Search

Objectives Physicians’ gestalt is central in the diagnostic pipeline of suspected COVID‐19, due to the absence of a single tool allowing conclusive rule in or rule out. The aim of this study was to estimate the diagnostic test characteristics of physician's gestalt for COVID‐19 in the emergency department (ED), based on clinical findings or on a combination of clinical findings and bedside imaging results. Methods From April 1 to April 30, 2020, patients with suspected COVID‐19 were prospectively enrolled in two EDs. Physicians prospectively dichotomized patients in COVID‐19 likely or unlikely twice: after medical evaluation of clinical features (clinical gestalt [CG]) and after evaluation of clinical features and results of lung ultrasound or chest x‐ray (clinical and bedside imaging–integrated gestalt [CBIIG]). The final diagnosis was adjudicated after independent review of 30‐day follow‐up data. Results Among 838 ED enrolled patients, 193 (23%) were finally diagnosed with COVID‐19. The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of CG and CBIIG for COVID‐19 were 80.8% and 91.6% (p

In the Emergency Department (ED), the decision to hospitalize or discharge COVID-19 patients is challenging. We assessed the utility of lung ultrasound (LUS), alone or in association with a clinical rule/score. This was a multicenter observational prospective study involving six EDs (NCT046291831). From October 2020 to January 2021, COVID-19 outpatients discharged from the ED based on clinical judgment were subjected to LUS and followed-up at 30 days. The primary clinical outcome was a composite of hospitalization or death. Within 393 COVID-19 patients, 35 (8.9%) reached the primary outcome. For outcome prognostication, LUS had a C-index of 0.76 (95%CI 0.68–0.84) and showed good performance and calibration. LUS-based classification provided significant differences in Kaplan–Meier curves, with a positive LUS leading to a hazard ratio of 4.33 (95%CI 1.95–9.61) for the primary outcome. The sensitivity and specificity of LUS for primary outcome occurrence were 74.3% (95%CI 59.8–88.8) and 74% (95%CI 69.5–78.6), respectively. The integration of LUS with a clinical score further increased sensitivity. In patients with a negative LUS, the primary outcome occurred in nine (3.3%) patients (p < 0.001 vs. unselected). The efficiency for rule-out was 69.7%. In unvaccinated ED patients with COVID-19, LUS improves prognostic stratification over clinical judgment alone and may support standardized disposition decisions.