Detection of SARS-CoV-2 contamination in the operating room and birthing room setting: a cross-sectional study

Filling the knowledge gap: Scoping review regarding sampling methods, assays, and further requirements to assess airborne viruses

Assessment of occupational exposure to viruses is crucial to identify virus reservoirs and sources of dissemination at an early stage and to help prevent spread between employees and to the general population. Measuring workers' exposure can facilitate assessment of the effectiveness of protective and mitigation measures in place. The aim of this scoping review is to give an overview of available methods and those already implemented for airborne virus' exposure assessment in different occupational and indoor environments. The results retrieved from the different studies may contribute to the setting of future standards and guidelines to ensure a reliable risk characterization in the occupational environments crucial for the implementation of effective control measures. The search aimed at selecting studies between January 1st 2010 and June 30th 2023 in the selected databases. Fifty papers on virus exposure assessment fitted the eligibility criteria and were selected for data extraction. Overall, this study identified gaps in knowledge regarding virus assessment and pinpointed the needs for further research. Several discrepancies were found (transport temperatures, elution steps, …), as well as a lack of publication of important data related to the exposure conditions (contextual information). With the available information, it is impossible to compare results between studies employing different methods, and even if the same methods are used, different conclusions/recommendations based on the expert judgment have been reported due to the lack of consensus in the contextual information retrieved and/or data interpretation. Future research on the field targeting sampling methods and in the laboratory regarding the assays to employ should be developed bearing in mind the different goals of the assessment.

Evaluation of Real and Perceived Risk to Health Care Workers Caring for Patients With the Omicron Variant of the SARS-CoV-2 Virus in Surgery and Obstetrics

OBJECTIVES

The Omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is described as more contagious than previous variants. We sought to assess risk to health care workers (HCWs) caring for patients with COVID-19 in surgical/obstetrical settings, and the perception of risk among this group.

METHODS

From January to April 2022, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction was used to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 viral ribonucleic acid in patient, environmental (floor, equipment, passive air) samples, and HCWs' masks (inside surface) during urgent surgery or obstetrical delivery for patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome was the proportion of HCWs' masks testing positive. Results were compared with our previous cross-sectional study involving obstetrical/surgical patients with earlier variants (2020-2021). HCWs completed a risk perception electronic questionnaire.

RESULTS

Eleven patients were included: 3 vaginal births and 8 surgeries. In total, 5/108 samples (5%) tested positive (SARS-CoV-2 Omicron) viral ribonucleic acid: 2/5 endotracheal tubes, 1/22 floor samples, 1/4 patient masks, and 1 nasal probe. No samples from the HCWs' masks (0/35), surgical equipment (0/10), and air (0/11) tested positive. No significant differences were found between the Omicron and 2020/21 patient groups' positivity rates (Mann-Whitney U test, P = 0.838) or the level of viral load from the nasopharyngeal swabs (P = 0.405). Nurses had a higher risk perception than physicians (P = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

No significant difference in contamination rates was found between SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and previous variants in surgical/obstetrical settings. This is reassuring as no HCW mask was positive and no HCW tested positive for COVID-19 post-exposure.

Effect of Face Masking on Transmission of SARS-CoV-2

The efficacy of face masking for the public is not convincing to prevent the transmission of respiratory tract viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 when the criteria of evidence-based medicine are applied. This finding is mainly explained by the results from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) when a high prevalence of the infection and a high compliance in mask wearing was assured. Throughout these studies no significant protective effect was observed. Observational studies with surgical masks describe a significant protective effect, but are prone to confounders such as physical distance. Respirators do not provide an additional health benefit compared to surgical or medical masks (RCTs). Community masks can even increase the risk of infection (RCTs). Based on the categories of evidence-based medicine, the efficacy results can best be categorized as conflicting evidence. Many relevant adverse events are described when masks are worn for hours such as dyspnea (12.2-52.8%), headache (3.9-73.4%), pruritus (0.0-60.0%), and skin reactions (0.0-85.0%). Their frequency is often higher with respirators. In future pandemics, masks should only be recommended or mandated for settings in which a clinically relevant health benefit can be expected, defined as the prevention of severe, critical or fatal disease, that clearly outweighs the expectable associated adverse reactions.

Disinfection and decontamination in the context of SARS-CoV-2-specific data

Given the high transmissibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) as witnessed early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, concerns arose with the existing methods for virus disinfection and decontamination. The need for SARS-CoV-2-specific data stimulated considerable research in this regard. Overall, SARS-CoV-2 is practically and equally susceptible to approaches for disinfection and decontamination that have been previously found for other human or animal coronaviruses. The latter have included techniques utilizing temperature modulation, pH extremes, irradiation, and chemical treatments. These physicochemical methods are a necessary adjunct to other prevention strategies, given the environmental and patient surface ubiquity of the virus. Classic studies of disinfection have also allowed for extrapolation to the eradication of the virus on human mucosal surfaces by some chemical means. Despite considerable laboratory study, practical field assessments are generally lacking and need to be encouraged to confirm the correlation of interventions with viral eradication and infection prevention. Transparency in the constitution and use of any method or chemical is also essential to furthering practical applications.