A retrospective evaluation of three ethical triage tools for the allocation of ICU resources during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the effect of ethical triage tools (ETT), designed to streamline the admission of patients during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to determine the characteristics and outcomes of the patients who would have been denied admission to the ICU according to these protocols, including the cumulative number of saved ICU days. METHODS: We retrospectively identified the ethical triage status in every patient who was admitted to our 31-bed mixed ICU in Antwerp, Belgium during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, regardless of the reason for admission. This study was possible since the capacity of our ICU had not been threatened, still enabling our usual case-per-case decision. We evaluated three different ETTs that were designed in our and two other hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: During the 81-day study period, 182 patients were admitted to the ICU. Of the patients, 9-23% would have been denied ICU admission according to the three assessed ETTs (WBD cohort), responsible for 8-18% (n = 116-257) of the total number of ICU days. Of the WBD patients, 44-55% eventually survived their hospital stay, compared to 71-74% of the patients that would have been allowed admission. Of the WBD patients admitted for respiratory failure due to COVID-19, 18-25% survived, a number that decreased to 0-20% when these patients required mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSION: An ETT effectively reduces ICU bed occupancy but it does not accurately discriminate between survivors and non-survivors, as a substantial percentage of patients who are being denied admission to the ICU would eventually survive their hospital stay.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence survey among health care providers in a Belgian public multiple-site hospital.

Although the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is lasting for more than 1 year, the exposition risks of health-care providers are still unclear. Available evidence is conflicting. We investigated the prevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in the staff of a large public hospital with multiple sites in the Antwerp region of Belgium. Risk factors for infection were identified by means of a questionnaire and human resource data. We performed hospital-wide serology tests in the weeks following the first epidemic wave (16 March to the end of May 2020) and combined the results with the answers from an individual questionnaire. Overall seroprevalence was 7.6%. We found higher seroprevalences in nurses [10.0%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.9-11.2] than in physicians 6.4% (95% CI 4.6-8.7), paramedical 6.0% (95% CI 4.3-8.0) and administrative staff (2.9%; 95% CI 1.8-4.5). Staff who indicated contact with a confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) colleague had a higher seroprevalence (12.0%; 95% CI 10.7-13.4) than staff who did not (4.2%; 95% CI 3.5-5.0). The same findings were present for contacts in the private setting. Working in general COVID-19 wards, but not in emergency departments or intensive care units, was also a significant risk factor. Since our analysis points in the direction of active SARS-CoV-2 transmission within hospitals, we argue for implementing a stringent hospital-wide testing and contact-tracing policy with special attention to the health care workers employed in general COVID-19 departments. Additional studies are needed to establish the transmission dynamics.