Development and validation of a 3D printed antiviral ventilator filter - a comparative study.

BACKGROUND: The current coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unexpected pressure on medical supplies, interrupting supply chains and increasing prices. The supply of antiviral filters which form an essential part of the ventilator circuit have been affected by these issues. Three-dimensional (3D) printing may provide a solution to some of these issues. METHODS: We designed and tested 3D printed heat and moisture exchange (HME) and antiviral casing. For each casing we tested two different filter materials derived from a sediment water filter cartridge or 1.5-µm glass fiber filter paper. A polyurethane sponge was used for the HME. Each design was tested for circuit leak, circuit compliance, peak inspiratory pressure and casing integrity using methylene blue dye. RESULTS: We designed, produced, and tested two different types of antiviral filters with six different internal configurations. Overall, we tested 10 modified filter designs and compared them with the original commercial filter. Except for the combination of 1.5-µm filter paper and 5 mm sponge peak inspiratory pressure and circuit compliance of the filters produced were within the operating limits of the ventilator. All In addition, all filters passed the dye test. CONCLUSIONS: Our filter may be of particular importance to those working in low middle-income countries unable to compete with stronger economies. Our design relies on products available outside the healthcare supply chain, much of which can be purchased in grocery stores, hardware stores, or industrial and academic institutions. We hope that these HMEs and viral filters may be beneficial to clinicians who face critical supply chain issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Correction to: Lung ultrasound predicts clinical course and outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

The original article can be found online.

Anesthesia departments' readiness for the COVID-19 pandemic; a nationwide cross-sectional study in Israel.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) brings anesthesiologists and intensive care physicians to the mainstay of clinical workload and healthcare managements' focus. There are approximately 900 anesthesiologists in Israel, working in non-private hospitals. This nationwide cross-sectional study evaluated the readiness and involvement of anesthesia departments in Israel in management of the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact on anesthesiologists' health, workload, and clinical practices were also evaluated. METHODS: An online questionnaire was distributed to all of anesthesia department chairs in Israel on April 14th. Each response was identifiable on the hospital level only. Informed consent was waived since no patient data were collected. RESULTS: Response rate was 100%. A decrease of at least 40% in operating-room activity was reported by two-thirds of the departments. Anesthesiologists are leading the treatment of COVID-19 patients in 19/28 (68%) Israeli hospitals. Israel Society of Anesthesiologists' recommendations regarding intubation of COVID-19 patients were strictly followed (intubations performed by the most experienced available physician, by rapid-sequence induction utilizing video-laryngoscopy, while minimizing the number of people in the room - about 90% compliance for each). Anesthesiologists in most departments use standard personal protective equipment when caring for COVID-19 patients, including N95 masks, face shields, and water-proof gowns. Only one anesthesiologist across Israel was diagnosed with COVID-19 (unknown source of transmission). All department chairs reported emerging opportunities that advance the anesthesia profession: implementation of new technologies and improvement in caregivers' clinical capabilities (68% each), purchase of new equipment (96%), and increase in research activity (36%). CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide cross-sectional study had a complete response rate and therefore well-represents the anesthesia practice in Israel. We found that Israeli anesthesia departments are generally highly involved in the health system efforts to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic. Anesthesia and airway management are performed in a remarkably comparable manner and with proper protection of caregivers. Ambulatory anesthesia activity has dramatically decreased, but many departments find opportunities for improvement even in these challenging times.

Lung ultrasound predicts clinical course and outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

PURPOSE: Information regarding the use of lung ultrasound (LUS) in patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is quickly accumulating, but its use for risk stratification and outcome prediction has yet to be described. We performed the first systematic and comprehensive LUS evaluation of consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection, in order to describe LUS findings and their association with clinical course and outcome. METHODS: Between 21/03/2020 and 04/05/2020, 120 consecutive patients admitted to the Tel Aviv Medical Center due to COVID-19, underwent complete LUS within 24 h of admission. A second exam was performed in case of clinical deterioration. LUS score of 0 (best)-36 (worst) was assigned to each patient. LUS findings were compared with clinical data. RESULTS: The median baseline total LUS score was 15, IQR [7-20]. Baseline LUS score was 0-18 in 80 (67%) patients, and 19-36 in 40 (33%) patients. The majority had patchy pleural thickening (n = 100; 83%), or patchy subpleural consolidations (n = 93; 78%) in at least one zone. The prevalence of pleural thickening, subpleural consolidations and the total LUS score were all correlated with severity of illness on admission. Clinical deterioration was associated with increased follow-up LUS scores (p = 0.0009), mostly due to loss of aeration in anterior lung segments. The optimal cutoff point for LUS score was 18 (sensitivity = 62%, specificity = 74%). Both mortality and need for invasive mechanical ventilation were increased with baseline LUS score > 18 compared to baseline LUS score 0-18. Unadjusted hazard ratio of death for LUS score was 1.08 per point [1.02-1.16], p = 0.008; Unadjusted hazard ratio of the composite endpoint (death or need for invasive mechanical ventilation) for LUS score was 1.12 per point [1.05-1.2], p = 0.0008. CONCLUSION: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19, at all clinical grades, present with pathological LUS findings. Baseline LUS score strongly correlates with the eventual need for invasive mechanical ventilation and is a strong predictor of mortality. Routine use of LUS may guide patients' management strategies, as well as resource allocation in case of surge capacity.

Clinical Course and Outcomes of Severe Covid-19: A National Scale Study

Knowledge of the outcomes of critically ill patients is crucial for health and government officials who are planning how to address local outbreaks. The factors associated with outcomes of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) who required treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU) are yet to be determined. Methods: This was a retrospective registry-based case series of patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 who were referred for ICU admission and treated in the ICUs of the 13 participating centers in Israel between 5 March and 27 April 2020. Demographic and clinical data including clinical management were collected and subjected to a multivariable analysis;primary outcome was mortality. Results: This study included 156 patients (median age = 72 years (range = 22-97 years));69% (108 of 156) were male. Eighty-nine percent (139 of 156) of patients had at least one comorbidity. One hundred three patients (66%) required invasive mechanical ventilation. As of 8 May 2020, the median length of stay in the ICU was 10 days (range = 0-37 days). The overall mortality rate was 56%;a multivariable regression model revealed that increasing age (OR = 1.08 for each year of age, 95%CI = 1.03-1.13), the presence of sepsis (OR = 1.08 for each year of age, 95%CI = 1.03-1.13), and a shorter ICU stay(OR = 0.90 for each day, 95% CI = 0.84-0.96) were independent prognostic factors. Conclusions: In our case series, we found lower mortality rates than those in exhausted health systems. The results of our multivariable model suggest that further evaluation is needed of antiviral and antibacterial agents in the treatment of sepsis and secondary infection.