ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To understand the transmission dynamics of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a hospital outbreak to inform infection control actions. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: General medical and elderly inpatient wards in a hospital in England. METHODS: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients were classified as community or healthcare associated by time from admission to onset or positivity using European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control definitions. COVID-19 symptoms were classified as asymptomatic, nonrespiratory, or respiratory. Infectiousness was calculated from 2 days prior to 14 days after symptom onset or positive test. Cases were defined as healthcare-associated COVID-19 when infection was acquired from the wards under investigation. COVID-19 exposures were calculated based on symptoms and bed proximity to an infectious patient. Risk ratios and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were calculated from univariable and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 153 patients, 65 were COVID-19 patients and 45 of these were healthcare-associated cases. Exposure to a COVID-19 patient with respiratory symptoms was associated with healthcare-associated infection irrespective of proximity (aOR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.6.3-8.87). Nonrespiratory exposure was only significant within 2.5 m (aOR, 5.21; 95% CI, 1.15-23.48). A small increase in risk ratio was observed for exposure to a respiratory patient for >1 day compared to 1 day from 2.04 (95% CI, 0.99-4.22) to 2.36 (95% CI, 1.44-3.88). CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory exposure anywhere within a 4-bed bay was a risk, whereas nonrespiratory exposure required bed distance ≤2.5 m. Standard infection control measures required beds to be >2 m apart. Our findings suggest that this may be insufficient to stop SARS-CoV-2 transmission. We recommend improving cohorting and further studies into bed distance and transmission factors.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Humans , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Hospitals, District , Retrospective Studies , Delivery of Health CareSubject(s)
COVID-19 , Pneumonia , Pulmonary Embolism , Thrombosis , Humans , Pulmonary Artery , Pulmonary Embolism/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The thrombogenic potential of Covid-19 is increasingly recognised. We aim to assess the characteristics of COVID-19 patients diagnosed with pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS: We conducted a single centre, retrospective observational cohort study of COVID-19 patients admitted between 1st March and 30th April 2020 subsequently diagnosed with PE following computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA). Patient demographics, comorbidities, presenting complaints and inpatient investigations were recorded. RESULTS: We identified 15 COVID-19 patients diagnosed with PE (median age = 58 years [IQR = 23], 87% male). 2 died (13%), both male patients >70 years. Most common symptoms were dyspnoea (N = 10, 67%) and fever (N = 7, 47%). 12 (80%) reported 7 days or more of non-resolving symptoms prior to admission. 7 (47%) required continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), 2 (13%) of which were subsequently intubated. All patients had significantly raised D-dimer levels, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin and prothrombin times. The distribution of PEs correlated with the pattern of consolidation observed on CTPA in 9 (60%) patients; the majority being peripheral or subsegmental (N = 14, 93%) and only 1 central PE. 10 (67%) had an abnormal resting electrocardiogram (ECG), the commonest finding being sinus tachycardia. 6 (40%) who underwent transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) had structurally and functionally normal right hearts. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that patients who demonstrate acute deterioration, a protracted course of illness with non-resolving symptoms, worsening dyspnoea, persistent oxygen requirements or significantly raised D-dimer levels should be investigated for PE, particularly in the context of COVID-19 infection. TTE and to a lesser degree the ECG are unreliable predictors of PE within this context.