RESUMEN
Background@#The rate and composition of bacterial co-infection in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were evaluated when microbiological testing was conducted on the majority of patients. We also evaluated whether the use of empirical antibacterials was associated with mortality. @*Methods@#In this retrospective study, all of the adult patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in a single tertiary hospital in South Korea between February 2020 and December 2021 were included. Bacterial co-infection was assessed by sputum cultures, blood cultures, and molecular testing, including polymerase chain reaction sputum testing and urinary antigen tests. Mortality was compared between patients who received empirical antibacterials and those who did not. @*Results@#Of the 367 adult patients admitted during the study period, 300 (81.7%) had sputum culture results and were included in the analysis. Of these 300 patients, 127 (42.3%) had a history of antibiotic exposure. The co-infection rate within 48 hours was 8.3% (25/300):6.4% (11/173) of patients without prior antibiotic exposure and 11% (14/127) of patients with prior antibacterial exposure. The co-infected bacteria were different according to antibacterial exposure before admission, and multi-drug resistant pathogens were detected exclusively in the antibacterial exposed group. Among the patients without positive results for the microbiological tests, empirical antibacterials were used in 33.3% of cases (100/300). Empirical antibacterial therapy was not significantly related to the 30-day mortality or inhospital mortality rates in the study cohort before or after the propensity score-matching. @*Conclusion@#In this study including only patients underwent microbiological testing, bacterial co-infection was not frequent, and the co-infected organisms varied depending on previous antibacterial exposures. Given the rarity of co-infection and the lack of potential benefits, empiric antibacterial use in COVID-19 should be an important target of antibiotic stewardship.
RESUMEN
Background/Aims@#Data comparing the antibody responses of different coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine platforms according to dose with natural severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection-induced antibody responses are limited. @*Methods@#Blood samples from adult patients with mild and severe COVID-19 and healthcare workers who received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (2nd dose at 12-week intervals) and BNT162b2 vaccine (2nd dose at 3-week intervals) were collected and compared by immunoglobulin G immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 specific spike protein using an in-house-developed enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. @*Results@#A total of 53 patients, including 12 and 41 with mild and severe COVID-19, respectively, were analyzed. In addition, a total of 73 healthcare workers, including 37 who received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 36 who received BNT162b2, were enrolled. Antibody responses after the first and second doses of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or the first dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine were similar to those in convalescent patients with mild COVID-19, but lower than those in convalescent patients with severe COVID-19, respectively. However, after the second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine, the antibody response was comparable to that in convalescent patients with severe COVID-19. @*Conclusions@#Our data suggest that the second dose of mRNA vaccination may be more beneficial in terms of long-term immunity and prevention of SARS-CoV-2 variant infection than a single dose of COVID-19 vaccination or homologous second challenge ChAdOx1 nCoV-19.
RESUMEN
Background@#Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is often accompanied by secondary infections, such as invasive aspergillosis. In this study, risk factors for developing COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) and their clinical outcomes were evaluated. @*Methods@#This multicenter retrospective cohort study included critically ill COVID-19 patients from July 2020 through March 2021. Critically ill patients were defined as patients requiring high-flow respiratory support or mechanical ventilation. CAPA was defined based on the 2020 European Confederation of Medical Mycology and the International Society for Human and Animal Mycology consensus criteria. Factors associated with CAPA were analyzed, and their clinical outcomes were adjusted by a propensity score-matched model. @*Results@#Among 187 eligible patients, 17 (9.1%) developed CAPA, which is equal to 33.10 per 10,000 patient-days. Sixteen patients received voriconazole-based antifungal treatment. In addition, 82.4% and 53.5% of patients with CAPA and without CAPA, respectively, received early high-dose corticosteroids (P = 0.022). In multivariable analysis, initial 10-day cumulative steroid dose > 60 mg of dexamethasone or dexamethasone equivalent dose) (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–13.79) and chronic pulmonary disease (adjusted OR, 4.20; 95% CI, 1.26–14.02) were independently associated with CAPA. Tendencies of higher 90-day overall mortality (54.3% vs. 35.2%, P= 0.346) and lower respiratory support-free rate were observed in patients with CAPA (76.3% vs. 54.9%, P = 0.089). @*Conclusion@#Our study showed that the dose of corticosteroid use might be a risk factor for CAPA development and the possibility of CAPA contributing to adverse outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients.
RESUMEN
Background@#This study aimed to evaluate whether fluvoxamine reduces clinical deterioration in adult patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and to identify risk factors for clinical deterioration in patients admitted to a community treatment center (CTC). @*Materials and Methods@#A randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in a CTC, in Seoul, Korea from January 15, 2021, to February 19, 2021. Symptomatic adult patients with positive results of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 real timepolymerase chain reaction within 3 days of randomization were assigned at random to receive 100 mg of fluvoxamine or placebo twice daily for 10 days. The primary outcome was clinical deterioration defined by any of the following criteria: oxygen requirement to keep oxygen saturation over 94.0%, aggravation of pneumonia with dyspnea, or World Health Organization clinical progression scale 4 or greater. @*Results@#Of 52 randomized participants [median (interquartile range) age, 53.5 (43.3 - 60.0) years; 31 (60.0%) men], 44 (85.0%) completed the trial. Clinical deterioration occurred in 2 of 26 patients in each group (P >0.99). There were no serious adverse events in either group. Clinical deterioration occurred in 15 (6.0%) of 271 patients admitted to the CTC, and all of them were transferred to a hospital. In multivariate analysis, age between 55 and 64, fever and pneumonia at admission were independent risk factors for clinical deterioration. @*Conclusion@#In this study of adult patients with symptomatic COVID-19 who were admitted to the CTC, there was no significant differences in clinical deterioration between patients treated with fluvoxamine and placebo (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04711863).
RESUMEN
Correlation between vaccine reactogenicity and immunogenicity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is unclear. Thus, we investigated to determine whether the reactogenicity after coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination is associated with antibody (Ab) titers and T cell responses. This study was prospective cohort study done with 131 healthcare workers at tertiary center in Seoul, South Korea. The degrees of the local reactions after the 1st and 2nd doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (ChAdOx1) vaccination were significantly associated with the S1-specific IgG Ab titers (p=0.003 and 0.01, respectively) and neutralizing Ab (p=0.04 and 0.10, respectively) in age- and sex-adjusted multivariate analysis, whereas those after the BNT162b2 vaccination did not show significant associations. T cell responses did not show significant associations with the degree of reactogenicity after the ChAdOx1 vaccination or the BNT162b2 vaccination. Thus, high degree of local reactogenicity after the ChAdOx1 vaccine may be used as an indicator of strong humoral immune responses against SARS-CoV-2.
RESUMEN
There are limited data directly comparing humoral and T cell responses to the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 vaccines. We compared Ab and T cell responses after first doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vs. BNT162b2 vaccines. We enrolled healthcare workers who received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 vaccine in Seoul, Korea. Anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) S1 protein-specific IgG Abs (S1-IgG), neutralizing Abs (NT Abs), and SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell response were evaluated before vaccination and at 1-wk intervals for 3 wks after vaccination. A total of 76 persons, comprising 40 injected with the ChAdOx1 vaccine and 36 injected with the BNT162b2 vaccine, participated in this study. At 3 wks after vaccination, the mean levels (±SD) of S1-IgG and NT Abs in the BNT162b2 participants were significantly higher than in the ChAdOx1 participants (S1-IgG, 14.03±7.20 vs. 6.28±8.87, p<0.0001; NT Ab, 183.1±155.6 vs. 116.6±116.2, p=0.035), respectively. However, the mean values of the T cell responses in the 2 groups were comparable after 2 wks. The humoral immune response after the 1st dose of BNT162b2 developed faster and was stronger than after the 1st dose of ChAdOx1. However, the T cell responses to BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 were similar.
RESUMEN
We conducted a prospective, mobile-based survey on the self-reported adverse reactions in healthcare workers (HCWs) who received both doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. Of the 342 HCWs who completed the two-dose vaccination, 265 (77.5%) responded to the survey at least once. Overall, the rates of adverse reactions were higher after the second dose compared with the first dose (89.1% vs. 80.1%, P = 0.006). The most common systemic reactions were muscle ache (69.1%), fatigue (65.7%), headache (48.7%), chills (44.2%), and fever (32.1%), and were notably more common after the second dose vaccine as well. We also noted a sex difference in which the frequency of adverse reactions after the second dose of the vaccine was significantly higher in females, which was not observed after the first dose. The rates of adverse reactions were lower in older age groups, and the rates and severities of the adverse reactions decreased during the 3-day period following vaccination.
RESUMEN
Background@#We performed a prospective survey on the adverse reactions following the first dose of two types of vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthcare workers (HCWs) in South Korea. @*Methods@#HCWs at a tertiary referral hospital in Seoul, South Korea, received a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) or an mRNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2) between March 5 and March 26, 2021. The HCWs were asked to report adverse reactions through a mobile self-report questionnaire for three days after vaccination. @*Results@#A total of 7,625 HCWs received the first dose of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 vaccine during the study period. Of them, 5,866 (76.9%) HCWs (ChAdOx1, n = 5,589 [95.3%];BNT162b2, n = 277 [4.7%]) participated at least once in the survey, of whom 77% were female and 86% were younger than 50 years. The overall adverse reaction rate was 93% in the ChAdOx1 group and 80% in the BNT162b2 group (P < 0.001). Both local and systemic reactions were more commonly reported in the ChAdOx1 group, and the difference was larger in systemic reactions such as fever and fatigue. In the ChAdOx1 group, the incidence of adverse reactions was significantly higher in females and those in the younger age groups, while the BNT162b2 group showed such difference according to age. @*Conclusion@#In our prospective survey, vaccine-associated adverse reactions were more commonly reported in the ChAdOx1 group than in the BNT162b2 group. Females and younger age groups experienced vaccine-associated adverse reactions more frequently.
RESUMEN
Background@#Remdesivir is widely used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but controversies regarding its efficacy still remain. @*Methods@#A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the effect of remdesivir on clinical and virologic outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients from June to July 2020. Primary clinical endpoints included clinical recovery, additional mechanical ventilator (MV) support, and duration of oxygen or MV support. Viral load reduction by hospital day (HD) 15 was evaluated by calculating changes in cycle threshold (Ct) values. @*Results@#A total of 86 severe COVID-19 patients were evaluated including 48 remdesivirtreated patients. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. Remdesivir was administered an average of 7.42 days from symptom onset. The proportions of clinical recovery of the remdesivir and supportive care group at HD 14 (56.3% and 39.5%) and HD 28 (87.5% and 78.9%) were not statistically different. The proportion of patients requiring MV support by HD 28 was significantly lower in the remdesivir group than in the supportive care group (22.9% vs. 44.7%, P = 0.032), and MV duration was significantly shorter in the remdesivir group (average, 1.97 vs. 5.37 days; P = 0.017). Analysis of upper respiratory tract specimens demonstrated that increases of Ct value from HD 1–5 to 11–15 were significantly greater in the remdesivir group than the supportive care group (average, 10.19 vs. 5.36; P = 0.007), and the slope of the Ct value increase was also significantly steeper in the remdesivir group (average, 5.10 vs. 2.68; P = 0.007). @*Conclusion@#The remdesivir group showed clinical and virologic benefit in terms of MV requirement and viral load reduction, supporting remdesivir treatment for severe COVID-19.
RESUMEN
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission among non-close contacts is not infrequent. We evaluated the proportion and circumstances of individuals to whom SARS-CoV-2 was transmitted without close contact with the index patient in a nosocomial outbreak in a tertiary care hospital in Korea. From March 2020 to March 2021, there were 36 secondary cases from 14 SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals. Of the 36 secondary cases, 26 (72%) had been classified as close contact and the remaining 10 (28%) were classified as non-close contact. Of the 10 non-close contact, 4 had short conversations with both individuals masked, 4 shared a space without any conversation with both masked, and the remaining 2 entered the space after the index had left. At least one quarter of SARSCoV-2 transmissions occurred among non-close contacts. The definition of close contact for SARS-CoV-2 exposure based on the mode of droplet transmission should be revised to reflect the airborne nature of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
RESUMEN
Background@#Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing Enterobacterales bacteremia is associated with significant mortality; however, no optimal antibiotic strategy is available. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes according to the antibiotic regimens and identify risk factors for mortality in patients with KPC-producingK. pneumoniae and Escherichia coli bacteremia. @*Materials and Methods@#This retrospective cohort study included all adult patients with monomicrobial bacteremia (KPC-producing K. pneumoniae or E. coli) between January 2011 and March 2021 at a 2,700-bed tertiary center. @*Results@#Ninety-two patients were identified; 7 with E. coli bacteremia, and 85 with K. pneumoniae bacteremia. Thirty-day mortality was 38.0% (35/92). Non-survivors were more likely to have had nosocomial infection (88.6% vs. 63.2%, P = 0.01), high APACHE II scores (mean [interquartile range], 22.0 [14.0 - 28.0] vs. 14.0 [11.0 - 20.5],P <0.001), and septic shock (51.4% vs. 26.3%, P <0.001) and less likely to have been admitted to the surgical ward (5.7% vs. 22.8%, P= 0.04), undergone removal of eradicable foci (61.5% vs. 90.6%, P = 0.03), and received appropriate combination treatment (57.1% vs. 78.9%, P = 0.03) than survivors. No significant difference in mortality was observed according to combination regimens including colistin, aminoglycoside, and tigecycline. In multivariable analysis, high APACHE II scores (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06 - 1.23, P <0.001), and appropriate definitive treatment (aOR, 0.25; CI, 0.08 - 0.74,P = 0.01) were independent risk factors for mortality. @*Conclusion@#High APACHE II scores and not receiving appropriate definitive treatment were associated with 30-day mortality. Mortality did not significantly differ according to combination regimens with conventional drugs such as aminoglycoside and colistin.
RESUMEN
Background@#Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreaks occur in hospitals in many parts of the world. In hospital settings, the possibility of airborne transmission needs to be investigated thoroughly. @*Materials and Methods@#There was a nosocomial outbreak of COVID-19 in a hematologic ward in a tertiary hospital, Seoul, Korea. We found 11 patients and guardians with COVID-19 through vigorous contact tracing and closed-circuit television monitoring. We found one patient who probably had acquired COVID-19 through airborne-transmission. We performed airflow investigation with simulation software, whole-genome sequencing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). @*Results@#Of the nine individuals with COVID-19 who had been in the hematologic ward, six stayed in one multi-patient room (Room 36), and other three stayed in different rooms (Room 1, 34, 35). Guardian in room 35 was close contact to cases in room 36, and patient in room 34 used the shared bathroom for teeth brushing 40 minutes after index used.Airflow simulation revealed that air was spread from the bathroom to the adjacent room 1 while patient in room 1 did not used the shared bathroom. Airflow was associated with poor ventilation in shared bathroom due to dysfunctioning air-exhaust, grill on the door of shared bathroom and the unintended negative pressure of adjacent room. @*Conclusion@#Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the hematologic ward occurred rapidly in the multi-patient room and shared bathroom settings. In addition, there was a case of possible airborne transmission due to unexpected airflow.
RESUMEN
Background/Aims@#Multi-drug resistant pathogens are increasing among healthcare-associated infections. It is well known that copper and copper alloys have antimicrobial activity. We evaluated the activity of copper against bacteria in a hospital setting in Korea. @*Methods@#This study was conducted in a laboratory and medical intensive care unit (ICU). Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin resistant Enterococcus faecium (VRE) were inoculated onto copper, copper alloy and stainless steel plates. After 24 hours of incubation, colony-forming units (CFU) were counted in the laboratory. Two similar rooms were chosen in the ICU; one room had copper-containing surface, and the other room contained items with a stainless steel surfaces. Items were sampled weekly for 8 weeks when the rooms were not crowded and when the rooms were busier with healthcare workers or visitors. @*Results@#In vitro time-kill curves showed copper or, a copper alloy yielded a significant reduction in MRSA and VRE CFUs over 15 minutes. Upon exposure to stainless steel plates, CFUs were slowly reduced for 24 hours. In vivo, MRSA CFUs were lower in rooms with copper-containing surfaces compared with controls, both after cleaning and after patients had received visitors (p < 0.05). Analysis of VRE revealed similar results, but VRE CFUs from copper-containing surfaces of drug carts in the ICU did not decrease significantly. @*Conclusions@#Copper has antimicrobial activity and appears to reduce the number of multi-drug resistant microorganisms in a hospital environment. This finding suggests the potential of the use of copper fittings, instruments and surfaces in hospital.
RESUMEN
We conducted a prospective, mobile-based survey on the self-reported adverse reactions in healthcare workers (HCWs) who received both doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. Of the 342 HCWs who completed the two-dose vaccination, 265 (77.5%) responded to the survey at least once. Overall, the rates of adverse reactions were higher after the second dose compared with the first dose (89.1% vs. 80.1%, P = 0.006). The most common systemic reactions were muscle ache (69.1%), fatigue (65.7%), headache (48.7%), chills (44.2%), and fever (32.1%), and were notably more common after the second dose vaccine as well. We also noted a sex difference in which the frequency of adverse reactions after the second dose of the vaccine was significantly higher in females, which was not observed after the first dose. The rates of adverse reactions were lower in older age groups, and the rates and severities of the adverse reactions decreased during the 3-day period following vaccination.
RESUMEN
Background@#We performed a prospective survey on the adverse reactions following the first dose of two types of vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthcare workers (HCWs) in South Korea. @*Methods@#HCWs at a tertiary referral hospital in Seoul, South Korea, received a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) or an mRNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2) between March 5 and March 26, 2021. The HCWs were asked to report adverse reactions through a mobile self-report questionnaire for three days after vaccination. @*Results@#A total of 7,625 HCWs received the first dose of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 vaccine during the study period. Of them, 5,866 (76.9%) HCWs (ChAdOx1, n = 5,589 [95.3%];BNT162b2, n = 277 [4.7%]) participated at least once in the survey, of whom 77% were female and 86% were younger than 50 years. The overall adverse reaction rate was 93% in the ChAdOx1 group and 80% in the BNT162b2 group (P < 0.001). Both local and systemic reactions were more commonly reported in the ChAdOx1 group, and the difference was larger in systemic reactions such as fever and fatigue. In the ChAdOx1 group, the incidence of adverse reactions was significantly higher in females and those in the younger age groups, while the BNT162b2 group showed such difference according to age. @*Conclusion@#In our prospective survey, vaccine-associated adverse reactions were more commonly reported in the ChAdOx1 group than in the BNT162b2 group. Females and younger age groups experienced vaccine-associated adverse reactions more frequently.
RESUMEN
Background@#Remdesivir is widely used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but controversies regarding its efficacy still remain. @*Methods@#A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the effect of remdesivir on clinical and virologic outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients from June to July 2020. Primary clinical endpoints included clinical recovery, additional mechanical ventilator (MV) support, and duration of oxygen or MV support. Viral load reduction by hospital day (HD) 15 was evaluated by calculating changes in cycle threshold (Ct) values. @*Results@#A total of 86 severe COVID-19 patients were evaluated including 48 remdesivirtreated patients. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. Remdesivir was administered an average of 7.42 days from symptom onset. The proportions of clinical recovery of the remdesivir and supportive care group at HD 14 (56.3% and 39.5%) and HD 28 (87.5% and 78.9%) were not statistically different. The proportion of patients requiring MV support by HD 28 was significantly lower in the remdesivir group than in the supportive care group (22.9% vs. 44.7%, P = 0.032), and MV duration was significantly shorter in the remdesivir group (average, 1.97 vs. 5.37 days; P = 0.017). Analysis of upper respiratory tract specimens demonstrated that increases of Ct value from HD 1–5 to 11–15 were significantly greater in the remdesivir group than the supportive care group (average, 10.19 vs. 5.36; P = 0.007), and the slope of the Ct value increase was also significantly steeper in the remdesivir group (average, 5.10 vs. 2.68; P = 0.007). @*Conclusion@#The remdesivir group showed clinical and virologic benefit in terms of MV requirement and viral load reduction, supporting remdesivir treatment for severe COVID-19.
RESUMEN
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission among non-close contacts is not infrequent. We evaluated the proportion and circumstances of individuals to whom SARS-CoV-2 was transmitted without close contact with the index patient in a nosocomial outbreak in a tertiary care hospital in Korea. From March 2020 to March 2021, there were 36 secondary cases from 14 SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals. Of the 36 secondary cases, 26 (72%) had been classified as close contact and the remaining 10 (28%) were classified as non-close contact. Of the 10 non-close contact, 4 had short conversations with both individuals masked, 4 shared a space without any conversation with both masked, and the remaining 2 entered the space after the index had left. At least one quarter of SARSCoV-2 transmissions occurred among non-close contacts. The definition of close contact for SARS-CoV-2 exposure based on the mode of droplet transmission should be revised to reflect the airborne nature of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
RESUMEN
Background@#Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing Enterobacterales bacteremia is associated with significant mortality; however, no optimal antibiotic strategy is available. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes according to the antibiotic regimens and identify risk factors for mortality in patients with KPC-producingK. pneumoniae and Escherichia coli bacteremia. @*Materials and Methods@#This retrospective cohort study included all adult patients with monomicrobial bacteremia (KPC-producing K. pneumoniae or E. coli) between January 2011 and March 2021 at a 2,700-bed tertiary center. @*Results@#Ninety-two patients were identified; 7 with E. coli bacteremia, and 85 with K. pneumoniae bacteremia. Thirty-day mortality was 38.0% (35/92). Non-survivors were more likely to have had nosocomial infection (88.6% vs. 63.2%, P = 0.01), high APACHE II scores (mean [interquartile range], 22.0 [14.0 - 28.0] vs. 14.0 [11.0 - 20.5],P <0.001), and septic shock (51.4% vs. 26.3%, P <0.001) and less likely to have been admitted to the surgical ward (5.7% vs. 22.8%, P= 0.04), undergone removal of eradicable foci (61.5% vs. 90.6%, P = 0.03), and received appropriate combination treatment (57.1% vs. 78.9%, P = 0.03) than survivors. No significant difference in mortality was observed according to combination regimens including colistin, aminoglycoside, and tigecycline. In multivariable analysis, high APACHE II scores (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06 - 1.23, P <0.001), and appropriate definitive treatment (aOR, 0.25; CI, 0.08 - 0.74,P = 0.01) were independent risk factors for mortality. @*Conclusion@#High APACHE II scores and not receiving appropriate definitive treatment were associated with 30-day mortality. Mortality did not significantly differ according to combination regimens with conventional drugs such as aminoglycoside and colistin.
RESUMEN
Background@#Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreaks occur in hospitals in many parts of the world. In hospital settings, the possibility of airborne transmission needs to be investigated thoroughly. @*Materials and Methods@#There was a nosocomial outbreak of COVID-19 in a hematologic ward in a tertiary hospital, Seoul, Korea. We found 11 patients and guardians with COVID-19 through vigorous contact tracing and closed-circuit television monitoring. We found one patient who probably had acquired COVID-19 through airborne-transmission. We performed airflow investigation with simulation software, whole-genome sequencing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). @*Results@#Of the nine individuals with COVID-19 who had been in the hematologic ward, six stayed in one multi-patient room (Room 36), and other three stayed in different rooms (Room 1, 34, 35). Guardian in room 35 was close contact to cases in room 36, and patient in room 34 used the shared bathroom for teeth brushing 40 minutes after index used.Airflow simulation revealed that air was spread from the bathroom to the adjacent room 1 while patient in room 1 did not used the shared bathroom. Airflow was associated with poor ventilation in shared bathroom due to dysfunctioning air-exhaust, grill on the door of shared bathroom and the unintended negative pressure of adjacent room. @*Conclusion@#Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the hematologic ward occurred rapidly in the multi-patient room and shared bathroom settings. In addition, there was a case of possible airborne transmission due to unexpected airflow.
RESUMEN
The most important characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmission that makes it difficult to control are 1) asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission, 2) low incidence or lack of dominant systemic symptoms such as fever, 3) airborne transmission that may need a high infectious dose, and 4) super-spread events (SSEs). Patients with COVID-19 have high viral loads at symptom onset or even a few days prior to symptom onset, and most patients with COVID-19 have only mild respiratory symptoms or merely pauci-ull-symptoms. These characteristics of the virus enable it to easily spread to the community because most patients are unaware of their potential infectivity, and symptombased control measures cannot prevent this type of transmission. Furthermore, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is also capable of airborne transmission in conditions such as aerosol-generating procedures, under-ventilated indoor spaces, and over-crowded areas. In this context, universal mask-wearing is important to prevent both outward and inward transmission until an adequate degree of herd immunity is achieved through vaccination. Lastly, the SSEs of SARS-CoV-2 transmission emphasize the importance of reducing contacts by limiting social gatherings. The above-mentioned transmission characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 have culminated in the failure of long-lasting quarantine measures, and indicate that only highly effective vaccines can keep the communities safe from this deadly, multifaceted virus.