Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 1 and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 During Aerosol-Generating Procedures in Critical Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

Reuse of N95/PFF2 masks in clinical practice: morphological and structural analysis

OBJECTIVE

to analyze the integrity of N95/PFF2 masks in relation to fiber morphology, porosity, cracks and micro holes, as well as identify visible damage to their structure and components, after seven- and fifteen-day reuse protocols.

METHOD

cross-sectional study. Structural and morphological characteristics of a new N95/PFF2 mask were analyzed in comparison with N95/PFF2 masks (n=10) used in seven- and fifteen-day protocols, through visual inspection and scanning electron microscopy.

RESULTS

upon visual inspection, following the seven-day protocol, 40% and 60% of the N95/PFF2 masks showed, respectively, personal identification marks and external and internal dirt. Additionally, 20% exhibited loosening and/or tearing of the straps, while 100% showed some type of damage to the nose clips. In the fifteen-day protocol, all N95/PFF2 masks had dirt, loose straps and damaged nose clips, and 80% had folds. Electronic microscopy revealed an increase in pores and loosening in the weaves from seven days onwards, extending up to fifteen days, with the presence of micro holes and residues.

CONCLUSION

the reuse of N95/PFF2 masks affects their structural and morphological integrity. It is crucial to carry out tests to measure the impact of this practice on the safety of health professionals.

Multidisciplinary Consensus on the Management of Non-Invasive Respiratory Support in the COVID-19 Patient

Acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia often requires a comprehensive approach that includes non-pharmacological strategies such as non-invasive support (including positive pressure modes, high flow therapy or awake proning) in addition to oxygen therapy, with the primary goal of avoiding endotracheal intubation. Clinical issues such as determining the optimal time to initiate non-invasive support, choosing the most appropriate modality (based not only on the acute clinical picture but also on comorbidities), establishing criteria for recognition of treatment failure and strategies to follow in this setting (including palliative care), or implementing de-escalation procedures when improvement occurs are of paramount importance in the ongoing management of severe COVID-19 cases. Organizational issues, such as the most appropriate setting for management and monitoring of the severe COVID-19 patient or protective measures to prevent virus spread to healthcare workers in the presence of aerosol-generating procedures, should also be considered. While many early clinical guidelines during the pandemic were based on previous experience with acute respiratory distress syndrome, the landscape has evolved since then. Today, we have a wealth of high-quality studies that support evidence-based recommendations to address these complex issues. This document, the result of a collaborative effort between four leading scientific societies (SEDAR, SEMES, SEMICYUC, SEPAR), draws on the experience of 25 experts in the field to synthesize knowledge to address pertinent clinical questions and refine the approach to patient care in the face of the challenges posed by severe COVID-19 infection.

Guidance on Mitigating the Risk of Transmitting Respiratory Infections During Nebulization by the COPD Foundation Nebulizer Consortium

BACKGROUND

Nebulizers are used commonly for inhaled drug delivery. Because they deliver medication through aerosol generation, clarification is needed on what constitutes safe aerosol delivery in infectious respiratory disease settings. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of understanding the safety and potential risks of aerosol-generating procedures. However, evidence supporting the increased risk of disease transmission with nebulized treatments is inconclusive, and inconsistent guidelines and differing opinions have left uncertainty regarding their use. Many clinicians opt for alternative devices, but this practice could impact outcomes negatively, especially for patients who may not derive full treatment benefit from handheld inhalers. Therefore, it is prudent to develop strategies that can be used during nebulized treatment to minimize the emission of fugitive aerosols, these comprising bioaerosols exhaled by infected individuals and medical aerosols generated by the device that also may be contaminated. This is particularly relevant for patient care in the context of a highly transmissible virus.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How can potential risks of infections during nebulization be mitigated?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

The COPD Foundation Nebulizer Consortium (CNC) was formed in 2020 to address uncertainties surrounding administration of nebulized medication. The CNC is an international, multidisciplinary collaboration of patient advocates, pulmonary physicians, critical care physicians, respiratory therapists, clinical scientists, and pharmacists from research centers, medical centers, professional societies, industry, and government agencies. The CNC developed this expert guidance to inform the safe use of nebulized therapies for patients and providers and to answer key questions surrounding medication delivery with nebulizers during pandemics or when exposure to common respiratory pathogens is anticipated.

RESULTS

CNC members reviewed literature and guidelines regarding nebulization and developed two sets of guidance statements: one for the health care setting and one for the home environment.

INTERPRETATION

Future studies need to explore the risk of disease transmission with fugitive aerosols associated with different nebulizer types in real patient care situations and to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation strategies.

Hospital readiness for the provision of care to critically ill patients in Tanzania- an in-depth cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Critical illness is a state of ill health with vital organ dysfunction, a high risk of imminent death if care is not provided and potential for reversibility. The burden of critical illness is high, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Critical care can be provided as Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC)- the effective, low-cost, basic care that all critically ill patients should receive in all parts of all hospitals in the world- and advanced critical care- complex, resource-intensive care usually provided in an intensive care unit. The required resources may be available in the hospital and yet not be ready in the wards for immediate use for critically ill patients. The ward readiness of these resources, although harder to evaluate, is likely more important than their availability in the hospital. This study aimed to assess the ward readiness for EECC and the hospital availability of resources for EECC and for advanced critical care in hospitals in Tanzania.

METHODS

An in-depth, cross-sectional study was conducted in five purposively selected hospitals by visiting all wards to collect data on all the required 66 EECC and 161 advanced critical care resources. We defined hospital-availability as a resource present in the hospital and ward-readiness as a resource available, functioning, and present in the right place, time and amounts for critically ill patient care in the wards. Data were analyzed to calculate availability and readiness scores as proportions of the resources that were available at hospital level, and ready at ward level respectively.

RESULTS

Availability of EECC resources in hospitals was 84% and readiness in the wards was 56%. District hospitals had lower readiness scores (less than 50%) than regional and tertiary hospitals. Equipment readiness was highest (65%) while that of guidelines lowest (3%). Availability of advanced critical care resources was 31%.

CONCLUSION

Hospitals in Tanzania lack readiness for the provision of EECC- the low-cost, life-saving care for critically ill patients. The resources for EECC were available in hospitals, but were not ready for the immediate needs of critically ill patients in the wards. To provide effective EECC to all patients, improvements are needed around the essential, low-cost resources in hospital wards that are essential for decreasing preventable deaths.

Generation of Aerosols by Noninvasive Respiratory Support Modalities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Infection control guidelines have historically classified high-flow nasal oxygen and noninvasive ventilation as aerosol-generating procedures that require specialized infection prevention and control measures.

Objective

To evaluate the current evidence that high-flow nasal oxygen and noninvasive ventilation are associated with pathogen-laden aerosols and aerosol generation.

Data Sources

A systematic search of EMBASE and PubMed/MEDLINE up to March 15, 2023, and CINAHL and ClinicalTrials.gov up to August 1, 2023, was performed.

Study Selection

Observational and (quasi-)experimental studies of patients or healthy volunteers supported with high-flow nasal oxygen or noninvasive ventilation were selected.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Three reviewers were involved in independent study screening, assessment of risk of bias, and data extraction. Data from observational studies were pooled using a random-effects model at both sample and patient levels. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the influence of model choice.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were the detection of pathogens in air samples and the quantity of aerosol particles.

Results

Twenty-four studies were included, of which 12 involved measurements in patients and 15 in healthy volunteers. Five observational studies on SARS-CoV-2 detection in a total of 212 air samples during high-flow nasal oxygen in 152 patients with COVID-19 were pooled for meta-analysis. There was no association between high-flow nasal oxygen and pathogen-laden aerosols (odds ratios for positive samples, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.15-3.55] at the sample level and 0.80 [95% CI, 0.14-4.59] at the patient level). Two studies assessed SARS-CoV-2 detection during noninvasive ventilation (84 air samples from 72 patients). There was no association between noninvasive ventilation and pathogen-laden aerosols (odds ratios for positive samples, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.03-4.63] at the sample level and 0.43 [95% CI, 0.01-27.12] at the patient level). None of the studies in healthy volunteers reported clinically relevant increases in aerosol particle production by high-flow nasal oxygen or noninvasive ventilation.

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis found no association between high-flow nasal oxygen or noninvasive ventilation and increased airborne pathogen detection or aerosol generation. These findings argue against classifying high-flow nasal oxygen or noninvasive ventilation as aerosol-generating procedures or differentiating infection prevention and control practices for patients receiving these modalities.

There Is a Risk of Spread During a Nebulization Session in a Patient with COVID-19

Introduction: A hypothetical risk of SARS-CoV-2 airborne transmission through nebulization was suggested based on a potential environmental contamination by the fugitive aerosol emitted in the environment during the procedure. The aim of this study was to verify this risk from the fugitive aerosol emitted by COVID-19 patients during one nebulization session. Methods: In this cohort study, COVID-19 patients treated with nebulization were recruited at their admission to the hospital. Patients had to perform a nebulization session while a BioSampler® and a pump were used to vacuum the fugitive aerosol and collect it for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection. Results: Ten consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were recruited. The median viral load was 6.5 × 106 copies/mL. Two out of the 10 samples from the fugitive aerosol collected were positive to SARS-CoV-2. Conclusion: The risk of fugitive aerosol contamination with SARS-CoV-2 during nebulization has now been verified.

Face mask use to prevent COVID-19 in clinical practice. Using a review of reviews to improve decision-making and transparency

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of transparency and scientific rigour in the development of clinical guidance. Rapid review methodologies were widely used in the development of guidance, and in the United Kingdom, COVID-19 guidance was criticized for methodological inadequacy and erroneous conclusions.

AIMS

To summarize the evidence looking at the use of face masks to prevent COVID-19 infection in clinical practice areas, and to show how this can be used in decision-making.

DESIGN

Overview of systematic reviews.

METHOD

Systematic reviews which included meta-analyses were sought, and data on the protective effect of face masks on COVID-19 transmission were extracted. A total of 15 papers yielded 44 effect sizes suitable for quantitative presentation, which showed wide variation in effect depending on the outcome and intervention chosen.

CONCLUSIONS

Guideline development groups need to take care to choose outcomes that are of most importance to those who are the target of guidance. Quantification of the protective effect of interventions such as different types of face mask will help nurses and others decide on the utility of their use, alongside consideration of the other factors that go into informing clinical recommendations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE AND THE PROFESSION

COVID-19 has been an unprecedented public health issue, but much clinical guidance was lacking in transparency. Nurses and other healthcare professionals have often expressed a lack of confidence in guidance. Systematic reviews reported a wide range of effect sizes. However, there was a high degree of indirectness and heterogeneity in methods and findings. To produce transparent guidance, those for whom guidance is intended should have evidence of effect where this is available.

IMPACT

Guideline authors should reflect these outcomes in their recommendations, clearly balancing both the benefits and harms of recommending face masks to prevent COVID-19.

Occupational risk factors for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare personnel: A 6-month prospective analysis of the COVID-19 Prevention in Emory Healthcare Personnel (COPE) Study

Objectives:

To determine the incidence of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare personnel (HCP) and to assess occupational risks for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Design:

Prospective cohort of healthcare personnel (HCP) followed for 6 months from May through December 2020.

Setting:

Large academic healthcare system including 4 hospitals and affiliated clinics in Atlanta, Georgia.

Participants:

HCP, including those with and without direct patient-care activities, working during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Methods:

Incident SARS-CoV-2 infections were determined through serologic testing for SARS-CoV-2 IgG at enrollment, at 3 months, and at 6 months. HCP completed monthly surveys regarding occupational activities. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify occupational factors that increased the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Results:

Of the 304 evaluable HCP that were seronegative at enrollment, 26 (9%) seroconverted for SARS-CoV-2 IgG by 6 months. Overall, 219 participants (73%) self-identified as White race, 119 (40%) were nurses, and 121 (40%) worked on inpatient medical-surgical floors. In a multivariable analysis, HCP who identified as Black race were more likely to seroconvert than HCP who identified as White (odds ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.3–14.2). Increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection was not identified for any occupational activity, including spending >50% of a typical shift at a patient’s bedside, working in a COVID-19 unit, or performing or being present for aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs).

Conclusions:

In our study cohort of HCP working in an academic healthcare system, <10% had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection over 6 months. No specific occupational activities were identified as increasing risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Occupational Risk Factors for SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Hospital Health Care Workers: A Prospective Nested Case-Control Study

Introduction: Health Care Workers (HCWs) are at a particular high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to direct and indirect exposure to COVID-19 patients and Aerosol-Generating Procedures (AGPs). The aim of the study was to assess the risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs exposed to COVID-19 patients, to evaluate the adherence and effectiveness of Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) measures, to describe the clinical presentation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs and to determine serological responses in HCWs. Methods: HCWs exposed to COVID-19 patients during the previous 14 days with a confirmed case status were recruited as cases; HCWs exposed to COVID-19 patients during the previous 14 days in the same ward without a suspected/probable/confirmed case status were recruited as controls. Serum samples were collected as soon as possible and after 21–28 days from all participants. Data were collected with a WHO standardized questionnaire as soon as possible and after 21–28 days. Results: All social, occupational and personal variables considered were not associated with an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Conclusions: Our study showed a high knowledge of IPC measures and very high PPE use among HCWs.

The changing trends of image-guided biopsy of small renal masses before intervention-an analysis of European multinational prospective EuRECA registry

Objectives

To evaluate the use of pre-cryoablation biopsy for small renal masses (SRMs) and the effects of increasing uptake on histological results of treated SRMs.

Methods

From 2015 to 2019, patients with sporadic T1N0M0 SRMs undergoing percutaneous, laparoscopic, or open cryoablation from 14 European institutions within the European Registry for Renal Cryoablation (EuRECA) were included for the retrospective analysis. Univariate and multivariate logistic models were used to evaluate the trends, histological results, and the factors influencing use of pre-cryoablation biopsy.

Results

In total, 871 patients (median (IQR) age, 69 (14), 298 women) undergoing cryoablation were evaluated. The use of pre-cryoablation biopsy has significantly increased from 42% (65/156) in 2015 to 72% (88/122) in 2019 (p < 0.001). Patients treated for a benign histology are significantly more likely to have presented later in the trend, where pre-cryoablation biopsy is more prevalent (OR: 0.64, 95% CI 0.51–0.81, p < 0.001). Patients treated for undiagnosed histology are also significantly less likely to have presented in 2018 compared to 2016 (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.10–0.97, p = 0.044). Patients aged 70+ are less likely to be biopsies pre-cryoablation (p < 0.05). R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score of 10+ and a Charlson Comorbidity Index > 1 are factors associated with lower likelihood to not have received a pre-cryoablation biopsy (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

An increased use of pre-cryoablation biopsy was observed and cryoablation patients treated with a benign histology are more likely to have presented in periods where pre-cryoablation biopsy is not as prevalent. Comparative studies are needed to draw definitive conclusions on the effect of pre-cryoablation biopsy on SRM treatments.

Key Points

• The use of biopsy pre-ablation session has increased significantly from 42% of all patients in 2015 to 74% in 2019.

• Patients are less likely to be treated for a benign tumour if they presented later in the trend, where pre-cryoablation biopsy is more prevalent, compared to later in the trend (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.51–0.81, p < 0.001).

• Patients with comorbidities or a complex tumour (R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score > 10) are less likely to not undergo biopsy as a separate session to cryoablation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-022-08556-2.

Risk Factors for SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among US Healthcare Personnel, May-December 2020

To determine risk factors for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) among US healthcare personnel (HCP), we conducted a case-control analysis. We collected data about activities outside the workplace and COVID-19 patient care activities from HCP with positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test results (cases) and from HCP with negative test results (controls) in healthcare facilities in 5 US states. We used conditional logistic regression to calculate adjusted matched odds ratios and 95% CIs for exposures. Among 345 cases and 622 controls, factors associated with risk were having close contact with persons with COVID-19 outside the workplace, having close contact with COVID-19 patients in the workplace, and assisting COVID-19 patients with activities of daily living. Protecting HCP from COVID-19 may require interventions that reduce their exposures outside the workplace and improve their ability to more safely assist COVID-19 patients with activities of daily living.

Current Insights Into Respiratory Virus Transmission and Potential Implications for Infection Control Programs : A Narrative Review

Policies to prevent respiratory virus transmission in health care settings have traditionally divided organisms into Droplet versus Airborne categories. Droplet organisms (for example, influenza) are said to be transmitted via large respiratory secretions that rapidly fall to the ground within 1 to 2 meters and are adequately blocked by surgical masks. Airborne pathogens (for example, measles), by contrast, are transmitted by aerosols that are small enough and light enough to carry beyond 2 meters and to penetrate the gaps between masks and faces; health care workers are advised to wear N95 respirators and to place these patients in negative-pressure rooms. Respirators and negative-pressure rooms are also recommended when caring for patients with influenza or SARS-CoV-2 who are undergoing "aerosol-generating procedures," such as intubation. An increasing body of evidence, however, questions this framework. People routinely emit respiratory particles in a range of sizes, but most are aerosols, and most procedures do not generate meaningfully more aerosols than ordinary breathing, and far fewer than coughing, exercise, or labored breathing. Most transmission nonetheless occurs at close range because virus-laden aerosols are most concentrated at the source; they then diffuse and dilute with distance, making long-distance transmission rare in well-ventilated spaces. The primary risk factors for nosocomial transmission are community incidence rates, viral load, symptoms, proximity, duration of exposure, and poor ventilation. Failure to appreciate these factors may lead to underappreciation of some risks (for example, overestimation of the protection provided by medical masks, insufficient attention to ventilation) or misallocation of limited resources (for example, reserving N95 respirators and negative-pressure rooms only for aerosol-generating procedures or requiring negative-pressure rooms for all patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection regardless of stage of illness). Enhanced understanding of the factors governing respiratory pathogen transmission may inform the development of more effective policies to prevent nosocomial transmission of respiratory pathogens.

Impact of Personal Protective Equipment on Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation in Coronavirus Pandemic

Background and Objectives: This retrospective study evaluated the clinical impact of enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) on the clinical outcomes in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Moreover, by focusing on the use of a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR), we investigated the medical personnel’s perceptions of wearing PAPR during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Materials and Methods: According to the arrival time at the emergency department, the patients were categorized into a conventional PPE group (1 August 2019 to 20 January 2020) and an enhanced PPE group (21 January 2020, to 31 August 2020). The primary outcomes of this analysis were the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate. Additionally, subjective perception of the medical staff regarding the effect of wearing enhanced PPE during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was evaluated by conducting a survey. Results: This study included 130 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, with 73 and 57 patients in the conventional and enhanced PPE groups, respectively. The median time intervals to first intubation and to report the first arterial blood gas analysis results were longer in the enhanced PPE group than in the conventional PPE group (3 min vs. 2 min; p = 0.020 and 8 min vs. 3 min; p < 0.001, respectively). However, there were no significant differences in the ROSC rate (odds ratio (OR) = 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38–1.67; p = 0.542) and 1 month survival (OR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.07–2.10; p = 0.266) between the two groups. In total, 67 emergent department (ED) professionals responded to the questionnaire. Although a significant number of respondents experienced inconveniences with PAPR use, they agreed that PAPR was necessary during the CPR procedure for protection and reduction of infection transmission. Conclusion: The use of enhanced PPE, including PAPR, affected the performance of CPR to some extent but did not alter patient outcomes. PAPR use during the resuscitation of OHCA patients might positively impact the psychological stability of the medical staff.

Effects of Delayed Radical Prostatectomy and Active Surveillance on Localised Prostate Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

We reviewed the evidence available for postponing or delaying cancer surgery for localised prostate cancer. Watchful waiting is an acceptable option in low-risk patients. Evidence is uncertain in postponing surgery, but conservative estimates suggest delays of over 5 months, 4 months, and 30 days for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, respectively, can lead to worse survival outcomes. Neoadjuvant therapy can shrink the tumours prior to surgery and can be a useful adjunct in delaying surgery for, at the most, 3 months.

Abstract

External factors, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can lead to cancellations and backlogs of cancer surgeries. The effects of these delays are unclear. This study summarised the evidence surrounding expectant management, delay radical prostatectomy (RP), and neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) compared to immediate RP. MEDLINE and EMBASE was searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled studies pertaining to the review question. Risks of biases (RoB) were evaluated using the RoB 2.0 tool and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. A total of 57 studies were included. Meta-analysis of four RCTs found overall survival and cancer-specific survival were significantly worsened amongst intermediate-risk patients undergoing active monitoring, observation, or watchful waiting but not in low- and high-risk patients. Evidence from 33 observational studies comparing delayed RP and immediate RP is contradictory. However, conservative estimates of delays over 5 months, 4 months, and 30 days for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients, respectively, have been associated with significantly worse pathological and oncological outcomes in individual studies. In 11 RCTs, a 3-month course of NHT has been shown to improve pathological outcomes in most patients, but its effect on oncological outcomes is apparently limited.