急诊科不同的 SARS-CoV-2 检测策略对住院时间和临床结果的影响:随机对照试验

Kira Louisa Boldt, Myrto Bolanaki, Fabian Holert, Antje Fischer-Rosinský, Anna Slagman, Martin Möckel
{"title":"急诊科不同的 SARS-CoV-2 检测策略对住院时间和临床结果的影响:随机对照试验","authors":"Kira Louisa Boldt, Myrto Bolanaki, Fabian Holert, Antje Fischer-Rosinský, Anna Slagman, Martin Möckel","doi":"10.1155/2024/9571236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The turn-around-time (TAT) of diagnostic and screening measures such as testing for SARS-CoV-2 can affect a patient’s length of stay (LOS) in the hospital as well as the emergency department (ED). This, in turn, can affect clinical outcomes. Therefore, a reliable and time-efficient SARS-CoV-2 testing strategy is necessary, especially in the ED. In this randomised controlled trial, <i>n</i> = 598 ED patients presenting to one of three university hospital EDs in Berlin, Germany, and needing hospitalisation were randomly assigned to two intervention groups and one control group. Accordingly, different SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies were implemented: rapid antigen and point-of-care (POC) reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rtPCR) testing with the Roche cobas® Liat® (LIAT) (group one <i>n</i> = 198), POC rtPCR testing with the LIAT (group two <i>n</i> = 197), and central laboratory rtPCR testing (group three, control group <i>n</i> = 203). The median LOS in the hospital as an inpatient across the groups was 7 days. Patients’ LOS in the ED of more than seven hours did not differ significantly, and furthermore, no significant differences were observed regarding clinical outcomes such as intensive care unit stay or death. The rapid and POC test strategies had a significantly (<span><svg height=\"11.7782pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"-0.0498162 -8.34882 18.973 11.7782\" width=\"18.973pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\"></path></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.342,0)\"></path></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\"11.7782pt\" style=\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\" version=\"1.1\" viewbox=\"22.555183800000002 -8.34882 21.921 11.7782\" width=\"21.921pt\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\"><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.605,0)\"></path></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,28.845,0)\"></path></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,31.809,0)\"><use xlink:href=\"#g113-49\"></use></g><g transform=\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.049,0)\"></path></g></svg>)</span></span> shorter median TAT (group one 00:48 h, group two 00:21 h) than the regular central laboratory rtPCR test (group three 06:26 h). However, fast SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies did not reduce ED or inpatient LOS significantly in less urgent ED admissions. Testing strategies should be adjusted to the current circumstances including crowding, SARS-CoV-2 incidences, and patient cohort. This trial is registered with DRKS00023117.","PeriodicalId":501415,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of Different SARS-CoV-2 Testing Strategies in the Emergency Department on Length of Stay and Clinical Outcomes: A Randomised Controlled Trial\",\"authors\":\"Kira Louisa Boldt, Myrto Bolanaki, Fabian Holert, Antje Fischer-Rosinský, Anna Slagman, Martin Möckel\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2024/9571236\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The turn-around-time (TAT) of diagnostic and screening measures such as testing for SARS-CoV-2 can affect a patient’s length of stay (LOS) in the hospital as well as the emergency department (ED). This, in turn, can affect clinical outcomes. Therefore, a reliable and time-efficient SARS-CoV-2 testing strategy is necessary, especially in the ED. In this randomised controlled trial, <i>n</i> = 598 ED patients presenting to one of three university hospital EDs in Berlin, Germany, and needing hospitalisation were randomly assigned to two intervention groups and one control group. Accordingly, different SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies were implemented: rapid antigen and point-of-care (POC) reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rtPCR) testing with the Roche cobas® Liat® (LIAT) (group one <i>n</i> = 198), POC rtPCR testing with the LIAT (group two <i>n</i> = 197), and central laboratory rtPCR testing (group three, control group <i>n</i> = 203). The median LOS in the hospital as an inpatient across the groups was 7 days. Patients’ LOS in the ED of more than seven hours did not differ significantly, and furthermore, no significant differences were observed regarding clinical outcomes such as intensive care unit stay or death. The rapid and POC test strategies had a significantly (<span><svg height=\\\"11.7782pt\\\" style=\\\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\\\" version=\\\"1.1\\\" viewbox=\\\"-0.0498162 -8.34882 18.973 11.7782\\\" width=\\\"18.973pt\\\" xmlns=\\\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\\\" xmlns:xlink=\\\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\\\"><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,0,0)\\\"></path></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,11.342,0)\\\"></path></g></svg><span></span><span><svg height=\\\"11.7782pt\\\" style=\\\"vertical-align:-3.42938pt\\\" version=\\\"1.1\\\" viewbox=\\\"22.555183800000002 -8.34882 21.921 11.7782\\\" width=\\\"21.921pt\\\" xmlns=\\\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\\\" xmlns:xlink=\\\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\\\"><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,22.605,0)\\\"></path></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,28.845,0)\\\"></path></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,31.809,0)\\\"><use xlink:href=\\\"#g113-49\\\"></use></g><g transform=\\\"matrix(.013,0,0,-0.013,38.049,0)\\\"></path></g></svg>)</span></span> shorter median TAT (group one 00:48 h, group two 00:21 h) than the regular central laboratory rtPCR test (group three 06:26 h). However, fast SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies did not reduce ED or inpatient LOS significantly in less urgent ED admissions. Testing strategies should be adjusted to the current circumstances including crowding, SARS-CoV-2 incidences, and patient cohort. This trial is registered with DRKS00023117.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501415,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/9571236\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/9571236","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

诊断和筛查措施(如 SARS-CoV-2 检测)的周转时间(TAT)会影响患者在医院和急诊科(ED)的住院时间(LOS)。这反过来又会影响临床结果。因此,有必要制定一种可靠、省时的 SARS-CoV-2 检测策略,尤其是在急诊室。在这项随机对照试验中,在德国柏林三所大学医院急诊科就诊并需要住院治疗的 598 名急诊科患者被随机分配到两个干预组和一个对照组。因此,采用了不同的 SARS-CoV-2 检测策略:使用罗氏 cobas® Liat® (LIAT) 进行快速抗原和床旁点 (POC) 反转录聚合酶链反应 (rtPCR) 检测(第一组 n = 198)、使用 LIAT 进行 POC rtPCR 检测(第二组 n = 197)和中心实验室 rtPCR 检测(第三组,对照组 n = 203)。各组住院病人的中位住院时间均为 7 天。患者在急诊室的住院时间超过 7 小时没有明显差异,此外,在重症监护室住院或死亡等临床结果方面也没有观察到明显差异。快速和 POC 检测策略的中位 TAT(第一组 00:48小时,第二组 00:21小时)明显短于常规中心实验室 rtPCR 检测(第三组 06:26小时)。然而,快速 SARS-CoV-2 检测策略并不能显著缩短急诊室或住院病人的住院时间。检测策略应根据当前情况进行调整,包括拥挤程度、SARS-CoV-2发病率和患者群。该试验的注册号为 DRKS00023117。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effects of Different SARS-CoV-2 Testing Strategies in the Emergency Department on Length of Stay and Clinical Outcomes: A Randomised Controlled Trial
The turn-around-time (TAT) of diagnostic and screening measures such as testing for SARS-CoV-2 can affect a patient’s length of stay (LOS) in the hospital as well as the emergency department (ED). This, in turn, can affect clinical outcomes. Therefore, a reliable and time-efficient SARS-CoV-2 testing strategy is necessary, especially in the ED. In this randomised controlled trial, n = 598 ED patients presenting to one of three university hospital EDs in Berlin, Germany, and needing hospitalisation were randomly assigned to two intervention groups and one control group. Accordingly, different SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies were implemented: rapid antigen and point-of-care (POC) reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rtPCR) testing with the Roche cobas® Liat® (LIAT) (group one n = 198), POC rtPCR testing with the LIAT (group two n = 197), and central laboratory rtPCR testing (group three, control group n = 203). The median LOS in the hospital as an inpatient across the groups was 7 days. Patients’ LOS in the ED of more than seven hours did not differ significantly, and furthermore, no significant differences were observed regarding clinical outcomes such as intensive care unit stay or death. The rapid and POC test strategies had a significantly () shorter median TAT (group one 00:48 h, group two 00:21 h) than the regular central laboratory rtPCR test (group three 06:26 h). However, fast SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies did not reduce ED or inpatient LOS significantly in less urgent ED admissions. Testing strategies should be adjusted to the current circumstances including crowding, SARS-CoV-2 incidences, and patient cohort. This trial is registered with DRKS00023117.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信