ATS 2021 will feature presentations of original research from accepted abstracts. Mini Symposia and Thematic Poster Sessions are abstract based sessions.
Please use the form below to browse scientific abstracts and case reports accepted for ATS 2021. Abstracts presented at the ATS 2021 will be published in the Online Abstract Issue of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Volume 203, May 3, 2021.
Search Tips:
- Use the keyword search to search by keyword or author's name.
- Filter your search results by selecting the checkboxes that apply.
- Click on "Clear" to clear the form and start a new search. .
Search results will display below the form.
High Resolution CHEST CT(HRCT) Evaluation in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 Infection
Session Title
TP51 - TP051 COVID: LUNG INFECTION, MULTIORGAN FAILURE, AND CARDIOVASCULAR
Abstract
A2641 - High Resolution CHEST CT(HRCT) Evaluation in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 Infection
Author Block: M. Patel1, J. M. Chowdhury1, M. Zheng1, O. Abramian1, S. Verga1, H. Zhao1, N. Patlakh1, N. Montecalvo2, D. Fleece1, G. Cohen2, M. Kumaran2, C. Dass2, G. J. Criner1; 1Thoracic Medicine and Surgery, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, United States, 2Radiology, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Introduction: Currently the main diagnostic modality for COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease-2019) is reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) via nasopharyngeal swab which has high false negative rates (diagnostic yield~70%). We evaluated the performance of high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) imaging in the diagnosis of suspected COVID-19 infection compared to RT-PCR nasopharyngeal swab alone in patients hospitalized for suspected COVID-19 infection. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of 324 consecutive patients admitted to Temple University Hospital. All hospitalized patients who had RT-PCR testing and HRCT were included in the study. HRCTs were classified as Category 1, 2 or 3. Category 1 scans were high probability scans (i.e: ground glass opacities (GGOs), crazy-paving, reverse halo/peri lobular pattern irrespective of location and laterality). Category 3 were low probability scans consistent with an alternate diagnosis. Category 2 scans were indeterminate. Patients were then divided into four groups based on HRCT category and RT-PCR swab results for analysis (Group 1: COVID (+) PCR and Category 1 CT scan, Group 2: COVID (+) PCR and Category 2 and 3 CT scan, Group 3: COVID (-) PCR and Category 1 CT scan, Group 4: COVID (-) PCR and Category 2 and 3 CT scan). Inflammatory markers and treatments were compared across these groups. Results: The average age of patients was 59.4(+15.2) years and 123(38.9%) were female. Predominant ethnicity was African American 148 (46.11%). 161 patients tested positive by RT-PCR, while 41 tested positives by HRCT. 167 (52.02%) had category 1 scan, 63 (19.63%) had category 2 scan and 91 (28.35%) had category 3 HRCT scans. There was substantial agreement between our radiologists for HRCT classification (κ = 0.64). Sensitivity and specificity of HRCT classification system was 77.6 and 73.7 respectively. 38.9 % (n=125) patients were classified as Group 1); 11.2% (n=36) as Group 2, 12.8% (n=41) as Group 3 and 34.8 % (n=115) as Group 4. In group 3, 38 (92.7 %) patients received respiratory viral panels (RVP) which were all negative; 21(51.2%) had sputum cultures, only 1 was positive for staph aureus. When comparing Group 1 to Group 3, there were no statistically significant differences in inflammatory markers. There were no statistically significant differences amongst Groups 1 and 3 with respect to treatments Conclusion: Due to its high infectivity and asymptomatic transmission, until a highly sensitive and specific COVID-19 test is developed, HRCT is a valuable assessment tool for patients who are hospitalized with suspected COVID-19.
Author Block: M. Patel1, J. M. Chowdhury1, M. Zheng1, O. Abramian1, S. Verga1, H. Zhao1, N. Patlakh1, N. Montecalvo2, D. Fleece1, G. Cohen2, M. Kumaran2, C. Dass2, G. J. Criner1; 1Thoracic Medicine and Surgery, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, United States, 2Radiology, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Introduction: Currently the main diagnostic modality for COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease-2019) is reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) via nasopharyngeal swab which has high false negative rates (diagnostic yield~70%). We evaluated the performance of high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) imaging in the diagnosis of suspected COVID-19 infection compared to RT-PCR nasopharyngeal swab alone in patients hospitalized for suspected COVID-19 infection. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of 324 consecutive patients admitted to Temple University Hospital. All hospitalized patients who had RT-PCR testing and HRCT were included in the study. HRCTs were classified as Category 1, 2 or 3. Category 1 scans were high probability scans (i.e: ground glass opacities (GGOs), crazy-paving, reverse halo/peri lobular pattern irrespective of location and laterality). Category 3 were low probability scans consistent with an alternate diagnosis. Category 2 scans were indeterminate. Patients were then divided into four groups based on HRCT category and RT-PCR swab results for analysis (Group 1: COVID (+) PCR and Category 1 CT scan, Group 2: COVID (+) PCR and Category 2 and 3 CT scan, Group 3: COVID (-) PCR and Category 1 CT scan, Group 4: COVID (-) PCR and Category 2 and 3 CT scan). Inflammatory markers and treatments were compared across these groups. Results: The average age of patients was 59.4(+15.2) years and 123(38.9%) were female. Predominant ethnicity was African American 148 (46.11%). 161 patients tested positive by RT-PCR, while 41 tested positives by HRCT. 167 (52.02%) had category 1 scan, 63 (19.63%) had category 2 scan and 91 (28.35%) had category 3 HRCT scans. There was substantial agreement between our radiologists for HRCT classification (κ = 0.64). Sensitivity and specificity of HRCT classification system was 77.6 and 73.7 respectively. 38.9 % (n=125) patients were classified as Group 1); 11.2% (n=36) as Group 2, 12.8% (n=41) as Group 3 and 34.8 % (n=115) as Group 4. In group 3, 38 (92.7 %) patients received respiratory viral panels (RVP) which were all negative; 21(51.2%) had sputum cultures, only 1 was positive for staph aureus. When comparing Group 1 to Group 3, there were no statistically significant differences in inflammatory markers. There were no statistically significant differences amongst Groups 1 and 3 with respect to treatments Conclusion: Due to its high infectivity and asymptomatic transmission, until a highly sensitive and specific COVID-19 test is developed, HRCT is a valuable assessment tool for patients who are hospitalized with suspected COVID-19.
