Lung ultrasound as diagnostic tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection

Lung Ultrasound Score in COVID-19 Patients Correlates with PO2/FiO2, Intubation Rates, and Mortality

Introduction

The point-of-care lung ultrasound (LUS) score has been used in coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) patients for diagnosis and risk stratification, due to excellent sensitivity and infection control concerns. We studied the ratio of partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood to the fraction of inspiratory oxygen concentration (PO2/FiO2), intubation rates, and mortality correlation to the LUS score.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review using PRISMA guidelines. Included were articles published from December 1, 2019-November 30, 2021 using LUS in adult COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit or the emergency department. Excluded were studies on animals and on pediatric and pregnant patients. We assessed bias using QUADAS-2. Outcomes were LUS score and correlation to PO2/FiO2, intubation, and mortality rates. Random effects model pooled the meta-analysis results.

Results

We reviewed 27 of 5,267 studies identified. Of the 27 studies, seven were included in the intubation outcome, six in the correlation to PO2/FiO2 outcome, and six in the mortality outcome. Heterogeneity was found in ultrasound protocols and outcomes. In the pooled results of 267 patients, LUS score was found to have a strong negative correlation to PO2/FiO2 with a correlation coefficient of -0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.75, -0.62). In pooled results, 273 intubated patients had a mean LUS score that was 6.95 points higher (95% CI 4.58-9.31) than that of 379 non-intubated patients. In the mortality outcome, 385 survivors had a mean LUS score that was 4.61 points lower (95% CI 3.64-5.58) than that of 181 non-survivors. There was significant heterogeneity between the studies as measured by the I2 and Cochran Q test.

Conclusion

A higher LUS score was strongly correlated with a decreasing PO2/FiO2 in COVID-19 pneumonia patients. The LUS score was significantly higher in intubated vs non-intubated patients with COVID-19. The LUS score was significantly lower in critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia that survive.

Lung ultrasound in the COVID-19 era: a lesson to be learned for the future

Lung Ultrasound (LUS) is a reliable, radiation free and bedside imaging technique to assess several pulmonary diseases. Although the diagnosis of COVID-19 is made with the nasopharyngeal swab, detection of pulmonary involvement is key for a safe patient management. LUS is a valid alternative to explore, in paucisymptomatic self-presenting patients, the presence and extension of pneumonia compared to High Resolution Computed Tomography (HRCT) that represent the gold standard. This is a single-centre prospective study with 131 patients enrolled. Twelve lung areas were explored reporting a semiquantitative assessment to obtain the LUS score. Each patient performed reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction test (rRT-PCR), hemogasanalysis and HRCT. We observed an inverse correlation between LUSs and pO2, P/F, SpO2, AaDO2 (p value < 0.01), a direct correlation with LUSs and AaDO2 (p value < 0.01). Compared with HRCT, LUS showed sensitivity and specificity of 81.8% and 55.4%, respectively, and VPN 75%, VPP 65%. Therefore, LUS can represent an effective alternative tool to detect pulmonary involvement in COVID-19 compared to HRCT.

Lung ultrasound-guided PEEP titration in COVID-19 patients treated with CPAP

OBJECTIVES

An increasing number of COVID-19 patients were treated with continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP). To evaluate the clinical effects of personalized positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) compared to standard fixed PEEP in COVID-19 patients requiring CPAP.

METHODS

This is a single center, prospective, randomized clinical study. Sixty-three COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure and bilateral pneumonia were randomized in two Groups: Group A received CPAP with fixed PEEP of 10 cm H2O, Group B performed the "PEEP trial", that consists in the evaluation of best PEEP defined as the PEEP value that precedes the echographic appearance of "lung pulse" determining a PaO2/FiO2 increase. Primary outcome was composite in-hospital mortality + intubation, secondary outcome was the percentage increase of PaO2/FiO2. As safety indicator, the incidence of pneumothorax was collected.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were enrolled in Group A and 31 in Group B. The two groups were comparable for clinical characteristics and laboratory parameters. The primary outcome occurred in 36 (57.1 %) patients: 23 (71.8 %) in Group A and 13 (41.9 %) in Group B (p<0.01). Mortality was higher in Group A (53.1 vs. 19.3 %, p<0.01), while intubation rate was comparable between groups. Group B showed a higher PaO2/FiO2 increase than Group A (34.9 vs. 13.1 %, p<0.01). Five cases of pneumothorax were reported in Group A, none in Group B.

CONCLUSIONS

Lung ultrasound-guided PEEP trial is associated with lower mortality in COVID-19 patients treated with CPAP. Identifying the best PEEP is useful to increase oxygenation and reduce the incidence of complications.

Lung ultrasound score severity cut-off points in COVID-19 pneumonia. A systematic review and validating cohort

Objectives

Our purpose was to establish different cut-off points based on the lung ultrasound score (LUS) to classify COVID-19 pneumonia severity.

Methods

Initially, we conducted a systematic review among previously proposed LUS cut-off points. Then, these results were validated by a single-centre prospective cohort study of adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studied variables were poor outcome (ventilation support, intensive care unit admission or 28-days mortality) and 28-days mortality.

Results

From 510 articles, 11 articles were included. Among the cut-off points proposed in the articles included, only the LUS > 15 cut-off point could be validated for its original endpoint, demonstrating also the strongest relation with poor outcome (odds ratio [OR] = 3.636, confidence interval [CI] 1.411-9.374). Regarding our cohort, 127 patients were admitted. In these patients, LUS was statistically associated with poor outcome (OR = 1.303, CI 1.137-1.493), and with 28-days mortality (OR = 1.024, CI 1.006-1.042). LUS > 15 showed the best diagnostic performance when choosing a single cut-off point in our cohort (area under the curve 0.650). LUS ≤ 7 showed high sensitivity to rule out poor outcome (0.89, CI 0.695-0.955), while LUS > 20 revealed high specificity to predict poor outcome (0.86, CI 0.776-0.917).

Conclusions

LUS is a good predictor of poor outcome and 28-days mortality in COVID-19. LUS ≤ 7 cut-off point is associated with mild pneumonia, LUS 8-20 with moderate pneumonia and ≥20 with severe pneumonia. If a single cut-off point were used, LUS > 15 would be the point which better discriminates mild from severe disease.

Blood lactate in mild and moderate ARDS secondary to SARS COV 2

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Elevated blood lactate levels are associated with poor outcome in several critical conditions. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 rarely develop hyperlactatemia. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the trend of lactatemia in patients affected by mild/moderate SARS-Co V-2-ARDS and if it affected prognosis.

METHODS

We analyzed blood lactate levels in thirty-eight patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to COVID Care Unit of Santa Maria delle Grazie Hospital, Pozzuoli.

RESULTS

Twenty patients survived and were discharged at home and 18 patients died. Despite severe hypoxia that affected all patients enrolled, T0 lactate was within normal values. All survivors showed a significant increase in lactate concentration the day prior to clinical improvement. In not-survivors levels of lactate did not increase significantly.

CONCLUSION

In our study, patients who survive SARS CoV-2 ARDS have a fleeting increase in lactate, which precedes clinical improvement by one day.

Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care lung ultrasound for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Point-of-care (POC) lung ultrasound (LUS) is widely used in the emergency setting and there is an established evidence base across a range of respiratory diseases, including previous viral epidemics. The necessity for rapid testing combined with the limitations of other diagnostic tests has led to the proposal of various potential roles for LUS during the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review and meta-analysis focused specifically on the diagnostic accuracy of LUS in adult patients presenting with suspected COVID-19 infection.

METHODS

Traditional and grey-literature searches were performed on 1 June 2021. Two authors independently carried out the searches, selected studies and completed the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). Meta-analysis was carried out using established open-source packages in R. We report overall sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve for LUS. Heterogeneity was determined using the I² statistic.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included, published between October 2020 and April 2021, providing data from a total of 4314 patients. The prevalence and admission rates were generally high across all studies. Overall, LUS was found to be 87.2% sensitive (95% CI 83.6 to 90.2) and 69.5% specific (95% CI 62.2 to 72.5) and demonstrated overall positive and negative likelihood ratios of 3.0 (95% CI 2.3 to 4.1) and 0.16 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.22), respectively. Separate analyses for each reference standard revealed similar sensitivities and specificities for LUS. Heterogeneity was found to be high across the studies. Overall, the quality of studies was low with a high risk of selection bias due to convenience sampling. There were also applicability concerns because all studies were undertaken during a period of high prevalence.

CONCLUSION

During a period of high prevalence, LUS had a sensitivity of 87% for the diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. However, more research is required to confirm these results in more generalisable populations, including those less likely to be admitted to hospital.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021250464.

Lung ultrasound as a screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection in surgical patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of lung ultrasound (LUS) in screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients requiring surgery.

METHODS

Patients underwent a LUS protocol that included a scoring system for screening COVID-19 pneumonia as well as RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2. The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve was determined for the relationship between LUS score and PCR test results for COVID-19. The optimal threshold for the best discrimination between non-COVID-19 patients and COVID-19 patients was calculated.

RESULTS

Among 203 patients enrolled (mean age 48 years; 82 males), 8.3% were COVID-19-positive; 4.9% were diagnosed via the initial RT-PCR test. Of the patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, 64.7% required in-hospital management and 17.6% died. The most common ultrasound findings were B lines (19.7%) and a thickened pleura (19.2%). The AUC of the ROC curve of the relationship of LUS score with a cutoff value >8 versus RT-PCR test for the assessment of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia was 0.75 (95% CI 0.61-0.89; sensitivity 52.9%; specificity 91%; LR (+) 6.15, LR (-) 0.51).

CONCLUSION

The LUS score in surgical patients is not a useful tool for screening patients with potential COVID-19 infection. LUS score shows a high specificity with a cut-off value of 8.

Point-of-care Lung Ultrasound, Lung CT and NEWS to Predict Adverse Outcomes and Mortality in COVID-19 Associated Pneumonia

Introduction: The appraisal of disease severity and prediction of adverse outcomes using risk stratification tools at early disease stages is crucial to diminish mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). While lung ultrasound (LUS) as an imaging technique for the diagnosis of lung diseases has recently gained a leading position, data demonstrating that it can predict adverse outcomes related to COVID-19 is scarce. The main aim of this study is therefore to assess the clinical significance of bedside LUS in COVID-19 patients who presented to the emergency department (ED). Methods: Patients with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia admitted to the ED of our hospital between March 2021 and May 2021 and who underwent a 12-zone LUS and a lung computed tomography scan were included prospectively. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were used to predict adverse events, which was our primary outcome. The secondary outcome was to discover the association of LUS score and computed tomography severity score (CT-SS) with the composite endpoints. Results: We assessed 234 patients [median age 59.0 (46.8-68.0) years; 59.4% M), including 38 (16.2%) in-hospital deaths for any cause related to COVID-19. Higher LUS score and CT-SS was found to be associated with ICU admission, intubation, and mortality. The LUS score predicted mortality risk within each stratum of NEWS. Pairwise analysis demonstrated that after adjusting a base prediction model with LUS score, significantly higher accuracy was observed in predicting both ICU admission (DBA −0.067, P = .011) and in-hospital mortality (DBA −0.086, P = .017). Conclusion: Lung ultrasound can be a practical prediction tool during the course of COVID-19 and can quantify pulmonary involvement in ED settings. It is a powerful predictor of ICU admission, intubation, and mortality and can be used as an alternative for chest computed tomography while monitoring COVID-19-related adverse outcomes.

Lung ultrasound in the follow-up of severe COVID-19 pneumonia: six months evaluation and comparison with CT

While lung ultrasonography (LUS) proved to be a useful diagnostic and prognostic tool in acute phase of COVID 19 pneumonia, its role in detecting long-term pulmonary sequelae has yet to be explored. In our prospective observational study we assessed the potential of LUS in detecting the presence of computed tomography (CT) fibrotic-like changes after 6 months from COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who were discharged with a diagnosis of severe COVID-19 pneumonia were enrolled. After 6 months from hospital discharge they underwent LUS, chest CT scan and pulmonary function tests. A logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the association between presence of symptoms, LUS score and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) at 6-month after hospital discharge and CT scan fibrotic-like changes. A second logistic model was performed to assess the value of some predefined baseline factors (age, sex, worst PaO2/FiO2, ventilator support, worst CRP value, worst D-dimer value and worst LUS score during hospitalization) to predict fibrotic-like changes on 6-month CT scan. Seventy-four patients were enrolled in the study. Twenty-four (32%) showed lung abnormalities suitable for fibrotic-like changes. At multivariate logistic regression analysis LUS score after 6 months from acute disease was significantly associated with fibrotic-like pattern on CT scan. The second logistic model showed that D-dimer value was the only baseline predictive variable of fibrotic-like changes at multivariate analysis. LUS performed after 6 months from severe COVID-19 pneumonia may be a promising tool for detection and follow-up of pulmonary fibrotic sequelae.

Reliability and clinical correlations of semi-quantitative lung ultrasound on BLUE points in COVID-19 mechanically ventilated patients: The 'BLUE-LUSS'-A feasibility clinical study

INTRODUCTION

Bedside lung ultrasound has gained a key role in each segment of the treatment chain during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the diagnostic assessment of the critically ill patients in ICUs, it is highly important to maximize the amount and quality of gathered information while minimizing unnecessary interventions (e.g. moving/rotating the patient). Another major factor is to reduce the risk of infection and the workload of the staff.

OBJECTIVES

To serve these significant issues we constructed a feasibility study, in which we used a single-operator technique without moving the patient, only assessing the easily achievable lung regions at conventional BLUE points. We hypothesized that calculating this 'BLUE lung ultrasound score' (BLUE-LUSS) is a reasonable clinical tool. Furthermore, we used both longitudinal and transverse scans to measure their reliability and assessed the interobserver variability as well.

METHODS

University Intensive Care Unit based, single-center, prospective, observational study was performed on 24 consecutive SARS-CoV2 RT-PCR positive, mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Altogether 400 loops were recorded, rated and assessed off-line by 4 independent intensive care specialists (each 7+ years of LUS experience).

RESULTS

Intraclass correlation values indicated good reliability for transversal and longitudinal qLUSS scores, while we detected excellent interrater agreement of both cLUSS calculation methods. All of our LUS scores correlated inversely and significantly to the P/F values. Best correlation was achieved in the case of longitudinal qLUSS (r = -0.55, p = 0.0119).

CONCLUSION

Summarized score of BLUE-LUSS can be an important, easy-to-perform adjunct tool for assessing and quantifying lung pathology in critically ill ventilated patients at bedside, especially for the P/F ratio. The best agreement for the P/F ratio can be achieved with the longitudinal scans. Regarding these findings, assessing BLUE-points can be extended with the BLUE-LUSS for daily routine using both transverse and longitudinal views.

Time course of lung ultrasound findings in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and cardiac dysfunction

Background

Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a valuable tool to predict and monitor the COVID-19 pneumonia course. However, the influence of cardiac dysfunction (CD) on LUS findings remains to be studied. Our objective was to determine the effect of CD on LUS in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Material and methods

Fifty-one patients with COVID-19 pneumonia participated in the study. Focused echocardiography (FoCUS) was carried out on day 1 to separate patients into two groups depending on whether they had FoCUS signs of CD (CD+ vs CD−). LUS scores, based on the thickness of the pleural line, the B-line characteristics, and the presence or not of consolidations, were obtained three times along the patient’s admission (D1, D5, D10) and compared between CD+ and CD− patients. A correlation analysis was carried out between LUS scores and the ratio of the arterial partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of the inspired oxygen (P/F ratio).

Results

Twenty-two patients were CD+ and 29 patients were CD−. Among the CD+ patients, 19 were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), seven received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and one did not survive. Among the CD− patients, 11 were admitted to the ICU, one received IMV and seven did not survive. CD+ patients showed a significantly lower P/F ratio than CD− patients. However, LUS scores showed no between-group differences, except for fewer subpleural consolidations in the upper quadrants of CD+ than on CD− patients.

Conclusion

In patients with COVID-19, CD contributed to a worse clinical course, but it did not induce significant changes in LUS. Our findings suggest that pathophysiological factors other than those reflected by LUS may be responsible for the differences in clinical condition between CD+ and CD− patients.

Review of COVID-19 testing and diagnostic methods

More than six billion tests for COVID-19 has been already performed in the world. The testing for SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2) virus and corresponding human antibodies is essential not only for diagnostics and treatment of the infection by medical institutions, but also as a pre-requisite for major semi-normal economic and social activities such as international flights, off line work and study in offices, access to malls, sport and social events. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, time to results and cost per test are essential parameters of those tests and even minimal improvement in any of them may have noticeable impact on life in the many countries of the world. We described, analyzed and compared methods of COVID-19 detection, while representing their parameters in 22 tables. Also, we compared test performance of some FDA approved test kits with clinical performance of some non-FDA approved methods just described in scientific literature. RT-PCR still remains a golden standard in detection of the virus, but a pressing need for alternative less expensive, more rapid, point of care methods is evident. Those methods that may eventually get developed to satisfy this need are explained, discussed, quantitatively compared. The review has a bioanalytical chemistry prospective, but it may be interesting for a broader circle of readers who are interested in understanding and improvement of COVID-19 testing, helping eventually to leave COVID-19 pandemic in the past.

From the Triage to the Intermediate Area: A Simple and Fast Model for COVID-19 in the Emergency Department

Introduction: The early identification of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection is still a real challenge for emergency departments (ED). First, we aimed to develop a score, based on the use of the lung ultrasonography (LUS), in addition to the pre-triage interview, to correctly address patients; second, we aimed to prove the usefulness of a three-path organization (COVID-19, not-COVID-19 and intermediate) compared to a two-path organization (COVID-19, non-COVID-19). Methods: We retrospectively analysed 292 patients admitted to our ED from 10 April to 15 April 2020, with a definite diagnosis of positivity (93 COVID-19 patients) or negativity (179 not-COVID-19 patients) for SARS-COV-2 infection. Using a logistic regression, we found a set of predictors for infection selected from the pre-triage interview items and the LUS findings, which contribute with a different weight to the final score. Then, we compared the organization of two different pathways. Results: The most informative factors for classifying the patient are known nasopharyngeal swab positivity, close contact with a COVID-19 patient, fever associated with respiratory symptoms, respiratory failure, anosmia or dysgeusia, and the ultrasound criteria of diffuse alveolar interstitial syndrome, absence of B-lines and presence of pleural effusion. Their sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC-ROC are, respectively, 0.83, 0.81, 0.82 and 0.81. The most significant difference between the two pathways is the percentage of not-COVID-19 patients assigned to the COVID-19 area, that is, 10.6% (19/179) in the three-path organization, and 18.9% (34/179) in the two-path organization (p = 0.037). Conclusions: Our study suggests the possibility to use a score based on the pre-triage interview and the LUS findings to correctly manage the patients admitted to the ED, and the importance of an intermediate area to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the ED and, as a consequence, in the hospital.

The diagnostic performance of lung ultrasound for detecting COVID-19 in emergency departments: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature investigating the use of lung ultrasound (LUS) on COVID-19 patients, in emergency point of care settings, and to determine its diagnostic value compared with lung computed tomography (LCT) diagnostic performance. Whilst using the real-time polymerase chain reaction test as the 'gold standard'.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed on MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed databases for eligible studies. The LUS and LCT pooled diagnostic performance were measured using DerSimonian-Laird random effect method.

RESULT

Out of a total of 158 studies, 16 met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios were 86.9%, 62.4%, 2.4 and 0.19, respectively for LUS and 93.5%, 72.6%, 3.3 and 0.05, respectively for LCT.

CONCLUSION

The lung ultrasound (LUS) demonstrated acceptable sensitivity but poor specificity when used independently to diagnose COVID-19 pneumonia patients in emergency departments, while the lung computed tomography showed higher performance. Thus, LUS can be used to supplement existing diagnostic tools and possibly for the triage of patients.

Diagnostic Performance of Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests, Chest Computed Tomography, and Lung Point-of-Care-Ultrasonography for SARS-CoV-2 Compared with RT-PCR Testing: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: The comparative performance of various diagnostic methods for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the comparison of the 3 index test performances of rapid antigen diagnostic tests (RDTs), chest computed tomography (CT), and lung point-of-care-ultrasonography (US) with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), the reference standard, to provide more evidence-based data on the appropriate use of these index tests. (2) Methods: We retrieved data from electronic literature searches of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE from 1 January 2020, to 1 April 2021. Diagnostic performance was examined using bivariate random-effects diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) models. (3) Results: Of the 3992 studies identified in our search, 118 including 69,445 participants met our selection criteria. Among these, 69 RDT, 38 CT, and 15 US studies in the pairwise meta-analysis were included for DTA with NMA. CT and US had high sensitivity of 0.852 (95% credible interval (CrI), 0.791–0.914) and 0.879 (95% CrI, 0.784–0.973), respectively. RDT had high specificity, 0.978 (95% CrI, 0.960–0.996). In accuracy assessment, RDT and CT had a relatively higher than US. However, there was no significant difference in accuracy between the 3 index tests. (4) Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that, compared with the reference standard RT-PCR, the 3 index tests (RDTs, chest CT, and lung US) had similar and complementary performances for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. To manage and control COVID-19 effectively, future large-scale prospective studies could be used to obtain an optimal timely diagnostic process that identifies the condition of the patient accurately.

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.

Role of Lung Ultrasound in the Management of Patients with Suspected SARS-CoV-2 Infection in the Emergency Department

Background: The lung ultrasound (LUS) score has been proposed as an optimal scheme for the ultrasound study of patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia. The aims of our study were to evaluate the use of lung ultrasound as a diagnostic tool for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, to examine the validity of the LUS score for the diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia, and to correlate this score with hospitalization rate and 30-day mortality. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 1460 patients who were referred to the General Emergency Department of the S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital from April 2020 to May 2020 for symptoms suspected to indicate SARS-CoV-2 infection. The ultrasound examination was based on a common execution scheme called the LUS score, as previously described. Results and Conclusions: The LUS score was found to correlate with the degree of clinical severity and respiratory failure (paO2/FiO2 ratio and the alveolar−arterial gradient increase than expected for age). It was shown that COVID-19 patients with an LUS score of >7 require the use of oxygen support, and a value of >10 is associated with an increased risk of oro-tracheal intubation. The LUS score was found to present higher values in hospitalized patients, increasing according to the degree of care intensity. Patients who died from COVID-19 were characterized by a mean LUS score of 11 at presentation to the emergency department. An LUS score of >7.5 was found to indicate a sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of 89% for 30-day mortality in COVID-19 patients. The use of LUS seems to be an optimal first level method for pneumonia detection and risk stratification in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection.

[Korean Clinical Imaging Guidelines for Justification of Diagnostic Imaging Study for COVID-19]

To develop Korean coronavirus disease (COVID-19) chest imaging justification guidelines, eight key questions were selected and the following recommendations were made with the evidence-based clinical imaging guideline adaptation methodology. It is appropriate not to use chest imaging tests (chest radiograph or CT) for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in asymptomatic patients. If reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing is not available or if results are delayed or are initially negative in the presence of symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, chest imaging tests may be considered. In addition to clinical evaluations and laboratory tests, chest imaging may be contemplated to determine hospital admission for asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic unhospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19. In hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19, chest imaging may be advised to determine or modify treatment alternatives. CT angiography may be considered if hemoptysis or pulmonary embolism is clinically suspected in a patient with confirmed COVID-19. For COVID-19 patients with improved symptoms, chest imaging is not recommended to make decisions regarding hospital discharge. For patients with functional impairment after recovery from COVID-19, chest imaging may be considered to distinguish a potentially treatable disease.

Utility and diagnostic test properties of pulmonary and cardiovascular point of care ultra-sonography (POCUS) in COVID-19 patients admitted to critical care unit

Background

We conducted this study to assess the diagnostic test properties of point of care ultrasonography (POCUS) of lung and cardiovascular system in prediction of mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional study of 178 Covid-19 patients; POCUS was performed within one hour of admission to the ICU. We estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value for prediction of mortality.

Results

The mean (SD) age of these patients was 57.3 (12.8) years. The findings were on cardiac ultrasonography were: mild pericardial effusion (45%), chamber dilatation (15%), hypokinesia (11%), and low ejection fraction (8%). In our study, 30 patients (17%) had died. A cut-off score of > to 13 (for lung ultrasound score [LUS]) had high sensitivity for mortality (93.3%, 95% CI: 77.9–99.2%). However, low ejection fraction (92.3%, 95% CI: 86,6–96.1%), and thrombosis in either vein (96.5%, 95% CI: 92.0–98.9%) were specific for mortality. A combination of LUS > =13 or low ejection fraction or thrombosis or spontaneous echo contrast (slow flow) improved sensitivity for mortality to 96.7% (95% CI: 82.8–99.9%). The agreement between LUS of > =13 and CT score of moderate/severe was 85.7% (95% CI: 62.8–100%). The interrater agreement between these two parameters was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.68, 0.97).

Conclusions

Multi-organ POCUS is effective in diagnosis, prognosis, and management of COVID-19 patients. Rather than just lung ultrasound, clinicians should use multiorgan POCUS for early identification of severe lung involvement and thrombotic changes; it may help reduce mortality in these patients.

Lung Ultrasound Findings Associated With COVID-19 ARDS, ICU Admission, and All-Cause Mortality

BACKGROUND

As lung ultrasound (LUS) has emerged as a diagnostic tool in patients with COVID-19, we sought to investigate the association between LUS findings and the composite in-hospital outcome of ARDS incidence, ICU admission, and all-cause mortality.

METHODS

In this prospective, multi-center, observational study, adults with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled from non-ICU in-patient units. Subjects underwent an LUS evaluating a total of 8 zones. Images were analyzed off-line, blinded to clinical variables and outcomes. A LUS score was developed to integrate LUS findings: ≥ 3 B-lines corresponded to a score of 1, confluent B-lines to a score of 2, and subpleural or lobar consolidation to a score of 3. The total LUS score ranged from 0-24 per subject.

RESULTS

Among 215 enrolled subjects, 168 with LUS data and no current signs of ARDS or ICU admission (mean age 59 y, 56% male) were included. One hundred thirty-six (81%) subjects had pathologic LUS findings in ≥ 1 zone (≥ 3 B-lines, confluent B-lines, or consolidations). Markers of disease severity at baseline were higher in subjects with the composite outcome (n = 31, 18%), including higher median C-reactive protein (90 mg/L vs 55, P < .001) and procalcitonin levels (0.35 μg/L vs 0.13, P = .033) and higher supplemental oxygen requirements (median 4 L/min vs 2, P = .001). However, LUS findings and score did not differ significantly between subjects with the composite outcome and those without, and were not associated with outcomes in unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Pathologic findings on LUS were common a median of 3 d after admission in this cohort of non-ICU hospitalized subjects with COVID-19 and did not differ among subjects who experienced the composite outcome of incident ARDS, ICU admission, and all-cause mortality compared to subjects who did not. These findings should be confirmed in future investigations. The study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04377035).

Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation, and Intensive Care expert consensus statement on the use of lung ultrasound in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (ITACO)

Background

To produce statements based on the available evidence and an expert consensus (as members of the Lung Ultrasound Working Group of the Italian Society of Analgesia, Anesthesia, Resuscitation, and Intensive Care, SIAARTI) on the use of lung ultrasound for the management of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit.

Methods

A modified Delphi method was applied by a panel of anesthesiologists and intensive care physicians expert in the use of lung ultrasound in COVID-19 intensive critically ill patients to reach a consensus on ten clinical questions concerning the role of lung ultrasound in the following: COVID-19 diagnosis and monitoring (with and without invasive mechanical ventilation), positive end expiratory pressure titration, the use of prone position, the early diagnosis of pneumothorax- or ventilator-associated pneumonia, the process of weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation, and the need for radiologic chest imaging.

Results

A total of 20 statements were produced by the panel. Agreement was reached on 18 out of 20 statements (scoring 7–9; “appropriate”) in the first round of voting, while 2 statements required a second round for agreement to be reached. At the end of the two Delphi rounds, the median score for the 20 statements was 8.5 [IQR 8.9], and the agreement percentage was 100%.

Conclusion

The Lung Ultrasound Working Group of the Italian Society of Analgesia, Anesthesia, Resuscitation, and Intensive Care produced 20 consensus statements on the use of lung ultrasound in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. This expert consensus strongly suggests integrating lung ultrasound findings in the clinical management of critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s44158-021-00015-6.

The Role and Challenges of Clinical Imaging During COVID-19 Outbreak

Objective:

The Radiology department played a crucial role in detecting and following up with the COVID-19 disease during the pandemic. The purpose of this review was to highlight and discuss the role of each imaging modality, in the radiology department, that can help in the current pandemic and to determine the challenges faced by staff and how to overcome them.

Materials and Methods:

A literature search was performed using different databases, including PubMed, Google scholar, and the college electronic library to access 2020 published related articles.

Results:

A chest computed tomogram (CT) was found to be superior to a chest radiograph, with regards to the early detection of COVID-19. Utilizing lung point of care ultrasound (POCUS) with pediatric patients, demonstrated excellent sensitivity and specificity, compared to a chest radiography. In addition, lung ultrasound (LUS) showed a high correlation with the disease severity assessed with CT. However, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has some limiting factors with regard to its clinical utilization, due to signal loss. The reported challenges that the radiology department faced were mainly related to infection control, staff workload, and the training of students.

Conclusion:

The choice of an imaging modality to provide a COVID-19 diagnosis is debatable. It depends on several factors that should be carefully considered, such as disease stage, mobility of the patient, and ease of applying infection control procedures. The pros and cons of each imaging modality were highlighted, as part of this review. To control the spread of the infection, precautionary measures such as the use of portable radiographic equipment and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) must be implemented.

Simple demographic characteristics and laboratory findings on admission may predict in-hospital mortality in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: development and validation of the covid-19 score

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) constitutes a major health burden worldwide due to high mortality rates and hospital bed shortages. SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with several laboratory abnormalities. We aimed to develop and validate a risk score based on simple demographic and laboratory data that could be used on admission in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection to predict in-hospital mortality.

Methods

Three cohorts of patients from different hospitals were studied consecutively (developing, validation, and prospective cohorts). The following demographic and laboratory data were obtained from medical records: sex, age, hemoglobin, mean corpuscular volume (MCV), platelets, leukocytes, sodium, potassium, creatinine, and C-reactive protein (CRP). For each variable, classification and regression tree analysis were used to establish the cut-off point(s) associated with in-hospital mortality outcome based on data from developing cohort and before they were used for analysis in the validation and prospective cohort. The covid-19 score was calculated as a sum of cut-off points associated with mortality outcome.

Results

The developing, validation, and prospective cohorts included 129, 239, and 497 patients, respectively (median age, 71, 67, and 70 years, respectively). The following cut of points associated with in-hospital mortality: age > 56 years, male sex, hemoglobin < 10.55 g/dL, MCV > 92.9 fL, leukocyte count > 9.635 or < 2.64 10³/µL, platelet count, < 81.49 or > 315.5 10³/µL, CRP > 51.14 mg/dL, creatinine > 1.115 mg/dL, sodium < 134.7 or > 145.4 mEq/L, and potassium < 3.65 or > 6.255 mEq/L. The AUC of the covid-19 score for predicting in-hospital mortality was 0.89 (0.84–0.95), 0.850 (0.75–0.88), and 0.773 (0.731–0.816) in the developing, validation, and prospective cohorts, respectively (P < 0.001The mortality of the prospective cohort stratified on the basis of the covid-19 score was as follows: 0–2 points,4.2%; 3 points, 15%; 4 points, 29%; 5 points, 38.2%; 6 and more points, 60%.

Conclusion

The covid-19 score based on simple demographic and laboratory parameters may become an easy-to-use, widely accessible, and objective tool for predicting mortality in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Association of Lung Ultrasound Score with Mortality and Severity of COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has rapidly spread all over the world. Lung ultrasound (LUS) has emerged as a useful tool for diagnosing many respiratory diseases. The prognostic role of LUS in COVID-19 patients has not yet been established.

METHODS

Several databases were searched on 09 April 2021. The difference in LUS score between the death and survival groups, and the relationship between LUS score and COVID-19 severity were both assessed.

RESULTS

The LUS score was significantly higher in the death group compared with the survival group (weighted mean difference (WMD) = 8.21, 95% CI: 4.74-11.67, P < 0.001), which was confirmed by trial sequential analysis. Those with mild/moderate, severe and critical COVID-19 had a progressively higher LUS score (critical vs. severe: WMD = 8.78, 95% CI: 4.17-13.38; P < 0.001; critical vs. mild/moderate/severe: WMD = 10.00, 95% CI: 6.83-13.17, P < 0.001; severe vs. moderate: WMD = 5.96, 95% CI: 3.48-8.44, P < 0.001; severe vs. mild/moderate: WMD = 7.31, 95% CI: 4.45-10.17, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The LUS score was associated with mortality and severity of COVID-19. The LUS score might be a risk stratification tool for COVID-19 patients.

Lung Ultrasound in COVID-19: Clinical Correlates and Comparison with Chest Computed Tomography

Lung ultrasound (LUS) and chest computed tomography (chest CT) are largely employed to evaluate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. We investigated semi-quantitative LUS and CT scoring in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. LUS and chest CT were performed within 24 h upon admission. Both were analyzed according to semi-quantitative scoring systems. Subgroups were identified according to median LUS score. Patients within higher LUS score group were older (79 vs 60 years, p<0.001), had higher C-reactive protein (CRP) (7.2 mg/dl vs 1.3 mg/dl, p<0.001) and chest CT score (10 vs 4, p=0.027) as well as lower PaO2/FiO2 (286 vs 356, p=0.029) as compared to patients within lower scores. We found a significant correlation between scores (r=0.390, p=0.023). Both LUS and CT scores correlated directly with patients age (r=0.586, p<0.001 and r=0.399, p=0.021 respectively) and CRP (r=0.472, p=0.002 and r=0.518, p=0.002 respectively), inversely with PaO2/FiO2 (r=-0.485, p=0.003 and r=-0.440, p=0.017 respectively). LUS score only showed significant correlation with hs-troponin T, NT-pro-BNP, and creatinine (r=0.433, p=0.019; r=0.411, p=0.027, and r=0.497, p=0.001, respectively). Semi-quantitative bedside LUS is related to the severity of COVID-19 pneumonia similarly to chest CT. Correlation of LUS score with markers of cardiac and renal injury suggests that LUS might contribute to a more comprehensive evaluation of this heterogeneous population.

Genomic variation, origin tracing, and vaccine development of SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review

COVID-19 has spread globally to over 200 countries with more than 40 million confirmed cases and one million deaths as of November 1, 2020. The SARS-CoV-2 virus, leading to COVID-19, shows extremely high rates of infectivity and replication, and can result in pneumonia, acute respiratory distress, or even mortality. SARS-CoV-2 has been found to continue to rapidly evolve, with several genomic variants emerging in different regions throughout the world. In addition, despite intensive study of the spike protein, its origin, and molecular mechanisms in mediating host invasion are still only partially resolved. Finally, the repertoire of drugs for COVID-19 treatment is still limited, with several candidates still under clinical trial and no effective therapeutic yet reported. Although vaccines based on either DNA/mRNA or protein have been deployed, their efficacy against emerging variants requires ongoing study, with multivalent vaccines supplanting the first-generation vaccines due to their low efficacy against new strains. Here, we provide a systematic review of studies on the epidemiology, immunological pathogenesis, molecular mechanisms, and structural biology, as well as approaches for drug or vaccine development for SARS-CoV-2.

Digital imaging, technologies and artificial intelligence applications during COVID-19 pandemic

The advancement of technology remained an immersive interest for humankind throughout the past decades. Tech enterprises offered a stream of innovation to address the universal healthcare concerns. The novel coronavirus holds a substantial foothold of planet earth which is combatted by digital interventions across afflicted geographical boundaries and territories. This study aims to explore the trends of modern healthcare technologies and Artificial Intelligence (AI) during COVID-19 crisis, define the concepts and clinical role of AI in the mitigation of COVID-19, investigate and correlate the efficacy of AI-enabled technology in medical imaging during COVID-19 and determine advantages, drawbacks, and challenges of artificial intelligence during COVID-19 pandemic. The paper applied systematic review approach using a deliberated research protocol and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow chart. Digital technologies can coordinate COVID-19 responses in a cascade fashion that extends from the clinical care facility to the exterior of the pending viral epicenter. With cases of healthcare robotics, aerial drones, and the internet of things as evidentiary examples. PCR tests and medical imaging are the frontier diagnostics of COVID-19. Computed tomography helped to correct the accuracy variation of PCR tests at a clinical sensitivity of 98 %. Artificial intelligence can enable autonomous COVID-19 responses using techniques like machine learning. Technology could be an endless system of innovation and opportunities when sourced effectively. Scientists can utilize technology to resolve global concerns challenging the history of tangible possibility. Digital interventions have enhanced the responses to COVID-19, magnified the role of medical imaging amid the COVID-19 crisis and have exposed healthcare professionals to the opportunity of contactless care.

COVID-19 Pandemic: Review of Contemporary and Forthcoming Detection Tools

Recent severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) known as COVID-19, presents a deadly challenge to the global healthcare system of developing and developed countries, exposing the limitations of health facilities preparedness for emerging infectious disease pandemic. Opportune detection, confinement, and early treatment of infected cases present the first step in combating COVID-19. In this review, we elaborate on various COVID-19 diagnostic tools that are available or under investigation. Consequently, cell culture, followed by an indirect fluorescent antibody, is one of the most accurate methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, restrictions imposed by the regulatory authorities prevented its general use and implementation. Diagnosis via radiologic imaging and reverse transcriptase PCR assay is frequently employed, considered as standard procedures, whereas isothermal amplification methods are currently on the verge of clinical introduction. Notably, techniques such as CRISPR-Cas and microfluidics have added new dimensions to the SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Furthermore, commonly used immunoassays such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), neutralization assay, and the chemiluminescent assay can also be used for early detection and surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Finally, advancement in the next generation sequencing (NGS) and metagenomic analysis are smoothing the viral detection further in this global challenge.

COVID-19: persistence of symptoms and lung alterations after 3-6 months from hospital discharge

PURPOSE

Few data are currently available on persistent symptoms and late organ damage in patients who have suffered from COVID-19. This prospective study aimed to evaluate the results of a follow-up program for patients discharged from a nonintensive COVID-19 ward.

METHODS

3-6 months after hospital discharge, 59 of 105 COVID-19 patients (31 males, aged 68.2 ± 12.8 years) were recruited in the study. Forty-six patients were excluded because of nontraceability, refusal, or inability to provide informed consent. The follow-up consisted of anamnesis (including a structured questionnaire), physical examination, blood tests, ECG, lower limb compression venous ultrasound (US), thoracic US, and spirometry with diffusion lung capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO).

RESULTS

22% of patients reported no residual symptoms, 28.8% 1 or 2 symptoms and 49.2% 3 or more symptoms. The most frequently symptoms were fatigue, exertional dyspnea, insomnia, and anxiety. Among the inflammatory and coagulation parameters, only the median value of fibrinogen was slightly above normal. A deep vein thrombosis was detected in 1 patient (1.7%). Thoracic US detected mild pulmonary changes in 15 patients (25.4%), 10 of which reported exertional dyspnea. DLCO was mildly or moderately reduced in 19 patients (37.2%), 13 of which complained of exertional dyspnea.

CONCLUSION

These results highlight that a substantial percentage of COVID-19 patients (77.8%) continue to complain of symptoms 3-6 months after hospital discharge. Exertional dyspnea was significantly associated with the persistence of lung US abnormalities and diffusing capacity alterations. Extended follow-up is required to assess the long-term evolution of postacute sequelae of COVID-19.