Search

Purpose: The veno-arterial CO2 difference (Pv-aCO2) is a useful marker capable of identifying a subpopulation of shocked patients who present a cardiac output insufficient for the tissue metabolic demands. Some Authors have highlighted a linear relationship between Pv-aCO2 determined by mixed or central venous blood. This research aims to establish whether there is a linear relationship between Pv-aCO2 determined by peripheral venous blood (Pv-aCO2p) and mixed venous blood and the agreement between the two measures. Methods: Prospective, single-centre, observational clinical study on septic shocked and invasively ventilated patients during the first 24 hours from admission in ICU. Results: On 38 determinations, the Bravais-Pearson r between Pv-aCO2 and Pv-aCO2p was 0.70 (95%CI 0.48 – 0.83; p-value = 1.25 x 10^-6). The Bland-Altman test's mean bias was 4.11 mmHg (95%CI 2.82 – 5.39); the repeatability coefficient was 11.05. The differential and proportional bias were 2.81 (95%CI 0.52 – 5.11) and 1.29 (95%CI 0.86 – 1.72), respectively, through the Taffé method. Conclusion: Pv-aCO2p could be used in clinical settings wider than the ICU alone, where central venous access is not routine, to establish early the adequacy of the circulation and, more specifically, of cardiac output versus tissue metabolic demands in septic patients.

PurposeEarly diagnosis of COVID-19 has a crucial role in confining the spread among the population. Lung ultrasound (LUS) was included in the diagnostic pathway for its high sensitivity, low costs, non-invasiveness and safety. We aimed to test the sensitivity of LUS to rule out COVID-19 pneumonia (COVIDp) in a population of patients with suggestive symptoms.MethodsMulticentre prospective observational study in three EDs in Northeastern Italy during the first COVID-19 outbreak. A convenience sample of 235 patients admitted to the ED for symptoms suggestive COVIDp (fever, cough or shortness of breath) from 17 March 2020 to 26 April 2020 was enrolled. All patients underwent a sequential assessment involving: clinical examination, LUS, CXR and arterial blood gas. The index test under investigation was a standardised protocol of LUS compared with a pragmatic composite reference standard constituted by: clinical gestalt, real-time PCR test, radiological and blood gas results. Of the 235 enrolled patients, 90 were diagnosed with COVIDp according to the reference standard.ResultsAmong the patients with suspected COVIDp, the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was 38.3%. The sensitivity of LUS for diagnosing COVIDp was 85.6% (95% CI 76.6% to 92.1%); the specificity was 91.7% (95% CI 86.0% to 95.7%). The positive predictive value and the negative predictive value were 86.5% (95%CI 78.8% to 91.7%) and 91.1% (95% CI 86.1% to 94.4%) respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of LUS for COVIDp was 89.4% (95% CI 84.7% to 93.0%). The positive likelihood ratio was 10.3 (95% CI 6.0 to 17.9), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.16 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.3).ConclusionIn a population with high SARS-CoV-2 prevalence, LUS has a high sensitivity (and negative predictive value) enough to rule out COVIDp in patients with suggestive symptoms. The role of LUS in diagnosing patients with COVIDp is perhaps even more promising. Nevertheless, further research with adequately powered studies is needed.Trial registration numberNCT04370275.

Objective: The low sensitivity of the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) test on the nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV2 virus could cause infections among health care professionals and could be a source of viral spread. The aim of this study was to verify whether lung ultrasonography (LUS) had a negative predictive value (NPV) high enough to rule out coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a cohort of health care employees, working in emergency departments (EDs). Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in two EDs in Northeast Italy. An adjudication committee established the definitive diagnosis of COVID-19. Results: A cohort was enrolled of 155 possible patient cases (two true positives). Twenty-one health care employees presented with suggestive symptoms for COVID-19. The rRT-PCR test was positive in one of the two patients. LUS was suggestive for COVID-19 pneumonia in four patients. The diagnostic accuracy of LUS was 98.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 95.4%–99.8%). The NPV was 100% (95% CI = 100%–100%). Conclusion: LUS has a high enough NPV for excluding a COVID-19-related pneumonia in a cohort of health care employees who were exposed to the SARS-CoV2 virus.

During COVID-19 pandemic, implementing and maintaining an antimicrobial stewardship protocol obtained both low rates of MDR microorganisms and low antimicrobial use in an 800-bed hospital network in northern Italy. Infectious diseases specialist consulting was crucial to maintain this protocol active.

Lung ultrasound (LU) has a multitude of features and capacities that make it a useful medical tool to assist physicians contending with the pandemic spread of novel coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) caused by coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Thus, an LU approach to patients with suspected COVID-19 is being implemented worldwide. In noncritical COVID-19 patients, 2 new LU signs have been described and proposed, the “waterfall” and the “light beam” signs. Both signs have been hypothesized to increase the diagnostic accuracy of LU for COVID-19 interstitial pneumonia. In critically ill patients, a distinct pattern of LU changes seems to follow the disease's progression, and this information can be used to guide decisions about when a patient needs to be ventilated, as occurs in other disease states similar to COVID-19. Furthermore, a new algorithm has been published, which enables the automatic detection of B-lines as well as quantification of the percentage of the pleural line associated with lung disease. In COVID-19 patients, a direct involvement of cardiac function has been demonstrated, and ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction might be present due to the prolonged mechanical ventilation often involved, as reported for similar diseases. For this reason, cardiac and diaphragm ultrasound evaluation are highly important. Last but not least, due to the thrombotic tendency of COVID-19 patients, particular attention also should be paid to vascular ultrasound. This review is primarily devoted to the study of LU in COVID-19 patients. The authors explain the significance of its “light and shadows,” bearing in mind the context in which LU is being used—the emergency department and the intensive care setting. The use of cardiac, vascular, and diaphragm ultrasound is also discussed, as a comprehensive approach to patient care.

Introduction Bedside lung sonography is recognized as a reliable diagnostic modality in trauma settings due to its ability to detect alterations both in lung parenchyma and in pleural cavities. In severe blunt chest trauma, lung ultrasound can identify promptly life-threatening conditions which may need direct intervention, whereas in minor trauma, lung ultrasound contributes to detection of acute pathologies which are often initially radio-occult and helps in the selection of those patients that might need further investigation. Topic Description We did a literature search on databases EMBASE, PubMed, SCOPUS and Google Scholar using the terms ‘trauma’, ‘lung contusion’, ‘pneumothorax’, ‘hemothorax’ and ‘lung ultrasound’. The latest articles were reviewed and this article was written using the most current and validated information. Discussion Lung ultrasound is quite accurate in diagnosing pneumothorax by using a combination of four sonographic signs; absence of lung sliding, B-lines, lung pulse and presence of lung point. It provides a rapid diagnosis in hemodynamically unstable patients. Lung contusions and hemothorax can be diagnosed and assessed with lung ultrasound. Ultrasound is also very useful for evaluating rib and sternal fractures and for imaging the pericardium for effusion and tamponade. Conclusion Bedside lung ultrasound can lead to rapid and accurate diagnosis of major life-threatening pathologies in blunt chest trauma patients.

To reduce the overburden in the hospital, during the COVID-19 pandemic, some “COVID Committed Home Medical Teams” (CCHTs) were created in Italy. These units consist of a small pool of general practitioners who aim to evaluate all patients with COVID-19 who require a medical examination directly at home. After the first visit (which can end with patient hospitalisation or home management), CCHTs periodically monitor the patients’ clinical conditions and vital signs (usually a revaluation every 24–48 hours, except for a sudden worsening). However, this strategy - which reduces the pressure on hospitals - has never been evaluated for patient safety. Our study aims to determine whether a home-based monitoring and treatment strategy for non-severe COVID-19 patients was safe as direct hospital admission by the emergency department. We conducted a retrospective observational study about 1,182 patients admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 between September 2020 and April 2021, confronting in-hospital and 30-day mortality in both CCHT-referred (n=275) and directly admitted by emergency department (n=907). Patients assessed by the CCHT had lower in-hospital and 30-day mortality (18% vs 28%, p=0.001; and 20% vs 30%, p=0.002); but, in the propensity score matching comparison, there was no characteristic between the two groups turned out significantly different. CCHT did not correlate with in-hospital or 30-day mortality. CCHT is a safe strategy to reduce hospital overburden for COVID-19 during pandemic surges.

Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which has rapidly spread to a global pandemic in March 2020. This emergency condition has been putting a severe strain on healthcare systems worldwide, and a prompt, dynamic response is instrumental in its management. While a definite diagnosis is based on microbiological evidence, the relationship between lung ultrasound (LU) and high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) in the diagnosis and management of COVID-19 is less clear. Lung ultrasound is a point-of-care imaging tool that proved to be useful in the identification and severity assessment of different pulmonary conditions, particularly in the setting of emergency and critical care patients in intensive care units; HRCT of the thorax is regarded as the mainstay of imaging evaluation of lung disorders, enabling characterization and quantification of pulmonary involvement. Aims of this review are to describe LU and chest HRCT main imaging features of COVID-19 pneumonia, and to provide state-of-the-art insights regarding the integrated role of these techniques in the clinical decision-making process of patients affected by this infectious disease.

A continuous demand for assistance and an overcrowded emergency department (ED) require early and safe discharge of low-risk severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected patients. We developed (n = 128) and validated (n = 330) the acute PNeumonia early assessment (aPNea) score in a tertiary hospital and preliminarily tested the score on an external secondary hospital (n = 97). The score’s performance was compared to that of the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2). The composite outcome of either death or oral intubation within 30 days from admission occurred in 101 and 28 patients in the two hospitals, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of the aPNea model was 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.78–0.93) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73–0.89) for the development and validation cohorts, respectively. The aPNea score discriminated low-risk patients better than NEWS2 at a 10% outcome probability, corresponding to five cut-off points and one cut-off point, respectively. aPNea’s cut-off reduced the number of unnecessary hospitalizations without missing outcomes by 27% (95% CI, 9–41) in the validation cohort. NEWS2 was not significant. In the external cohort, aPNea’s cut-off had 93% sensitivity (95% CI, 83–102) and a 94% negative predictive value (95% CI, 87–102). In conclusion, the aPNea score appears to be appropriate for discharging low-risk SARS-CoV-2-infected patients from the ED.

Objective: During acute renal colic due to nephrolithiasis, a new sonographic diagnostic sign was noted, called “a swinging kidney.” This term was given due to a characteristic anteroposterior “rolling” movement of the kidney. A preliminary investigation was conducted to evaluate the correlation between this new diagnostic sign and nephrolithiasis. Materials and Methods: An exploratory observational investigation was conducted on adult patients who accessed an emergency medicine department, with acute renal colic, between June 1, 2019, and October 31, 2019. Results: Thirty-seven patients were enrolled. The “swinging kidney” was present in 26 cases (70%). This sign was correlated with a stone’s diameter of less than 10 mm (χ2: 4.68; P = .031), and with a stone localization in the juxtavesical ureter tract site (χ2: 10.83; P = .029). Spontaneously stone expulsion was correlated with the presence of the “swinging kidney” (χ2: 4.66; P = .031); with the minor degree of hydronephrosis (χ2: 16.82; P = .0008), and with a distal localization of the stone (χ2: 25.11; P = 1:47 × 10−5). Conclusion: The “swinging kidney” may be a promising diagnostic sign that could be useful in diagnosing nephrolithiasis besides the other indirect sonographic signs. This new diagnostic sign could have a prognostic role.

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.

Pneumomediastinum (PNM) and pneumothorax (PNX) are documented complications of arthroscopic shoulder surgery (ATS). Plexus anesthetic block and tracheal lesions during endotracheal intubation are hypothesized to be the underlying risk factors; however, the actual evidence supporting this hypothesis is scarce.A case of bilateral laterocervical emphysema, subcutaneous edema, and signs of PNM after ATS performed under general anesthesia and supra-scapular nerve block is presented. An up-to-date systematic review of PNM/PNX during orthopedic surgery was performed, involving six databases: PubMed (1996–present), Embase (1974–present), Scopus (2004–present), SpringerLink (1950–present), Ovid Emcare (1995–present), and Google Scholar (2004–present).Twenty-five case studies met the eligibility criteria. In 24 cases, the patient underwent general anesthesia and orotracheal intubation; in 9 of these, a plexus anesthetic block was also performed. One case involved ATS under plexus anesthetic block only. In 10 cases, the diagnostic finding was PNM. In 5 cases, the diagnostic finding was associated with PNX. PNX was detected in 17 cases. In 2 cases, SE was found in the absence of any evidence of either PNM or PNX. A tracheal lesion was identified in 3 cases.Endotracheal intubation and loco-regional anesthesia are not the only predisposing risk factors at play in the pathogenesis of PNM/PNX. Rather, multi-factorial pathogenesis seems more probable, necessitating that specific attention is paid during ATS to the change in patient position on the operating bed, to any slipping of the endotracheal tube, to patient monitoring whilst under the drapes, and to the cuff pressure. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021260370.

Background and objectives Lung Ultrasound Score (LUS) identifies and monitors pneumonia by assigning increasing scores. However, it does not include parameters, such as inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter and index of collapse, diaphragmatic excursions and search for pleural and pericardial effusions. Therefore, we propose a new improved scoring system, termed “integrated” lung ultrasound score (i-LUS) which incorporates previously mentioned parameters that can help in prediction of disease severity and survival, choice of oxygenation mode/ventilation and assignment to subsequent areas of care in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods Upon admission at the sub-intensive section of the emergency medical department (SEMD), 143 consecutively examined COVID-19 patients underwent i-LUS together with all other routine analysis. A database for anamnestic information, laboratory data, gas analysis and i-LUS parameters was created and analyzed. Results Of 143 enrolled patients, 59.4% were male (mean age 71 years) and 40.6% female. (mean age 79 years: p = 0.005). Patients that survived at 1 month had i-LUS score of 16, which was lower than that of non-survivors (median 20; p = 0.005). Survivors had a higher PaO2/FiO2 (median 321.5) compared to non-survivors (median 229, p p p = 0.005). In non-survivors, the serum values of different significant COVID indicators were severely expressed. The i-LUS score was higher (median 20) in patients who required non-invasive ventilation (NIV) than in those treated only by oxygen therapy (median 15.42; p = 0.003). The odds ratio for death outcome was 1.08 (confidence interval 1.02–1.15) for each point increased. At 1-month follow-up, 65 patients (45.5%) died and 78 (54.5%) survived. Patients admitted to the high critical ward had higher i-LUS score than those admitted to the low critical one (p Conclusions i-LUS could be used as a helpful clinical tool for early decision-making in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Dear Editor, Leibner et al described that in the USA, some intensive care units (ICUs) were set up within the emergency department (ED) and managed by emergency physicians (ED-ICU).1 The implementation of the ED-ICU was associated with improved 30-day survival and reduced inpatient ICU admission.2 Furthermore, some diseases (eg, ketoacidosis) are life-threatening but respond dramatically to rapid intervention and resolve quickly.3 In northeastern Italy, near Udine, there are at least four structures in rural or suburban hospitals that have been performing the function of ED-ICUs for at least 20 years (figure 1). These ‘emergency areas’ (so-called ‘Area di Emergenza’ (ADE)) meet the criteria of the ED-ICU as described …

Lung ultrasound (LU) has rapidly become a tool for assessment of patients stricken by the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID‐19). Over the past two and a half months (January, February, and first half of March 2020) we have used this modality for identification of lung involvement along with pulmonary severity in patients with suspected or documented COVID‐19 infection. Use of LU has helped us in clinical decision making and reduced the use of both chest x‐rays and computed tomography (CT).

Background and aim: Pleural effusions (PE) can complicate the course of hematologic disorders (HD) and may arise in the form of malignant PE or as a consequence of non-neoplastic complications. While a certain amount of data has been published regarding infectious and iatrogenic HD-associated PE (HPE), no comprehensive review regarding the other types of HPE has ever been conducted. To address this issue, we performed a systematic review of the literature regarding HPE, focusing on the clinical and chemical characteristics of PE, therapeutic approaches and ì outcomes at the one-year follow-up. Methods: We conducted our review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Overall, 283 manuscripts and 1216 cases were included. In summary, PE frequently signals an underlying HD, especially Hodgkin’s lymphoma and IgG4-related disease; it mainly consists of exudate, although chylothorax is diagnosed in some cases. Although cytological examination has a discrete diagnostic yield, it is generally insufficient to render a definitive diagnosis; pleural biopsy remains an important diagnostic means in such cases. Invasive diagnostic procedures are not frequently performed because of an increased risk of haemorrhagic complications. The majority of PE are resolved by means of systemic therapy. When local treatments are attempted, the most frequently adopted procedures are evacuative thoracentesis and indwelling chest tube placement. Conclusions: This review highlights the need for well-designed prospective studies comparing diagnostic means and therapeutic interventions for HPE to increase the quality of available data. (www.actabiomedica.it)

Background: The need to determine prognostic factors that can predict a particularly severe or, conversely, the benign course of COVID-19 is particularly perceived in the Emergency Department (ED), considering the scarcity of resources for a conspicuous mass of patients. The aim of our study was to identify some predictors for 30-day mortality among some clinical, laboratory, and ultrasound variables in a COVID-19 patients population. Methods: Prospective single-center pilot study conducted in an ED of an University Hospital. A consecutive sample of confirmed COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure was enrolled from March 8th, to April 15th, 2020. Results: 143 patients were enrolled. Deceased patients (n = 65) were older (81 vs. 61 years, p

COVID-19 is an infection induced by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, and severe forms can lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring intensive care unit (ICU) management. Severe forms are associated with coagulation changes, mainly characterized by an increase in D-dimer and fibrinogen levels, with a higher risk of thrombosis, particularly pulmonary embolism. The impact of obesity in severe COVID-19 has also been highlighted. In this context, standard doses of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) may be inadequate in ICU patients, with obesity, major inflammation, and hypercoagulability. We therefore urgently developed proposals on the prevention of thromboembolism and monitoring of hemostasis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Four levels of thromboembolic risk were defined according to the severity of COVID-19 reflected by oxygen requirement and treatment, the body mass index, and other risk factors. Monitoring of hemostasis (including fibrinogen and D-dimer levels) every 48 h is proposed. Standard doses of LMWH (e.g., enoxaparin 4000 IU/24 h SC) are proposed in case of intermediate thrombotic risk (BMI 120 kg), or unfractionated heparin (UFH) if renal insufficiency (200 IU/kg/24 h, IV), is proposed. The thrombotic risk was defined as very high in obese patients with ARDS and added risk factors for thromboembolism, and also in case of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), unexplained catheter thrombosis, dialysis filter thrombosis, or marked inflammatory syndrome and/or hypercoagulability (e.g., fibrinogen > 8 g/l and/or D-dimers > 3 μg/ml). In ICU patients, it is sometimes difficult to confirm a diagnosis of thrombosis, and curative anticoagulant treatment may also be discussed on a probabilistic basis. In all these situations, therapeutic doses of LMWH, or UFH in case of renal insufficiency with monitoring of anti-Xa activity, are proposed. In conclusion, intensification of heparin treatment should be considered in the context of COVID-19 on the basis of clinical and biological criteria of severity, especially in severely ill ventilated patients, for whom the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism cannot be easily confirmed.

Purpose: The high percentage of asymptomatic patients and the non-high sensitivity of real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test on nasopharyngeal swab cause some healthcare workers to be infected but asymptomatic and a source of spread of the epidemic. This study aimed to verify if the lung ultrasound (LUS) had enough high negative predictive value to rule out coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among a population of healthcare workers operating in the Emergency Department. Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted, enrolling healthcare workers among the staff of two Emergency Departments in Northeast Italy. The definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 was established by an adjudication committee, based on the clinical data and RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swab result. Results: From March 30, 2020, to April 22, 2020, we enrolled 155 cases. The adjudication committee determined two true positives for COVID-19. Twenty-one healthcare workers presented suggestive symptoms (2 true positives and 19 false positives). The nasopharyngeal swab was positive in one case (1 false-negative case). LUS was suggestive for COVID-19 pneumonia in 4 cases (2 false-positive cases). The diagnostic accuracy of LUS was 98.7% (95% CI 95.4%-99.8%). The sensitivity and the specificity of LUS were 100% (95% CI 15.8% -100%) and 98.7% (95% CI 95.4% - 99.8%), respectively. The negative predictive value was 100% (95% CI 100% -100%). Conclusion: LUS has a good enough negative predictive value for ruling out COVID-19 in a population of healthcare workers exposed to COVID-19.

The goal of this survey was to describe the use and diffusion of lung ultrasound (LUS), the level of training received before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the clinical impact LUS has had on COVID-19 cases in intensive care units (ICU) from February 2020 to May 2020. The Italian Lung Ultrasound Survey (ITALUS) was a nationwide online survey proposed to Italian anesthesiologists and intensive care physicians carried out after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. It consisted of 27 questions, both quantitative and qualitative. 807 responded to the survey. The median previous LUS experience was 3 years (IQR 1.0-6.0). 473 (60.9 %) reported having attended at least one training course on LUS before the COVID-19 pandemic. 519 (73.9 %) reported knowing how to use the LUS score. 404 (52 %) reported being able to use LUS without any supervision. 479 (68.2 %) said that LUS influenced their clinical decision-making, mostly with respect to patient monitoring. During the pandemic, the median of patients daily evaluated with LUS increased 3-fold (p 0.001), daily use of general LUS increased from 10.4 % to 28.9 % (p 0.001), and the daily use of LUS score in particular increased from 1.6 % to 9.0 % (p 0.001). This survey showed that LUS was already extensively used during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic by anesthesiologists and intensive care physicians in Italy, and then its adoption increased further. Residency programs are already progressively implementing LUS teaching. However, 76.7 % of the sample did not undertake any LUS certification.ZIEL: Das Ziel dieser Umfrage war es, den Einsatz und die Verbreitung von Lungenultraschall (LUS), den Ausbildungstand vor und während der COVID-19-Pandemie sowie die klinische Bedeutung des LUS auf COVID-19-Fälle auf Intensivstationen (ICU) von Februar 2020 bis Mai 2020 zu beschreiben. Die „Italian Lung Ultrasound Survey“ (ITALUS) war eine landesweite Online-Umfrage, die italienischen Anästhesisten und Intensivmedizinern nach der ersten Welle der COVID-19-Pandemie unterbreitet wurde. Sie bestand aus 27 quantitativen und qualitativen Fragen. 807 Ärzte nahmen an der Umfrage teil. Die Vorerfahrung im LUS lag bei median 3 Jahren (IQR 1,0–6,0). 473 (60,9 %) gaben an, vor der COVID-19-Pandemie mindestens eine Schulung zu LUS besucht zu haben. 519 (73,9 %) gaben an, mit dem LUS-Score vertraut zu sein. 404 (52 %) gaben an, LUS ohne Aufsicht nutzen zu können. 479 (68,2 %) gaben an, dass LUS ihre klinische Entscheidungsfindung beeinflusst, vor allem in Bezug auf die Patientenüberwachung. Während der Pandemie stieg der Median der Patienten, die täglich mit LUS untersucht wurden, um das 3-Fache (p 0,001), der tägliche Einsatz des allgemeinen LUS erhöhte sich von 10,4 % auf 28,9 % (p 0,001), und insbesondere der tägliche Einsatz des LUS-Scores stieg von 1,6 % auf 9,0 % (p 0,001). Diese Umfrage zeigte, dass LUS bereits während der ersten Welle der COVID-19-Pandemie von Anästhesisten und Intensivmedizinern in Italien in großem Umfang eingesetzt wurde und dann weiter zugenommen hat. In der Facharztausbildung wird LUS bereits zunehmend eingeführt. Allerdings hatten in der Stichprobe 76,7 % keine LUS-Zertifizierung.

Highlights • In the early stages of COVID-19 respiratory failure, a trial of non-invasive ventilation CPAP mode under close monitoring seems reasonably safe. • CPAP failure patients had a lower DTF, experienced more ICU days and longer in-hospital length of stay. • In the context of critically ill patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure admitted to ICU, DTF could be a predictor of CPAP failure. • The DTF best threshold value was 21% (AUC: 0.944, CI: 0.844-0.999; 94 % sensitivity and 78 % specificity)., Background In a variable number of Covid-19 patients with acute respiratory failure, non-invasive breathing support strategies cannot provide adequate oxygenation, thus making invasive mechanical ventilation necessary. Factors predicting this unfavorable outcome are unknown, but we hypothesized that diaphragmatic weakness may contribute. Methods We prospectively analyzed the data of 27 consecutive patients admitted to the general Intensive Care Unit (ICU) from March 19, 2020, to April 20, 2020 and submitted to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) before considering invasive ventilation. Diaphragmatic thickening fraction (DTF) inferred by ultrasound was determined before applying CPAP. Results Eighteen patients recovered with CPAP, whereas nine required invasive mechanical ventilation with longer stay in ICU (p

Background Early detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2)‐infected patients who could develop a severe form of COVID‐19 must be considered of great importance to carry out adequate care and optimise the use of limited resources. Aims To use several machine learning classification models to analyse a series of non‐critically ill COVID‐19 patients admitted to a general medicine ward to verify if any clinical variables recorded could predict the clinical outcome. Methods We retrospectively analysed non‐critically ill patients with COVID‐19 admitted to the general ward of the hospital in Pordenone from 1 March 2020 to 30 April 2020. Patients' characteristics were compared based on clinical outcomes. Through several machine learning classification models, some predictors for clinical outcome were detected. Results In the considered period, we analysed 176 consecutive patients admitted: 119 (67.6%) were discharged, 35 (19.9%) dead and 22 (12.5%) were transferred to intensive care unit. The most accurate models were a random forest model (M2) and a conditional inference tree model (M5) (accuracy = 0.79; 95% confidence interval 0.64–0.90, for both). For M2, glomerular filtration rate and creatinine were the most accurate predictors for the outcome, followed by age and fraction‐inspired oxygen. For M5, serum sodium, body temperature and arterial pressure of oxygen and inspiratory fraction of oxygen ratio were the most reliable predictors. Conclusions In non‐critically ill COVID‐19 patients admitted to a medical ward, glomerular filtration rate, creatinine and serum sodium were promising predictors for the clinical outcome. Some factors not determined by COVID‐19, such as age or dementia, influence clinical outcomes.