Search

Copyright of Der Internist is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Purpose: This retrospective study aims to analyze the distribution of demand and the duration of the diagnostic workup of suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) using computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA).Methods: Time data from physical examination to report creation were identified for each CTPA in 2013 and 2018 at a tertiary hospital. Multivariable multinomial logistic and linear regression models were used to evaluate differences between 3 time intervals (I1: 6am-2pm, I2: 2pm-10pm, I3: 10pm-6am). A cosinor model was applied to analyze the amount of CTPA per hour.Results: The relative demand for CTPA from the emergency room was lower in l1 compared to l2 and l3 (I1/I2: odds ratio (OR) 0.84, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.78-0.91; I1/I3: OR 0.80, 95 % CI 0.72-0.89; peak 4:23 pm). Requests for in-patients displayed a tendency towards I1 (I1/2: OR 1.15, 95 % CI 1.06-1.24; l1/l3: OR 1.19, 95 % CI 1.07-1.33; peak 1:54 pm). The time from CTPA request to study was shorter in I3 compared to I1 and I2 in 2013 (I1/I3: ratio 5.23, 95 % CI 3.38-8.10; I2/I3: ratio 3.50, 95 % CI 2.24-5.45) and 2018 (I1/I3: ratio 2.27, 95 % CI 1.60-3.22; I2/I3: ratio 2.11, 95 % CI 1.50-2.97). This applied similarly to fatal cases (I1/I3: ratio 2.91, 95 % CI 1.78-4.75; I2/I3: ratio 2.45, 95 % CI1.52-3.95).Conclusions: The temporal distribution of demand for CTPA depends on the sector of patient care and the processing time differs substantially during the day. Time series analysis can reveal such coherences and may help to optimize workflows in radiology departments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• A publicly available SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay was adapted and evaluated on the open mode of the NeuMoDx 96 system. • The assay showed comparable analytical and clinical performance to the reference assay. • Fast run-around times (80 min) and a random-access workflow make the assay well suited for urgent clinical samples. The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic presents a unique challenge for diagnostic laboratories around the world. Automation of workflows in molecular diagnostics is instrumental for coping with the large number of tests ordered by clinicians, as well as providing fast-tracked rapid testing for highly urgent cases. In this study we evaluated a SARS-CoV-2 LDT for the NeuMoDx 96 system, a fully automated device performing extraction and real-time PCR. A publicly available SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay was adapted for the automated system. Analytical performance was evaluated using in-vitro transcribed RNA and clinical performance was compared to the cobas 6800-based reference assay within the lab. The Envelope (E) Gene-LDT displayed good analytical performance with an LoD of 95.55 cp/mL and no false positives during evaluation of cross-reactivity. A total of 176 patient samples were tested with both the E-Gene-LDT and the reference assay. Positive and negative agreement were 100 % and 99.2 % respectively. Invalid-rate was 6.3 %. The E-Gene-LDT showed analytical and clinical performance comparable to the cobas6800-based reference assay. Due to its random-access workflow concept and rapid time-to-result of about 80 min, the system is very well suited for providing fast-tracked SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics for urgent clinical samples in the hospital setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]