BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is an emerging infectious disease, that is heavily challenging health systems worldwide. Admission Arterial Blood Gas (ABG) and Lung Ultrasound (LUS) can be of great help in clinical decision making, especially during the current pandemic and the consequent overcrowding of the Emergency Department (ED). The aim of the study was to demonstrate the capability of alveolar-to-arterial oxygen difference (AaDO2) in predicting the need for subsequent oxygen support and survival in patients with COVID-19 infection, especially in the presence of baseline normal PaO2/FiO2 ratio (P/F) values. METHODS: A cohort of 223 swab-confirmed COVID-19 patients underwent clinical evaluation, blood tests, ABG and LUS in the ED. LUS score was derived from 12 ultrasound lung windows. AaDO2 was derived as AaDO2 = ((FiO2) (Atmospheric pressure - H2O pressure) - (PaCO2/R)) - PaO2. Endpoints were subsequent oxygen support need and survival. RESULTS: A close relationship between AaDO2 and P/F and between AaDO2 and LUS score was observed (R2 = 0.88 and R2 = 0.67, respectively; p < 0.001 for both). In the subgroup of patients with P/F between 300 and 400, 94.7% (n = 107) had high AaDO2 values, and 51.4% (n = 55) received oxygen support, with 2 ICU admissions and 10 deaths. According to ROC analysis, AaDO2 > 39.4 had 83.6% sensitivity and 90.5% specificity (AUC 0.936; p < 0.001) in predicting subsequent oxygen support, whereas a LUS score > 6 showed 89.7% sensitivity and 75.0% specificity (AUC 0.896; p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier curves showed different mortality in the AaDO2 subgroups (p = 0.0025). CONCLUSIONS: LUS and AaDO2 are easy and effective tools, which allow bedside risk stratification in patients with COVID-19, especially when P/F values, signs, and symptoms are not indicative of severe lung dysfunction.
BACKGROUND:COVID-19 is an emerging infectious disease, that is heavily challenging health systems worldwide. Admission Arterial Blood Gas (ABG) and Lung Ultrasound (LUS) can be of great help in clinical decision making, especially during the current pandemic and the consequent overcrowding of the Emergency Department (ED). The aim of the study was to demonstrate the capability of alveolar-to-arterial oxygen difference (AaDO2) in predicting the need for subsequent oxygen support and survival in patients with COVID-19infection, especially in the presence of baseline normal PaO2/FiO2 ratio (P/F) values. METHODS: A cohort of 223 swab-confirmed COVID-19patients underwent clinical evaluation, blood tests, ABG and LUS in the ED. LUS score was derived from 12 ultrasound lung windows. AaDO2 was derived as AaDO2 = ((FiO2) (Atmospheric pressure - H2O pressure) - (PaCO2/R)) - PaO2. Endpoints were subsequent oxygen support need and survival. RESULTS: A close relationship between AaDO2 and P/F and between AaDO2 and LUS score was observed (R2 = 0.88 and R2 = 0.67, respectively; p < 0.001 for both). In the subgroup of patients with P/F between 300 and 400, 94.7% (n = 107) had high AaDO2 values, and 51.4% (n = 55) received oxygen support, with 2 ICU admissions and 10 deaths. According to ROC analysis, AaDO2 > 39.4 had 83.6% sensitivity and 90.5% specificity (AUC 0.936; p < 0.001) in predicting subsequent oxygen support, whereas a LUS score > 6 showed 89.7% sensitivity and 75.0% specificity (AUC 0.896; p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier curves showed different mortality in the AaDO2 subgroups (p = 0.0025). CONCLUSIONS:LUS and AaDO2 are easy and effective tools, which allow bedside risk stratification in patients with COVID-19, especially when P/F values, signs, and symptoms are not indicative of severe lung dysfunction.
Authors: Giovanni Volpicelli; Mahmoud Elbarbary; Michael Blaivas; Daniel A Lichtenstein; Gebhard Mathis; Andrew W Kirkpatrick; Lawrence Melniker; Luna Gargani; Vicki E Noble; Gabriele Via; Anthony Dean; James W Tsung; Gino Soldati; Roberto Copetti; Belaid Bouhemad; Angelika Reissig; Eustachio Agricola; Jean-Jacques Rouby; Charlotte Arbelot; Andrew Liteplo; Ashot Sargsyan; Fernando Silva; Richard Hoppmann; Raoul Breitkreutz; Armin Seibel; Luca Neri; Enrico Storti; Tomislav Petrovic Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: K Najafizadeh; M Arab; B Radpei; S Pojhan; A Abbasi-Dezfuli; A Deneshvar; J Faeghi; H R Khoddami-Vishteh; M Azizabadi-Farahani; G Abbasi-Dezfuli Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: Niall D Ferguson; Eddy Fan; Luigi Camporota; Massimo Antonelli; Antonio Anzueto; Richard Beale; Laurent Brochard; Roy Brower; Andrés Esteban; Luciano Gattinoni; Andrew Rhodes; Arthur S Slutsky; Jean-Louis Vincent; Gordon D Rubenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; V Marco Ranieri Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-08-25 Impact factor: 17.440