Anatomophysiological relationships and clinical considerations of taste and smell loss in patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUNDThere are numerous conflicting discussions about the outbreak of the new coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19).AIMTo present some anatomical and physiological considerations about two of the symptoms reported by patients: The loss or reduction of smell and taste. METHODSThe loss or reduction of smell and taste is presented in a peculiar way, with some cases of persistence even after COVID-19. For this, it was searched in three databases, PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus, using the following keywords: Smell, Taste, Smell AND COVID-19, Taste AND COVID-19, with no publication time restriction, only in English with full text available, excluding also brief communications, letters to the editor, editorials, reviews, comments, and conference abstracts. RESULTSThe search found 776 articles in the PubMed/MEDLINE database, 1018 in the Web of Science database, and 552 in the Scopus database, from which duplicates were removed (104 articles). Finally, 17 studies were selected for detailed analysis within the eligibility criteria, with titles and abstracts related to central nervous system lesions responsible for smell and taste. This review suggests that viral mechanisms of action may be related to lesions both at the local level and at the level of the central nervous system, lasting up to 3 to 4 wk. It is considered persistent if it exceeds this period, as reported in one case in this review. There are still few studies about the treatment, and among those addressed in this review, only two studies reported possible treatments and emphasized the scarcity of data, with the best option being treatments that do not cause harm, such as gustatory and olfactory physiotherapyCONCLUSIONGiven the scarcity of data, this review emphasizes the importance of prevention, through the correct use of personal protective equipment by health professionals and respect for local behavioral indications. It is also emphasized, through five studies, that there is a predominance of such symptoms in patients with COVID-19, which can be a tool to control dissemination, through the early isolation of patients until the results are ready.     

Risk Factors for Severe COVID-19 in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been the most important global issue since December 2019. Although the clinical course of COVID-19 is known to be milder in children than in adults, associated hospitalizations among children have increased since the emergence of contagious severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants and the achievement of a high vaccination rate in adults. Considering these global and domestic situations, we believe that risk stratification in children with COVID-19 is urgently needed for decision making regarding hospitalization priority in children infected with SARS-CoV-2 and vaccination priority against COVID-19.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis was performed by comprehensively searching the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and KoreaMed databases through August 25, 2021. The criteria for enrollment were “severe COVID-19” as poor outcomes (intensive care unit admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, and/or death) and underlying comorbidities before SARS-CoV-2 infection.ResultsAmong 872 screened studies, 17 articles were included in the systematic review, and 10 articles were included in the meta-analysis. Neonate (risk ratio [RR], 2.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.83–3.97), prematurity in young infants (RR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.63–2.46), obesity (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.24–1.64), diabetes (RR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.95–2.62), chronic lung disease (RR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.71–4.00), heart disease (RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.58–2.09), neurologic disease (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05–1.33), and immunocompromised status (RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.01–2.04) were significant risk factors for severe COVID-19 in children. In the subgroup analysis, age younger than 3 months (RR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.11–0.66), asthma (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.98–1.20), and neurodevelopmental disorders (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75–1.04) were not risk factors for severe COVID-19.ConclusionChildren with comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, chronic lung diseases other than asthma, seizure disorders, and an immunocompromised status had a high prevalence of severe COVID-19. Neonate and premature infants had a high risk of severe COVID-19. Defining the high-risk group for severe COVID-19 could help to guide hospital admission and priority for vaccination against SARS-CoV-2.     

Onset,duration and unresolved symptoms,including smell and taste changes,in mild COVID-19 infection: a cohort study in Israeli patients

ObjectivesTo characterize longitudinal symptoms of mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients for a period of 6 months, to potentially aid in disease management.MethodsPhone interviews were conducted with 103 patients with mild COVID-19 in Israel over a 6-month period (April 2020 to October 2020). Patients were recruited via social media and word to mouth and were interviewed up to 4 times, depending on reports of their unresolved symptoms. Inclusion criteria required participants to be residents of Israel aged 18 years or older, with positive COVID-19 real-time PCR results and nonsevere symptoms. The onset, duration, severity and resolution of symptoms were analysed.ResultsA total of 44% (45/103), 41% (42/103), 39% (40/103) and 38% (39/103) of patients experienced headache, fever, muscle ache and dry cough as the first symptom respectively. Smell and taste changes were experienced at 3.9 ± 5.4 and 4.6 ± 5.7 days (mean ± standard deviation (SD)) after disease onset respectively. Among prevalent symptoms, fever had the shortest duration (5.8 ± 8.6 days), and taste and smell changes were the longest-lasting symptoms (17.2 ± 17.6 and 18.9 ± 19.7 days; durations censored at 60 days). Longer recovery of the sense of smell correlated with the extent of smell change. At the 6-month follow-up, 46% (47/103) of the patients had at least one unresolved symptom, most commonly fatigue (22%, 23/103), smell and taste changes (15%, 15/103 and 8%, 8/103 respectively) and breathing difficulties (8%, 8/103).ConclusionsLong-lasting effects of mild COVID-19 manifested in almost half of the participants reporting at least one unresolved symptom after 6 months.     

Childhood COVID-19: a multicentre retrospective study

ObjectivesTo investigate the clinical and epidemiological characteristics of paediatric patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19).MethodsPaediatric patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between January 15 and March 15, 2020, from seven hospitals in Zhejiang Province, China, were collected retrospectively and analysed.ResultsThirty-two children with COVID-19, ranging in age from 3 months to 18 years, were enrolled. Family aggregation occurred in 87.5% of infant and preschool-aged children (7/8), and also school-aged children (14/16), but in only 12.5% (1/8) of adolescents (p < 0.05, p < 0.001). Most of these patients had mild symptoms: mainly fever (20/32) followed by cough (10/32) and fatigue (4/32). The average durations of viral RNA in respiratory samples and gastrointestinal samples were 15.8 d and 28.9 d, respectively. Detox duration in faeces decreased with age: 39.8 d, 27.5 d and 20.4 d in infants and preschool children, school children, and adolescents respectively (p_{0–6, –18} <0.01, p_{0–6, –14} <0.05). Pneumonia was found in 14 children, but there was no statistical significance in the incidence of pneumonia between different age groups. Thirty patients were treated with antiviral drugs, and all patients were stable and gradually improved after admission.ConclusionsMost children with COVID-19 had a mild process and a good prognosis. More attention should be paid to investigation of household contact history in the diagnosis of COVID-19 in young children. Viral RNA lasts longer in the gastrointestinal system than in the respiratory tract, especially in younger children.     

Chest CT abnormalities in COVID-19: a systematic review

Computed tomography (CT) of the chest is one of the main diagnositic tools for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. To document the chest CT findings in patients with confirmed COVID-19 and their association with the clinical severity, we searched related literatures through PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science (inception to May 4, 2020) and reviewed reference lists of previous systematic reviews. A total of 31 case reports (3768 patients) on CT findings of COVID-19 were included. The most common comorbid conditions were hypertension (18.4%) and diabetes mellitus (8.3%). The most common symptom was fever (78.7%), followed by cough (60.2%). It took an average of 5.6 days from symptom onset to admission. The most common chest CT finding was vascular enlargement (84.8%), followed by ground-glass opacity (GGO) (60.1%), air-bronchogram (47.8%), and consolidation (41.4%). Most lung lesions were located in the lung periphery (72.2%) and involved bilateral lung (76%). Most patients showed normal range of laboratory findings such as white blood cell count (96.4%) and lymphocyte (87.2%). Compared to previous published meta-analyses, our study is the first to summarize the different radiologic characteristics of chest CT in a total of 3768 COVID-19 patients by compiling case series studies. A comprehensive diagnostic approach should be adopted for patients with known COVID-19, suspected cases, and for exposed individuals.     

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThe benefits of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remain debated with the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization providing contradictory recommendations for and against use.ObjectivesTo evaluate the role of remdesivir for hospitalized inpatients as a function of oxygen requirements.Data sourcesBeginning with our prior systematic review, we searched MEDLINE using PubMed from 15 January 2021 through 5 May 2022.Study eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials; all languages.ParticipantsAll hospitalized adults with COVID-19.InterventionsRemdesivir, in comparison to either placebo, or standard of care.Assessment of risk of biasWe used the ROB-2 criteria.Methods of data synthesisThe primary outcome was mortality, stratified by oxygen use (none, supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation, and mechanical ventilation). We conducted a frequentist random effects meta-analysis on the risk ratio scale and, to contextualize the probabilistic benefits, we also performed a Bayesian random effects meta-analysis on the risk difference scale. A ≥1% absolute risk reduction was considered clinically important.ResultsWe identified eight randomized trials, totaling 10 751 participants. The risk ratio for mortality comparing remdesivir vs. control was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.5–1.19) in the patients who did not require supplemental oxygen; 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79–0.99) for nonventilated patients requiring oxygen; and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.88–1.31) in the setting of mechanical ventilation. Using neutral priors, the probabilities that remdesivir reduces mortality were 76.8%, 93.8%, and 14.7%, respectively. The probability that remdesivir reduced mortality by ≥ 1% was 77.4% for nonventilated patients requiring oxygen.ConclusionsBased on this meta-analysis, there is a high probability that remdesivir reduces mortality for nonventilated patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen therapy. Treatment guidelines should be re-evaluated.     

Community-acquired pneumonia severity assessment tools in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: a validation and clinical applicability study

ObjectiveTo externally validate community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) tools on patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia from two distinct countries, and compare their performance with recently developed COVID-19 mortality risk stratification tools.MethodsWe evaluated 11 risk stratification scores in a binational retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia in São Paulo and Barcelona: Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI), CURB, CURB-65, qSOFA, Infectious Disease Society of America and American Thoracic Society Minor Criteria, REA-ICU, SCAP, SMART-COP, CALL, COVID GRAM and 4C. The primary and secondary outcomes were 30-day in-hospital mortality and 7-day intensive care unit (ICU) admission, respectively. We compared their predictive performance using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, calibration plots and decision curve analysis.ResultsOf 1363 patients, the mean (SD) age was 61 (16) years. The 30-day in-hospital mortality rate was 24.6% (228/925) in São Paulo and 21.0% (92/438) in Barcelona. For in-hospital mortality, we found higher AUCs for PSI (0.79, 95% CI 0.77–0.82), 4C (0.78, 95% CI 0.75–0.81), COVID GRAM (0.77, 95% CI 0.75–0.80) and CURB-65 (0.74, 95% CI 0.72–0.77). Results were similar for both countries. For the 1%–20% threshold range in decision curve analysis, PSI would avoid a higher number of unnecessary interventions, followed by the 4C score. All scores had poor performance (AUC <0.65) for 7-day ICU admission.ConclusionsRecent clinical COVID-19 assessment scores had comparable performance to standard pneumonia prognostic tools. Because it is expected that new scores outperform older ones during development, external validation studies are needed before recommending their use.     

Ibuprofen use and clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients

ObjectiveIt was recently suggested that ibuprofen might increase the risk for severe and fatal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and should therefore be avoided in this patient population. We aimed to evaluate whether ibuprofen use in individuals with COVID-19 was associated with more severe disease, compared with individuals using paracetamol or no antipyretics.MethodsIn a retrospective cohort study of patients with COVID-19 from Shamir Medical Centre, Israel, we monitored any use of ibuprofen from a week before diagnosis of COVID-19 throughout the disease. Primary outcomes were mortality and the need for respiratory support, including oxygen administration and mechanical ventilation.ResultsThe study included 403 confirmed cases of COVID-19, with a median age of 45 years. Of the entire cohort, 44 patients (11%) needed respiratory support and 12 (3%) died. One hundred and seventy-nine (44%) patients had fever, with 32% using paracetamol and 22% using ibuprofen, for symptom-relief. In the ibuprofen group, 3 (3.4%) patients died, whereas in the non-ibuprofen group, 9 (2.8%) patients died (p 0.95). Nine (10.3%) patients from the ibuprofen group needed respiratory support, compared with 35 (11%) from the non-ibuprofen group (p 1). When compared with exclusive paracetamol users, no differences were observed in mortality rates or the need for respiratory support among patients using ibuprofen.ConclusionsIn this cohort of COVID-19 patients, ibuprofen use was not associated with worse clinical outcomes, compared with paracetamol or no antipyretic.     

The timing of intubation and principles of ICU care in COVID-19

Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) has been a serious health problem since it was first identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 and has created a global crisis with its economic, sociological, and psychological aspects. Approximately 15% of cases have a severe clinical presentation, and 5% of patients require admission to the intensive care unit. A significant proportion of patients presents with a rapidly progressing acute respiratory failure and require invasive mechanical ventilation. This article aimed to evaluate how the optimal intubation timing should be determined in cases of acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and to offer recommendations for basic intensive care support in the light of our current knowledge.     

Pharmacological and Mechanical Thromboprophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients: a Network Meta-Analysis of 12 Trials

Thromboprophylaxis for venous thromboembolism is widely used in critically ill patients. However, only limited evidence exists regarding the efficacy and safety of the various thromboprophylaxis techniques, especially mechanical thromboprophylaxis. Therefore, we performed meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the overall incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) for between unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), and intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) in critically ill patients. A Bayesian random effects model for multiple treatment comparisons was constructed. The primary outcome measure was the overall incidence of DVT at the longest follow-up. The secondary outcome measure was the incidence of major bleeding, as defined by the original trials. Our analysis included 8,622 patients from 12 RCTs. The incidence of DVT was significantly lower in patients treated with UFH (OR, 0.45; 95% CrI, 0.22–0.83) or LMWH (OR, 0.38; 95% CrI, 0.18–0.72) than in patients in the control group. IPC was associated with a reduced incidence of DVT compared to the control group, but the effect was not statistically significant (OR, 0.50; 95% CrI, 0.20–1.23). The risk of DVT was similar for patients treated with UFH and LMWH (OR, 1.16; 95% CrI, 0.68–2.11). The risk of major bleeding was similar between the treatment groups in medical critically ill patients and also in critically ill patients with a high risk of bleeding. In critically ill patients, the efficacy of mechanical thromboprophylaxis in reducing the risk of DVT is not as robust as those of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis.     

COVID-19 and geographical area of origin

ObjectivesTo describe and compare the main clinical characteristics and outcome measures in hospitalized patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) according to geographical area of origin.MethodsA retrospective analysis of patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 at a referral centre in Madrid, Spain, during March–May 2020 was performed. Recorded variables (age, gender, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, outcome), and geographical area of origin were compared for Europeans and non-Europeans (Latin Americans, Asians and Africans).ResultsIn total, 2345 patients with confirmed COVID-19 hospitalized during the study period were included in the study. Of these, 1956 (83.4%) were European and 389 (16.6%) were non-European (of whom over 90%, 354/389, were Latin American). Non-Europeans were significantly younger than Europeans (mean 54 (SD 13.5) versus 70.4 (SD 15.1) years, p < 0.001); the majority were male (1420/2345, 60.6%), with no significant differences in gender between Europeans and non-Europeans (1197/1956 (61.2%) male in the European group versus 223/389 (57.3%) male in the non-European group, p 0.15). In-hospital mortality overall was higher in Europeans (443/1956, 22.7%) than in non-Europeans (40/389, 10.3%) (p < 0.001), but there were no significant differences when adjusted for age/gender (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.86–1.88). Non-Europeans were more frequently admitted to ICU (71/389, 18.3%) compared with Europeans (187/1956, 9.6%) (p < 0.001) and a difference in ICU admission rate was also found when adjusted for age/gender (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.03–1.98).ConclusionsNo significant differences in mortality were observed between Europeans and non-Europeans (mainly Latin Americans), but an increase in ICU admission rate was found in non-Europeans.     

Clinical Features of Olfactory Dysfunction in COVID-19 Patients

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the subjective and objective olfactory function in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and the effect of olfactory training.MethodsA prospective cohort study was performed in 53 patients who recovered from COVID-19 and visited our tertiary hospital. Subjective olfactory function was evaluated using the 11-point Likert scale (0–10) and the Korean version of the Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders (QOD). Objective olfactory function was evaluated using Cross-Cultural Smell Identification Test (CC-SIT). Confirmed patients were followed up after 2 months of olfactory training.ResultsThe median, interquartile range (Q1–Q3) score of subjective olfactory function significantly deteriorated in patients with olfactory dysfunction (OD) than in those without OD, even after 3 months of onset (11-point Likert scale, 8, 6–9 vs. 10, 10–10; short version of QOD-negative statements, 19, 16–21 vs. 21, 21–21; QOD-visual analogue scale, 7, 1–13 vs. 0, 0–0; all P < 0.001). However, the objective olfactory function was not significantly different between the two groups (median, interquartile range; 11, 9–11 vs. 11, 9–11, P = 0.887). The percentage of patients with objective hyposmia (CC-SIT ≤ 10) was also not significantly different (47.4% vs. 40%, P = 0.762). OD in COVID-19 was normalized after 2 months of olfactory training in 70% of patients even after 3 months of olfactory impairment.ConclusionAlthough subjective olfactory function is significantly decreased in the OD group, the objective olfactory function was not significantly different. Moreover, olfactory training is effective in COVID-19 patients with OD.     

Bacterial and fungal coinfection among hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study in a UK secondary-care setting

ObjectivesTo investigate the incidence of bacterial and fungal coinfection of hospitalized patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in this retrospective observational study across two London hospitals during the first UK wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsA retrospective case series of hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 by PCR was analysed across two acute NHS hospitals (20 February–20 April 2020; each isolate reviewed independently in parallel). This was contrasted to a control group of influenza-positive patients admitted during the 2019–2020 flu season. Patient demographics, microbiology and clinical outcomes were analysed.ResultsA total of 836 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 were included; 27 (3.2%) of 836 had early confirmed bacterial isolates identified (0–5 days after admission), rising to 51 (6.1%) of 836 throughout admission. Blood cultures, respiratory samples, pneumococcal or Legionella urinary antigens and respiratory viral PCR panels were obtained from 643 (77%), 110 (13%), 249 (30%), 246 (29%) and 250 (30%) COVID-19 patients, respectively. A positive blood culture was identified in 60 patients (7.1%), of which 39 were classified as contaminants. Bacteraemia resulting from respiratory infection was confirmed in two cases (one each community-acquired Klebsiella pneumoniae and ventilator-associated Enterobacter cloacae). Line-related bacteraemia was identified in six patients (three Candida, two Enterococcus spp. and one Pseudomonas aeruginosa). All other community-acquired bacteraemias (n = 16) were attributed to nonrespiratory infection. Zero concomitant pneumococcal, Legionella or influenza infection was detected. A low yield of positive respiratory cultures was identified; Staphylococcus aureus was the most common respiratory pathogen isolated in community-acquired coinfection (4/24; 16.7%), with pseudomonas and yeast identified in late-onset infection. Invasive fungal infections (n = 3) were attributed to line-related infections. Comparable rates of positive coinfection were identified in the control group of confirmed influenza infection; clinically relevant bacteraemias (2/141; 1.4%), respiratory cultures (10/38; 26.3%) and pneumococcal-positive antigens (1/19; 5.3%) were low.ConclusionsWe found a low frequency of bacterial coinfection in early COVID-19 hospital presentation, and no evidence of concomitant fungal infection, at least in the early phase of COVID-19.     

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Kenya: Preparedness,response and transmissibility

The world and Kenya face a potential pandemic as the respiratory virus Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) affects world populations. Nations have been forced to intervene and issue directions under executive orders to ensure the pandemic is contained. Kenya has reported 110 confirmed COVID-19 cases (as at 2nd April, 2020), three persons have succumbed and 2 people have fully recovered. Most of the affected people had entered/returned to Kenya from different parts of the world. Most of the people who have contracted COVID 19 are between the 16–74 years of age. As a result, since February 2020, Kenya put in place several precautionary measures to mitigate the pandemic in its early stages. However, the economic status of the population of country won't be simple to control COVID 19, if government won't integrate the realistic feasible timely plans. This article highlights the preparedness, response, transmissibility of Covid-19 and proposes intuitions to manage COVID-19 in Kenya. Currently it is clear that since first confirmation to current, the transmission of the COVID-19 is exponentially increasing in Kenya.     

Management and infection control practices in a Taiwanese radiology department during the COVID-19 outbreak

The radiology department was categorized as a “high risk area” during the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2003 and is similarly considered a “high risk area” during the current coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The purpose of infection control is to isolate patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 from uninfected people by utilizing separate equipment, spaces, and healthcare workers. Infection control measures should be prioritized to prevent the nosocomial spread of infection. We established a COVID-19 infection control team in our radiology department. The team's responsibilities include triaging patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, performing imaging and reporting, using dedicated equipment, disinfecting the equipment and the immediate environment, and staff scheduling.     

Fundus Examination to Guide Anticoagulation Therapy in Suspected COVID-19 in a Critical Care Unit

How to cite this article: Saha R, Singh SK, Samanta S. Fundus Examination to Guide Anticoagulation Therapy in Suspected COVID-19 in a Critical Care Unit. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(6):737–738.     

Completed absorption of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia lesions: a preliminary study

Background: Complete absorption of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia in a short term was not detailedly reported. We aimed to investigate the clinical and imaging characteristics of COVID-19 patients with complete absorption of pulmonary lesions.Methods: Retrospectively collected the clinical and chest CT data of 224 patients with COVID-19 in one regional medical center. Currently, pulmonary lesions in 37 patients were completely absorbed. The clinical manifestations, laboratory examinations, and CT findings of lesions for these patients were summarized.Results: Among the 37 patients (age, 39.0 ± 12.4 [14-63] years, 20 males), disease in 36 (97.3%) was mild and in 1 (2.7%) was from severe to mild. The most common symptoms were cough (24/37, 64.9%) and fever (23/37, 62.2%). Their laboratory indicators at admission were usually normal, while the white blood cell and neutrophil count significantly increased at discharge (p = 0.004, p = 0.006). On initial CT images, all patients had various pulmonary lesions (mean involved lobes: 2.8 ± 1.5, range: 1-5; mean involved segments: 6.6 ± 4.3, range: 1-16), which mainly manifested as multiple patchy and or spherical ground glass opacities (GGOs) (30/37, 81.1%) with fibrous strips (19/30, 63.3%) or consolidation (11/30, 36.7%). After treatment, lesions in most (33/37, 89.2%) patients were continuously absorbed. At discharge, previous lesions were mostly absorbed in 11 patients (11/37, 29.7%), the main residues were GGOs (24/37, 64.9%), followed by fibrous strips (13/37, 35.1%). On the latest CT, all the pulmonary lesions were completely absorbed, the duration of lesions was 31.6 ± 11.4 days (range: 5-50 days).Conclusion: The pulmonary lesions in some mild COVID-19 patients (generally with normal laboratory indicators at admission, GGOs as the main manifestation on initial CT, and representation of continuous absorption after treatment) could be completely absorbed with a mean duration of 31.6 days.     

Prognostic Implications of CT Feature Analysis in Patients with COVID-19: a Nationwide Cohort Study

BackgroundFew studies have classified chest computed tomography (CT) findings of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and analyzed their correlations with prognosis. The present study aimed to evaluate retrospectively the clinical and chest CT findings of COVID-19 and to analyze CT findings and determine their relationships with clinical severity.MethodsChest CT and clinical features of 271 COVID-19 patients were assessed. The presence of CT findings and distribution of parenchymal abnormalities were evaluated, and CT patterns were classified as bronchopneumonia, organizing pneumonia (OP), or diffuse alveolar damage (DAD). Total extents were assessed using a visual scoring system and artificial intelligence software. Patients were allocated to two groups based on clinical outcomes, that is, to a severe group (requiring O₂ therapy or mechanical ventilation, n = 55) or a mild group (not requiring O₂ therapy or mechanical ventilation, n = 216). Clinical and CT features of these two groups were compared and univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent prognostic factors.ResultsAge, lymphocyte count, levels of C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin were significantly different in the two groups. Forty-five of the 271 patients had normal chest CT findings. The most common CT findings among the remaining 226 patients were ground-glass opacity (98%), followed by consolidation (53%). CT findings were classified as OP (93%), DAD (4%), or bronchopneumonia (3%) and all nine patients with DAD pattern were included in the severe group. Uivariate and multivariate analyses showed an elevated procalcitonin (odds ratio [OR], 2.521; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.001–6.303, P = 0.048), and higher visual CT scores (OR, 1.137; 95% CI, 1.042–1.236; P = 0.003) or higher total extent by AI measurement (OR, 1.048; 95% CI, 1.020–1.076; P < 0.001) were significantly associated with a severe clinical course.ConclusionCT findings of COVID-19 pneumonia can be classified into OP, DAD, or bronchopneumonia patterns and all patients with DAD pattern were included in severe group. Elevated inflammatory markers and higher CT scores were found to be significant predictors of poor prognosis in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.