Efficacy of a chairside extraoral suction system in the reduction of aerosol contamination.

The dental setting is regarded as a high-risk environment for aerosol concentrations and transmission of respiratory infectious agents, especially in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although a number of approaches and practices have evolved to reduce the spread of pathogens in the dental setting, the risk of airborne infection remains a concern. Several new extraoral suction (EOS) devices have been marketed recently; further investigation is warranted to determine their clinical effectiveness. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a chairside EOS device (PAX 2000 Extraoral Dental Suction System) in reducing aerosol contamination from patients receiving ultrasonic scaling by a registered hygienist as a part of initial or supportive periodontal therapy. The number of colony-forming units (CFUs) was measured with agar plates before, during, and after ultrasonic scaling at 3 different locations in the dental operatory (instrument table, patient chest area, and patient foot area). Forty subjects were randomly allocated into 2 test groups (n = 20) in which ultrasonic scaling was performed with or without the use of the EOS device. The CFUs retrieved after incubation were quantified and identified by their bacterial or fungal taxon. The use of the EOS device reduced the number of CFUs during scaling at all 3 locations, but the difference was only statistically significant (P = 0.018; Mann-Whitney U test) at the patient's chest area, where the highest number of CFUs was present. The aerosols consisted of 74 different taxa of human origin. The results suggest that the tested EOS system may reduce aerosol contamination in the clinical dental setting, especially in proximity to the patient's head, where most aerosols are generated.

Short-term kidney transplant outcomes from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 lower respiratory tract positive donors.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aim to assess short-term allograft outcomes following deceased donor kidney transplantation from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) lower respiratory tract (LRT) nucleic acid testing (NAT) positive donors. METHODS: From September to December 2021, SARS-CoV-2 NAT positive organ donors, whose solid abdominal organs were transplanted at our academic medical center were identified. Donors were stratified into having tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in an upper respiratory tract (URT) or LRT sample. For this study, the SARS-CoV-2 LRT NAT positive deceased kidney donors and their respective recipients were examined. Donor and recipient demographic data, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related history, patient outcomes, as well as postoperative graft function were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirteen SARS-CoV-2 positive deceased donors were identified. Of these, eight were LRT NAT positive and yielded nine kidneys. These allografts were successfully transplanted into vaccinated and unvaccinated recipients. All recipients received standard induction immunosuppression and did not receive any prophylactic therapy for SARS-CoV-2. Two recipients had delayed graft function. At 1-month post-transplant, there was no clinical evidence of donor-derived COVID-19 or graft loss, and all recipients were free from dialysis. CONCLUSION: We describe the first case series of SARS-CoV-2 LRT NAT positive deceased kidney donors for vaccinated and unvaccinated recipients with excellent short-term allograft outcomes and no clinical evidence of donor-derived COVID-19 post-transplantation. Given the increasing prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the population, utilization of SARS-CoV-2 LRT NAT positive deceased donors could be considered an acceptable source of organs for renal transplantation, especially as multi-center experiences and longer-term follow-up emerge.

Liver Transplantation in the Time of a Pandemic: A Widening of the Racial and Socioeconomic Health Care Gap During COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: During the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, organ transplantation was classified a CMS Tier 3b procedure which should not be postponed. The differential impact of the pandemic on access to liver transplantation was assessed. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Disparities in organ access and transplant outcomes among vulnerable populations have served as obstacles in liver transplantation. METHODS: Using UNOS STARfile data, adult waitlisted candidates were identified from March 1, 2020 to November 30, 2020 (n = 21,702 pandemic) and March 1, 2019 to November 30, 2019 (n = 22,797 pre-pandemic), and further categorized and analyzed by time periods: March to May (Period 1), June to August (Period 2), and September to November (Period 3). Comparisons between pandemic and pre-pandemic groups included: Minority status, demographics, diagnosis, MELD, insurance type, and transplant center characteristics. Liver transplant centers (n = 113) were divided into tertiles by volume (small, medium, large) for further analyses. Multivariable logistic regression was fitted to assess odds of transplant. Competing risk regression was used to predict probability of removal from the waitlist due to transplantation or death and sickness. Additional temporal analyses were performed to assess changes in outcomes over the course of the pandemic. RESULTS: During Period 1 of the pandemic, Minorities showed greater reduction in both listing (-14% vs -12% Whites), and transplant (-15% vs -7% Whites), despite a higher median MELD at transplant (23 vs 20 Whites, P < 0.001). Of candidates with public insurance, Minorities demonstrated an 18.5% decrease in transplants during Period 1 (vs -8% Whites). Although large programs increased transplants during Period 1, accounting for 61.5% of liver transplants versus 53.4% pre-pandemic (P < 0.001), Minorities constituted significantly fewer transplants at these programs during this time period (27.7% pandemic vs 31.7% pre-pandemic, P = 0.04). Although improvements in disparities in candidate listings, removals, and transplants were observed during Periods 2 and 3, the adjusted odds ratio of transplant for Minorities was 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.96, P = 0.001) over the entire pandemic period. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19's effect on access to liver transplantation has been ubiquitous. However, Minorities, especially those with public insurance, have been disproportionately affected. Importantly, despite the uncertainty and challenges, our systems have remarkable resiliency, as demonstrated by the temporal improvements observed during Periods 2 and 3. As the pandemic persists, and the aftermath ensues, health care systems must consciously strive to identify and equitably serve vulnerable populations.