Comparison of Chest Computed Tomography (CT) Imaging Patterns and Severity among COVID-19 Patients during the First and Fourth Waves in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Lensa Million Baharu, Amir Alwan, Seife Teferi Dellie, Tesfaye Kebede Legesse, Kibruyisfaw Weldeab Abore- Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging
- Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
Background. Studies done globally had shown that chest imaging patterns of Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection varied depending on the strains of the virus and the waves of the pandemic. There is no published literature done in Ethiopia to examine whether there is any difference in chest computed tomography (CT) findings of COVID-19 patients during the first and fourth waves. Thus, this study tries to fill the gap of knowledge in that regard. Objective. To describe and compare chest CT scan imaging pattern and assess the predictors of chest CT severity of the first and fourth wave of COVID-19 infection. Methods. An institution-based cross-sectional study was conducted on 200 polymerase chain reaction test confirmed COVID-19 patients who underwent chest CT scan imaging in two diagnostic centers in Addis Ababa city. Pioneer and Wudassie diagnostic centers were selected due to the high case load and availability of well-experienced cardiothoracic radiologists. Data were collected from July 1 to August 3, 2022, using a structured Google form sheet questionnaire. Binary logistic regression was performed, and statistical significance was assessed at a level of significance α = 0.05. Results. Comparatively higher proportion of patients from the first wave had positive chest CT finding than fourth wave (99% vs. 69%). Bilateral lung involvement and lower lobe predilection were seen for both waves of COVID-19. Ground glass opacity and consolidation were the most common CT features for both waves. Delayed chest CT features such as traction bronchiectasis were primarily seen among first-wave patients. Mean global CT severity score was higher for the first-wave patients (13.18 vs. 8.31), and the mean difference is statistically significant (