tomography (CT). The positive yield of screening using a combination of anamnestic questionnaire and RT-PCR was 7.8% (95% CI: 2.6-14.3), while using a combination of anamnestic questionnaire and chest CT was 3.8% (95% CI: 0-9). Individual yields were 1.1% (95% CI: 0-2.5) for anamnestic questionnaire, 5.2% (95% CI: 1.3-11.7) for RT-PCR, and 3.8% (95% CI: 0-9).

CONCLUSIONS

The association of anamnestic questionnaire and RT-PCR is able to detect around 8 positives in 100 asymptomatic patients. This combined strategy could be a valuable preoperative SARS-CoV-2 screening tool before thoracic surgery.

Meta-analysis of COVID-19 prevalence during preoperative COVID-19 screening in asymptomatic patients

OBJECTIVES

Patients with COVID-19 may be asymptomatic and are able to transmit COVID-19 during a surgical procedure, resulting in increased pressure on healthcare and reduced control of COVID-19 spread. There remains uncertainty about the implementation of preoperative screening for COVID-19 in asymptomatic surgical patients. Therefore, this study aims to determine the prevalence of preoperative COVID-19, confirmed by reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR), in asymptomatic patients.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Pubmed and Embase databases were searched through 20 February 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All COVID-19 articles including preoperative asymptomatic patients were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed to determine the prevalence of COVID-19 with 95% CI. Moreover, estimated positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, false-positives (FP) and false-negatives were calculated for preoperative asymptomatic patients.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies containing 27 256 asymptomatic preoperative screened patients were included, of which 431 were positive for COVID-19 by RT-PCR test. In addition, the meta-analysis revealed a pooled COVID-19 prevalence of 0.76% (95% CI 0.36% to 1.59%). The calculated PPV for this prevalence is 40.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled COVID-19 prevalence in asymptomatic patients tested preoperatively was 0.76%, with low corresponding PPV. Consequently, nearly three-quarters of postponed surgical procedures in asymptomatic preoperative patients may be FP. In the event of similar pandemics, modification of preoperative mandatory RT-PCR COVID-19 testing in asymptomatic patients may be considered.

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Our March 2021 edition of this review showed thoracic imaging computed tomography (CT) to be sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia. This new edition is an update of the review.

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in people with suspected COVID-19; assess the rate of positive imaging in people who had an initial reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negative result and a positive RT-PCR result on follow-up; and evaluate the accuracy of thoracic imaging for screening COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals. The secondary objective was to assess threshold effects of index test positivity on accuracy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 17 February 2021. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included diagnostic accuracy studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19. Studies had to assess chest CT, chest X-ray, or ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of COVID-19, use a reference standard that included RT-PCR, and report estimates of test accuracy or provide data from which we could compute estimates. We excluded studies that used imaging as part of the reference standard and studies that excluded participants with normal index test results.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using QUADAS-2. We presented sensitivity and specificity per study on paired forest plots, and summarized pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 98 studies in this review. Of these, 94 were included for evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in the evaluation of people with suspected COVID-19. Eight studies were included for assessing the rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results and positive RT-PCR results on follow-up, and 10 studies were included for evaluating the accuracy of thoracic imaging for imagining asymptomatic individuals. For all 98 included studies, risk of bias was high or unclear in 52 (53%) studies with respect to participant selection, in 64 (65%) studies with respect to reference standard, in 46 (47%) studies with respect to index test, and in 48 (49%) studies with respect to flow and timing. Concerns about the applicability of the evidence to: participants were high or unclear in eight (8%) studies; index test were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies; and reference standard were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies. Imaging in people with suspected COVID-19 We included 94 studies. Eighty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality, and seven studies evaluated two imaging modalities. All studies used RT-PCR alone or in combination with other criteria (for example, clinical signs and symptoms, positive contacts) as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (69 studies, 28285 participants, 14,342 (51%) cases), sensitivities ranged from 45% to 100%, and specificities from 10% to 99%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 86.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83.6 to 89.6), and pooled specificity was 78.3% (95% CI 73.7 to 82.3). Definition for index test positivity was a source of heterogeneity for sensitivity, but not specificity. Reference standard was not a source of heterogeneity. For chest X-ray (17 studies, 8529 participants, 5303 (62%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 44% to 94% and specificity from 24 to 93%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 73.1% (95% CI 64. to -80.5), and pooled specificity was 73.3% (95% CI 61.9 to 82.2). Definition for index test positivity was not found to be a source of heterogeneity. Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. For ultrasound of the lungs (15 studies, 2410 participants, 1158 (48%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 73% to 94% and the specificity ranged from 21% to 98%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 88.9% (95% CI 84.9 to 92.0), and the pooled specificity was 72.2% (95% CI 58.8 to 82.5). Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. Indirect comparisons of modalities evaluated across all 94 studies indicated that chest CT and ultrasound gave higher sensitivity estimates than X-ray (P = 0.0003 and P = 0.001, respectively). Chest CT and ultrasound gave similar sensitivities (P=0.42). All modalities had similar specificities (CT versus X-ray P = 0.36; CT versus ultrasound P = 0.32; X-ray versus ultrasound P = 0.89). Imaging in PCR-negative people who subsequently became positive For rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results, we included 8 studies (7 CT, 1 ultrasound) with a total of 198 participants suspected of having COVID-19, all of whom had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Most studies (7/8) evaluated CT. Of 177 participants with initially negative RT-PCR who had positive RT-PCR results on follow-up testing, 75.8% (95% CI 45.3 to 92.2) had positive CT findings. Imaging in asymptomatic PCR-positive people For imaging asymptomatic individuals, we included 10 studies (7 CT, 1 X-ray, 2 ultrasound) with a total of 3548 asymptomatic participants, of whom 364 (10%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (7 studies, 3134 participants, 315 (10%) cases), the pooled sensitivity was 55.7% (95% CI 35.4 to 74.3) and the pooled specificity was 91.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 95.7).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Chest CT and ultrasound of the lungs are sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for ruling out COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. The uncertainty resulting from high or unclear risk of bias and the heterogeneity of included studies limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.

Clinical significance of chest CT for the exclusion of COVID-19 in pre-admission screening: is it worthwhile using chest CT with reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction test?

Background

A single reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test is not sufficient to exclude COVID-19 in hospital pre-admission screening. However, repeated RT-PCR tests are time-consuming. This study investigates the utility of chest computed tomography (CT) for COVID-19 screening in asymptomatic patients.

Methods

Between April 2020 and March 2021, RT-PCR testing and chest CT were performed to screen COVID-19 in 10 823 asymptomatic patients prior to admission. Chest CT findings were retrospectively evaluated using the reporting system of the Radiological Society of North America. Using RT-PCR results as a reference, we assessed the diagnostic efficacy of chest CT during both the low- and high-prevalence periods of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

Following a positive RT-PCR test, 20 asymptomatic patients (0.18%) were diagnosed with COVID-19; in the low-prevalence period, 5 of 6556 patients (0.076%) were positive; and in the high-prevalence period, 15 of 4267 patients (0.35%) were positive. Of the 20 asymptomatic COVID-19 positive patients, chest CT results were positive for COVID-19 pneumonia in 8 patients. Chest CT results were false-positive in 185 patients (1.7% false-positive rate, and 60% false-negative rate). Pneumonia that was classified as a “typical appearance” of COVID-19 reported as false-positives in 36 of 39 patients (92.3%). Across the study period, the diagnostic efficacy of “typical appearance” on chest CT were characterized by a sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 15%, 99.7%, 99.7%, 7.7%, and 99.8%; 20%, 99.6%, 99.6%, 4%, and 99.9%; and 13.3%, 99.7%, 99.7%, 14.3%, and 99.7%, in the entire study, low-, and high-prevalence periods, respectively.

Conclusions

Addition of chest CT to RT-PCR testing provides no benefit to the detection of COVID-19 in asymptomatic patients.

Evaluation of the Post-COVID Patient Prior to Elective Plastic Surgery: Developing an Evidence-Based Framework

Preoperative assessment of a potential surgical patient has long been a cornerstone of patient safety. As more patients get, and recover from, COVID-19, plastic surgeons will be faced with the challenge of evaluating the health status and operative risk of convalescent COVID patients who now desire elective surgery. A significant fraction of these patients, however, can have new or persistent health issues as a result of COVID-19, which can affect surgical safety. This paper briefly examines the current relevant literature regarding the post-COVID patient, reviews the waiting period for adequate recovery, and suggests an evidence-based framework for preoperative assessment, based on the severity of the prior COVID-19 episode, ongoing symptoms, and basic screening tests.

Imaging of COVID-19: An update of current evidences

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has been reported as a global emergency. As respiratory dysfunction is a major clinical presentation of COVID-19, chest computed tomography (CT) plays a central role in the diagnosis and management of patients with COVID-19. Recent advances in imaging approaches using artificial intelligence have been essential as a quantification and diagnostic tool to differentiate COVID-19 from other respiratory infectious diseases. Furthermore, cardiovascular involvement in patients with COVID-19 is not negligible and may result in rapid worsening of the disease and sudden death. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging can accurately depict myocardial involvement in SARS-CoV-2 infection. This review summarizes the role of the radiology department in the management and the diagnosis of COVID-19, with a special emphasis on ultra-high-resolution CT findings, cardiovascular complications and the potential of artificial intelligence.