Characteristics of COVID-19 Community Practice Declines in Noninvasive Diagnostic Imaging Professional Work

PurposeThe operational and financial impact of the widespread coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) curtailment of imaging services on radiology practices is unknown. We aimed to characterize recent COVID-19-related community practice noninvasive diagnostic imaging professional work declines.MethodsUsing imaging metadata from nine community radiology practices across the United States between January 2019 and May 2020, we mapped work relative value unit (wRVU)-weighted stand-alone noninvasive diagnostic imaging service codes to both modality and body region. Weekly 2020 versus 2019 wRVU changes were analyzed by modality, body region, and site of service. Practice share χ² testing was performed.ResultsAggregate weekly wRVUs ranged from a high of 120,450 (February 2020) to a low of 55,188 (April 2020). During that −52% wRVU nadir, outpatient declines were greatest (−66%). All practices followed similar aggregate trends in the distribution of wRVUs between each 2020 versus 2019 week (P = .96-.98). As a percentage of total all-practice wRVUs, declines in CT (20,046 of 63,992; 31%) and radiography and fluoroscopy (19,196; 30%) were greatest. By body region, declines in abdomen and pelvis (16,203; 25%) and breast (12,032; 19%) imaging were greatest. Mammography (−17%) and abdominal and pelvic CT (−14%) accounted for the largest shares of total all-practice wRVU reductions. Across modality-region groups, declines were far greatest for mammography (−92%).ConclusionsSubstantial COVID-19-related diagnostic imaging work declines were similar across community practices and disproportionately impacted mammography. Decline patterns could facilitate pandemic second wave planning. Overall implications for practice workflows, practice finances, patient access, and payment policy are manifold.     

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic Shifts Inpatient Imaging Utilization

ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a significant impact on imaging utilization across practice settings. The purpose of this study was to quantify the change in the composition of inpatient imaging volumes for modality types and Current Procedural Terminology–coded groups during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA retrospective study of inpatient imaging volumes in a large health care system was performed, analyzing weekly imaging volumes by modality types (radiography, CT, MRI, ultrasound, interventional radiology, nuclear medicine) in years 2020 and 2019. The data set was split to compare pre-COVID-19 (weeks 1-9) and post-COVID-19 (weeks 10-16) periods. Further subanalyses compared early post-COVID-19 (weeks 10-13) and late post-COVID-19 (weeks 14-16) periods. Statistical comparisons were performed using χ² and independent-samples t tests.ResultsCompared with 2019, total inpatient imaging volume in 2020 post-COVID-19, early and late post-COVID-19 periods, declined by 13.6% (from 78,902 to 68,168), 16.6% (from 45,221 to 37,732), and 9.6% (from 33,681 to 30,436), respectively. By week 16, inpatient imaging volume rebounded and was only down 4.2% (from 11,003 to 10,546). However, a statistically significant shift (P < .0001) in the 2020 composition mix was observed largely comprised of radiography (74.3%), followed by CT (12.7%), ultrasound (8%), MRI (2.4%), interventional radiology (2.3%), and nuclear medicine (0.4%). Although the vast majority of imaging studies declined, few Current Procedural Terminology–coded groups showed increased trends in imaging volumes in the late post-COVID-19 period, including CT angiography chest, radiography chest, and ultrasound venous duplex.DiscussionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed a decrease in inpatient imaging volumes accompanied by a shift away from cross-sectional imaging toward radiography. These findings could have significant implications in planning for a potential resurgence.     

Impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic on Imaging Case Volumes

ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had significant economic impact on radiology with markedly decreased imaging case volumes. The purpose of this study was to quantify the imaging volumes during the COVID-19 pandemic across patient service locations and imaging modality types.MethodsImaging case volumes in a large health care system were retrospectively studied, analyzing weekly imaging volumes by patient service locations (emergency department, inpatient, outpatient) and modality types (x-ray, mammography, CT, MRI, ultrasound, interventional radiology, nuclear medicine) in years 2020 and 2019. The data set was split to compare pre-COVID-19 (weeks 1-9) and post-COVID-19 (weeks 10-16) periods. Independent-samples t tests compared the mean weekly volumes in 2020 and 2019.ResultsTotal imaging volume in 2020 (weeks 1-16) declined by 12.29% (from 522,645 to 458,438) compared with 2019. Post-COVID-19 (weeks 10-16) revealed a greater decrease (28.10%) in imaging volumes across all patient service locations (range 13.60%-56.59%) and modality types (range 14.22%-58.42%). Total mean weekly volume in 2020 post-COVID-19 (24,383 [95% confidence interval 19,478-29,288]) was statistically reduced (P = .003) compared with 33,913 [95% confidence interval 33,429-34,396] in 2019 across all patient service locations and modality types. The greatest decline in 2020 was seen at week 16 specifically for outpatient imaging (88%) affecting all modality types: mammography (94%), nuclear medicine (85%), MRI (74%), ultrasound (64%), interventional (56%), CT (46%), and x-ray (22%).DiscussionBecause the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic remains uncertain, these results may assist in guiding short- and long-term practice decisions based on the magnitude of imaging volume decline across different patient service locations and specific imaging modality types.     

Pulmonary embolism severity before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objectives:Early in the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a high frequency of pulmonary embolism was identified. This audit aims to assess the frequency and severity of pulmonary embolism in 2020 compared to 2019.Methods:In this retrospective audit, we compared computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) frequency and pulmonary embolism severity in April and May 2020, compared to 2019. Pulmonary embolism severity was assessed with the Modified Miller score and the presence of right heart strain was assessed. Demographic information and 30-day mortality was identified from electronic health records.Results:In April 2020, there was a 17% reduction in the number of CTPA performed and an increase in the proportion identifying pulmonary embolism (26%, n = 68/265 vs 15%, n = 47/320, p < 0.001), compared to April 2019. Patients with pulmonary embolism in 2020 had more comorbidities (p = 0.026), but similar age and sex compared to 2019. There was no difference in pulmonary embolism severity in 2020 compared to 2019, but there was an increased frequency of right heart strain in May 2020 (29 vs 12%, p = 0.029). Amongst 18 patients with COVID-19 and pulmonary embolism, there was a larger proportion of males and an increased 30 day mortality (28% vs 6%, p = 0.008).Conclusion:During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a reduction in the number of CTPA scans performed and an increase in the frequency of CTPA scans positive for pulmonary embolism. Patients with both COVID-19 and pulmonary embolism had an increased risk of 30-day mortality compared to those without COVID-19.Advances in knowledge:During the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of CTPA performed decreased and the proportion of positive CTPA increased. Patients with both pulmonary embolism and COVID-19 had worse outcomes compared to those with pulmonary embolism alone.     

The Impact of COVID-19 on Emergent Large-Vessel Occlusion: Delayed Presentation Confirmed by ASPECTS

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Our hypothesis is that the COVID-19 pandemic led to delayed presentations for patients with acute ischemic stroke. This study evaluates the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on presentation, treatment, and outcomes of patients with emergent large-vessel occlusion using data from a large health system in the Bronx, New York.MATERIALS AND METHODS:We performed a retrospective cohort study of 2 cohorts of consecutive patients with emergent large-vessel occlusion admitted to 3 Montefiore Health System hospitals in the Bronx from January 1 to February 17, 2020, (prepandemic) and March 1 to April 17, 2020 (pandemic). We abstracted data from the electronic health records on presenting biomarker profiles, admission and postprocedural NIHSS scores, time of symptom onset, time of hospital presentation, time of start of the thrombectomy procedure, time of revascularization, presenting ASPECTS, TICI recanalization score, mRS, functional outcomes, and mortality.RESULTS:Of 179 patients admitted with ischemic stroke during the study periods, 80 had emergent large-vessel occlusion, of whom 36 were in the pandemic group. Patients in the pandemic group were younger (66 versus 72 years, P < .061) and had lower ASPECTS (7 versus 9, P < .001) and took longer to arrive at the hospital (361  versus 152 minutes, P < .004) with no other major differences. There was a decreased rate of thrombolysis administration (22% versus 43%, P < .049) and a decreased number of patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy (33% versus 61%, P < .013).CONCLUSIONS:The pandemic led to delays in patients arriving at hospitals, leading to decreased patients eligible for treatment, while in-hospital evaluation and treatment times remain unchanged.

In March 2020, New York City became the epicenter of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which disrupted regional systems of health care. The pandemic changed when and how patients presented for emergent evaluation. A recent study found a nearly 40% decrease in stroke-related imaging nationwide during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹ While delays in treatment of myocardial infarction systems of care have been reported, the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on systems of emergent large-vessel occlusion (ELVO) stroke care is unreported.²Mechanical thrombectomy has been proved safe and effective in treating ELVO, but its success in decreasing morbidity depends on the prehospital system as well as a streamlined in-house process of care.³ Our current stroke triage process involves hospital prenotification, bypass of emergency department evaluation, direct advancement to CT scan assessment, and treatment before angiosuite arrival.The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on ELVO systems of care, treatment, and outcomes. We describe all cases of ELVO treated in our institution (Montefiore Health System) during the COVID-19 pandemic and compare them with those treated before the pandemic. Our hypothesis is that the COVID-19 pandemic led to delays in patients presenting to hospitals. This delay may have led to worse outcomes during the pandemic.     

Radiology Imaging Volume Changes During Discrete COVID-19 Pandemic Waves: Implications for the Delta Variant of Coronavirus and Future Pandemics

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate radiology imaging volumes at distinct time periods throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as a function of regional COVID-19 hospitalizations.MethodsRadiology imaging volumes and statewide COVID-19 hospitalizations were collected, and four 28-day time periods throughout the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 were analyzed: pre–COVID-19 in January, the “first wave” of COVID-19 hospitalizations in April, the “recovery” time period in the summer of 2020 with a relative nadir of COVID-19 hospitalizations, and the “third wave” of COVID-19 hospitalizations in November. Imaging studies were categorized as inpatient, outpatient, or emergency department on the basis of patient location at the time of acquisition. A Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare daily imaging volumes during each discrete 28-day time period.ResultsImaging volumes overall during the first wave of COVID-19 infections were 55% (11,098/20,011; P < .001) of pre–COVID-19 imaging volumes. Overall imaging volumes returned during the recovery time period to 99% (19,915/20,011; P = .725), and third-wave imaging volumes compared with the pre–COVID-19 period were significantly lower in the emergency department at 88.8% (7,951/8,955; P < .001), significantly higher for outpatients at 115.7% (8,818/7,621; P = .008), not significantly different for inpatients at 106% (3,650/3,435; P = .053), and overall unchanged when aggregated together at 102% (20,419/20,011; P = .629).ConclusionsMedical imaging rebounded after the first wave of COVID-19 hospitalizations, with relative stability of utilization over the ensuing phases of the pandemic. As widespread COVID-19 vaccination continues to occur, future surges in COVID-19 hospitalizations will likely have a negligible impact on imaging utilization.     

Hallazgos tomográficos entre sobrevivientes y no-sobrevivientes con COVID-19 y utilidad clínica de una puntuación de tomografía torácica

BackgroundMany patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been diagnosed with computed tomography (CT). A prognostic tool based on CT findings could be useful for predicting death from COVID-19.ObjectivesTo compare the chest CT findings of patients who survived COVID-19 versus those of patients who died of COVID-19 and to determine the usefulness the clinical usefulness of a CT scoring system for COVID-19.MethodsWe included 124 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections who were hospitalized between April 1, 2020 and July 25, 2020.ResultsWhereas ground-glass opacities were the most common characteristic finding in survivors (75%), crazy paving was the most characteristic finding in non-survivors (65%). Atypical findings were present in 46% of patients. The chest CT score was directly proportional to mortality; a score ≥ 18 was the best cutoff for predicting death, yielding 70% sensitivity (95%CI: 47%-87%).ConclusionsOur results suggest that atypical lesions are more prevalent in this cohort. The chest CT score had high sensitivity for predicting hospital mortality     

Low Detection Rate of Pulmonary Embolism in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Suspected Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Single-Centre UK Study

PurposeCritically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at increased risk of thrombosis. There are limited data on PE rates in COVID-19 patients at presentation to the emergency department (ED). In this study, we evaluated the detection rates of PE in patients presenting to the ED with suspected and proven COVID-19.MethodsA single-centre retrospective study was undertaken of 285 consecutive patients undergoing CT pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) in the Emergency Department at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust in the United Kingdom between 25 March and 30 April 2020. At our institution, CTPA is performed in all patients undergoing CT for triage. The study group consisted of patients considered COVID-19 positive based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results and CTPA findings. The detection rate of PE in COVID-19 patients was compared to patients undergoing CTPA for suspected PE only and for suspected COVID-19 with no COVID CT findings and negative PCR (control group 1); and CTPAs prior to the coronavirus pandemic (control group 2).ResultsOne of 48 patients in the study group had a PE (2%) compared to 25/215 (12%) in control group 1 and 10/50 (20%) in control group 2. Prevalence of PE in the study group was lower than in control group 1 (P = 0.058) and compared to control group 2 (P = 0.005). Eleven patients undergoing CTPA had negative PCR but positive CT for COVID-19.ConclusionDetection rate of pulmonary embolus is low in patients with COVID-19 undergoing CTPA on a triage pathway.     

Trends in Academic Productivity Among Radiologists During the COVID-19 Pandemic

PurposeThere is a scarcity of literature examining changes in radiologist research productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic. The current study aimed to investigate changes in academic productivity as measured by publication volume before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThis single-center, retrospective cohort study included the publication data of 216 researchers consisting of associate professors, assistant professors, and professors of radiology. Wilcoxon’s signed-rank test was used to identify changes in publication volume between the 1-year-long defined prepandemic period (publications between May 1, 2019, and April 30, 2020) and COVID-19 pandemic period (May 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021).ResultsThere was a significantly increased mean annual volume of publications in the pandemic period (5.98, SD = 7.28) compared with the prepandemic period (4.98, SD = 5.53) (z = ?2.819, P = .005). Subset analysis demonstrated a similar (17.4%) increase in publication volume for male researchers when comparing the mean annual prepandemic publications (5.10, SD = 5.79) compared with the pandemic period (5.99, SD = 7.60) (z = ?2.369, P = .018). No statistically significant changes were found in similar analyses with the female subset.DiscussionSignificant increases in radiologist publication volume were found during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the year before. Changes may reflect an overall increase in academic productivity in response to clinical and imaging volume ramp down.     

Recovery of outpatient imaging utilization during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

ObjectiveDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, Radiology practices experienced marked reductions in outpatient imaging volumes. Our purpose was to evaluate the timing, rate, and degree of recovery of outpatient imaging during the first wave of the pandemic. We also sought to ascertain the relationship of outpatient imaging recovery to the incidence of COVID-19 cases.MethodsRetrospective study of outpatient imaging volumes in a large healthcare system was performed from January 1, 2019-August 25, 2020. Dataset was split to compare Pre-COVID (weeks 1–9), Peak-COVID (weeks 10–15) and Recovery-COVID (weeks 16–34) periods. Chi-square and Independent-samples t-tests compared weekly outpatient imaging volumes in 2020 and 2019. Regression analyses assessed the rate of decline and recovery in Peak-COVID and Recovery-COVID periods, respectively.ResultsTotal outpatient imaging volume in 2020 (weeks 1–34) was 327,738 exams, compared to 440,314 in 2019. The 2020 mean weekly imaging volumes were significantly decreased in Peak-COVID (p = 0.0148) and Recovery-COVID (p = 0.0003) periods. Mean weekly decline rate was −2580 exams/week and recovery rate was +617 exams/week. The 2020 Post-COVID (weeks 10–34) period had an average decrease of 36.5% (4813.4/13,178.6) imaging exams/week and total estimated decrease of 120,335 exams. Significant inverse correlation (−0.8338, p < 0.0001) was seen between positive-tested COVID-19 cases and imaging utilization with 1-week lag during Post-COVID (weeks 10–34) period.ConclusionRecovery of outpatient imaging volume during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic showed a gradual return to pre-pandemic levels over the course of 3–4 months. The rate of imaging utilization was inversely associated with new positive-tested COVID-19 cases with a 1-week lag.     

Tromboembolismo pulmonar en pacientes con COVID-19: estudio de prevalencia en un hospital terciario

IntroductionSARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for the current pandemic, predominantly affects the respiratory tract, and a growing number of publications report the predisposition of patients with COVID-19 to develop thrombotic phenomena.ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence of pulmonary embolism in patients with COVID-19; to determine the possible relationship between the severity of pulmonary involvement and D-dimer levels; to analyze the location of pulmonary embolisms in patients with COVID-19 and to compare it with the location in patients without COVID-19.MethodsThis retrospective study analyzed all CT angiograms of the pulmonary arteries done in patients with suspected pulmonary embolisms between March 15 and April 30, 2020 and compared them with studies done in the same period one year earlier.ResultsWe included 492 pulmonary CT angiograms (342 (69.9%) in patients with COVID-19 and 147 (30.1%) in patients without COVID-19). The prevalence of pulmonary embolisms was higher in patients with COVID-19 (26% vs. 16.3% in patients without COVID-19, p=0.0197; relative risk=1.6). The prevalence of pulmonary embolisms in the same period in 2019 was 13.2%, similar to that of the group of COVID-19-negative patients in 2020 (p=0.43). There were no significant differences in D-dimer levels or the location of pulmonary embolisms between the two groups. CT showed moderate or severe pulmonary involvement in 78.7% of the patients with COVID-19.ConclusionsPatients with COVID-19 have an increased prevalence of pulmonary embolisms (26%), and most (78.7%) have moderate or severe lung involvement on CT studies. The location of pulmonary embolisms and the degree of elevation of D-dimer levels does not differ between patients with COVID-19 and those without.     

Early-Stage Radiology Volume Effects and Considerations with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic: Adaptations,Risks, and Lessons Learned

ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in significant loss of radiologic volume as a result of shelter-at-home mandates and delay of non-time-sensitive imaging studies to preserve capacity for the pandemic. We analyze the volume-related impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on six academic medical systems (AMSs), three in high COVID-19 surge (high-surge) and three in low COVID-19 surge (low-surge) regions, and a large national private practice coalition. We sought to assess adaptations, risks of actions, and lessons learned.MethodsPercent change of 2020 volume per week was compared with the corresponding 2019 volume calculated for each of the 14 imaging modalities and overall total, outpatient, emergency, and inpatient studies in high-surge AMSs and low-surge AMSs and the practice coalition.ResultsSteep examination volume drops occurred during week 11, with slow recovery starting week 17. The lowest total AMS volume drop was 40% compared with the same period the previous year, and the largest was 70%. The greatest decreases were seen with screening mammography and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans, and the smallest decreases were seen with PET/CT, x-ray, and interventional radiology. Inpatient volume was least impacted compared with outpatient or emergency imaging.ConclusionLarge percentage drops in volume were seen from weeks 11 through 17, were seen with screening studies, and were larger for the high-surge AMSs than for the low-surge AMSs. The lowest drops in volume were seen with modalities in which delays in imaging had greater perceived adverse consequences.     

Collateral Damage: The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Acute Abdominal Emergency Presentations

IntroductionIn March 2020, the World Health Organization declared a pandemic caused by a novel coronavirus. Public information created awareness as well as concern in the general population. There has been a reported decrease in the number of patients attending emergency departments (ED) during the pandemic. This is the first study to determine differences in the types of presenting illnesses, severity, and rate of resultant surgical intervention during the pandemic.Methods and MaterialsWe carried out a retrospective, observational cohort study comparing two groups of patients attending the ED at our tertiary-care academic hospital. A historical comparison cohort was obtained by reviewing the number of patients referred by the ED for abdominal CT between March 15 and April 15, 2020, compared with March 15 and April 15, 2019. CT reports were reviewed; primary pathologies, complications, and subsequent surgical intervention were documented and compared between the two groups.ResultsIn all, 733 patients were included in the 2019 cohort, and 422 patients were included in the 2020 cohort. In 2019, 32.7% had positive CT findings, increasing to 50.5% in 2020. The number of complications increased from 7.9% to 19.7%. The rate requiring surgical intervention increased from 26.3% to 47.6% in 2020.ConclusionTo date, there is little published data regarding the presentation and severity of illnesses during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. This information has important public health implications, highlighting the need to educate patients to continue to present to hospital services during such crises, including if a purported second wave of COVID-19 arises.     

Imaging Utilization During the COVID-19 Pandemic Highlights Socioeconomic Health Disparities

ObjectiveThe devastating impact from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlights long-standing socioeconomic health disparities in the United States. The purpose of this study was to evaluate socioeconomic factors related to imaging utilization during the pandemic.MethodsRetrospective review of consecutive imaging examinations was performed from January 1, 2019, to May 31, 2020, across all service locations (inpatient, emergency, outpatient). Patient level data were provided for socioeconomic factors (age, sex, race, insurance status, residential zip code). Residential zip code was used to assign median income level. The weekly total imaging volumes in 2020 and 2019 were plotted from January 1 to May 31 stratified by socioeconomic factors to demonstrate the trends during the pre-COVID-19 (January 1 to February 28) and post-COVID-19 (March 1 to May 31) periods. Independent-samples t tests were used to statistically compare the 2020 and 2019 socioeconomic groups.ResultsCompared with 2019, the 2020 total imaging volume in the post-COVID-19 period revealed statistically significant increased imaging utilization in patients who are aged 60 to 79 years (P = .0025), are male (P < .0001), are non-White (Black, Asian, other, unknown; P < .05), are covered by Medicaid or uninsured (P < .05), and have income below $80,000 (P < .05). However, there was a significant decrease in imaging utilization among patients who are younger (<18 years old; P < .0001), are female (P < .0001), are White (P = .0003), are commercially insured (P < .0001), and have income ≥$80,000 (P < .05).DiscussionDuring the pandemic, there was a significant change in imaging utilization varying by socioeconomic factors, consistent with the known health disparities observed in the prevalence of COVID-19. These findings could have significant implications in directing utilization of resources during the pandemic and subsequent recovery.     

Radiologist Reporting and Operational Management for Patients With Suspected COVID-19

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the adoption and outcomes of locally designed reporting guidelines for patients with possible coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsA departmental guideline was developed for radiologists that specified reporting terminology and required communication for patients with imaging findings suggestive of COVID-19, on the basis of patient test status and imaging indication. In this retrospective study, radiology reports completed from March 1, 2020, to May 3, 2020, that mentioned COVID-19 were reviewed. Reports were divided into patients with known COVID-19, patients with “suspected” COVID-19 (having an order indication of respiratory or infectious signs or symptoms), and “unsuspected patients” (other order indications, eg, trauma or non–chest pain). The primary outcome was the percentage of COVID-19 reports using recommended terminology; the secondary outcome was percentages of suspected and unsuspected patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Relationships between categorical variables were assessed using the Fisher exact test.ResultsAmong 77,400 total reports, 1,083 suggested COVID-19 on the basis of imaging findings; 774 of COVID-19 reports (71%) used recommended terminology. Of 574 patients without known COVID-19 at the time of interpretation, 345 (60%) were eventually diagnosed with COVID-19, including 61% (315 of 516) of suspected and 52% (30 of 58) of unsuspected patients. Nearly all unsuspected patients (46 of 58) were identified on CT.ConclusionsRadiologists rapidly adopted recommended reporting terminology for patients with suspected COVID-19. The majority of patients for whom radiologists raised concern for COVID-19 were subsequently diagnosed with the disease, including the majority of clinically unsuspected patients. Using unambiguous terminology and timely notification about previously unsuspected patients will become increasingly critical to facilitate COVID-19 testing and contact tracing as states begin to lift restrictions.     

Differential diagnosis between the coronavirus disease 2019 and Streptococcus pneumoniae pneumonia by thin-slice CT features

ObjectiveThe chest computed tomography (CT) features of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and Streptococcus pneumoniae pneumonia (S. pneumoniae pneumonia) were compared to provide further evidence for the differential imaging diagnosis of patients with these two types of pneumonia.MethodsClinical information and chest CT data of 149 COVID-19 patients between January 9, 2020 and March 15, 2020 and 97 patients with S. pneumoniae pneumonia between January 23, 2011 and March 18, 2020 in Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University were retrospectively analyzed. In addition, CT features were comparatively analyzed.ResultsAccording to the chest CT images, the probability of lung segmental and lobar pneumonia in S. pneumoniae pneumonia was higher than that in COVID-19(P<0.001); the probabilities of ground-glass opacity (GGO), the “crazy paving” sign, and abnormally thickened interlobular septa in COVID-19 were higher than those in S. pneumoniae pneumonia(P = 0.005, P<0.001, P<0.001, respectively); and the probabilities of consolidation lesions, bronchial wall thickening, centrilobular nodules, and pleural effusion in S. pneumoniae pneumonia were higher than those in COVID-19 (P<0.001, P = 0.001, P = 0.003, P = 0.001, respectively).ConclusionThe findings of GGO, the crazy paving sign, and abnormally thickened interlobular septa on chest CT were significantly higher in COVID-19 than S. pneumoniae pneumonia. The most important differential points on chest CT signs between COVID-19 and S. pneumoniae pneumonia were whether disease lesions were distributed in entire lung lobes and segments and whether the crazy paving sign, interlobular septal thickening, and consolidation lesions were found.     

The radiology workforce's response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the Middle East,North Africa and India

IntroductionThis study aimed to investigate the response of the radiology workforce to the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on professional practice in India and eight other Middle Eastern and North African countries. It further investigated the levels of fear and anxiety among this workforce during the pandemic.MethodsA quantitative cross-sectional study was conducted using an online survey from 22 May-2 June 2020 among radiology workers employed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey collected information related to the following themes: (1) demographic characteristics, (2) the impact of COVID-19 on radiology practice, and (3) fear and (4) anxiety emanating from the global pandemic.ResultsWe received 903 responses. Fifty-eight percent had completed training on infection control required for handling COVID-19 patients. A large proportion (79.5%) of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed that personal protective equipment (PPE) was adequately available at work during the pandemic. The respondents reported experiences of work-related stress (42.9%), high COVID-19 fear score (83.3%) and anxiety (10%) during the study period.ConclusionThere was a perceived workload increase in general x-ray and Computed Tomography imaging procedures because they were the key modalities for the initial and follow-up investigations of COVID-19. However, there was adequate availability of PPE during the study period. Most radiology workers were afraid of being infected with the virus. Fear was predominant among workers younger than 30 years of age and also in temporary staff. Anxiety occurred completely independent of gender, age, experience, country, place of work, and work status.Implications for practiceIt is important to provide training and regular mental health support and evaluations for healthcare professionals, including radiology workers, during similar future pandemics.