TY - JOUR T1 - Assessment of a Diagnostic Strategy Based on Chest Computed Tomography in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 Pneumonia: an observational study JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.06.29.20140129 SP - 2020.06.29.20140129 AU - Marine Thieux AU - Anne-Charlotte Kalenderian AU - Aurélie Chabrol AU - Laurent Gendt AU - Emma Giraudier AU - Hervé Lelievre AU - Samir Lounis AU - Yves Mataix AU - Emeline Moderni AU - Laetitia Paradisi AU - Guillaume Ranchon AU - Carlos El Khoury AU - on behalf of MHM Research Group Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/30/2020.06.29.20140129.abstract N2 - Objectives To assess the relevance of a diagnostic strategy for COVID-19 based on chest computed tomography (CT) in patients with hospitalization criteria.Setting Observational study with retrospective analysis in a French emergency department (ED).Participants and intervention From March 3 to April 2, 2020, 385 adult patients presenting to the ED for suspected COVID-19 underwent an evaluation that included history, physical examination, blood tests, real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and chest CT. When the time-interval between chest CT and RT-PCR assays was longer than 7 days, patients were excluded from the study. Only patients with hospitalization criteria were included. Diagnosis accuracy was assessed using the sensitivity and specificity of RT-PCR.Outcomes Sensitivity and specificity of RT-PCR, chest CT (also accompanied by lymphopenia) were measured and were also analyzed by subgroups of age and sex.Results Among 377 included subjects, RT-PCR was positive in 36%, while chest CT was compatible with a COVID-19 diagnosis in 59%. In the population with positive RT-PCR, there were more men (55% vs 37%, p=0.015), a higher frequency of reticular and, or, interlobular septal thickening (53% vs 31%, p=0.02) as well as a higher frequency of bilateral lesion distribution (98% vs 86%, p=0.01) compared to the population with negative RT-PCR. The proportion of lymphopenia was higher in men vs women (47% vs 39%, p=0.03) and varies between patients >80 versus 50-80 and p<0.001).Using CT as reference, RT-PCR obtained a sensitivity of 61%, specificity of 93%. There was a significant difference between CT and RT-PCR diagnosis performance (p<0.001). When CT was accompanied by lymphopenia, sensitivity and specificity of RT-PCR were respectively 71% and 94%. CT abnormalities and lymphopenia provided diagnosis in 29% of patients with negative PCR.Conclusions Chest CT had a superior yield than RT-PCR in COVID-19 hospitalized patients, especially when accompanied by lymphopenia.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Trial2217103v0Funding StatementThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Medipole Lyon Villeurbanne and the data treatment was approved by the National Commission for Liberties and Data Protection (CNIL) (number 2217103 v 0).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data relevant to the study is not in a repository (deidentified participant data). ER -