Subject(s)Fever of Unknown Origin , Infections/diagnosis , Algorithms , Animals , Cross Infection/complications , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Diagnosis, Differential , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions , Fever of Unknown Origin/etiology , Hematologic Neoplasms/complications , Hematologic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Humans , Immunocompromised Host , Infections/complications , Surgical Procedures, Operative/adverse effects , Zoonoses/complications , Zoonoses/diagnosis
OBJECTIVES: Patients with COVID-19 may present with respiratory syndromes indistinguishable from those caused by common viruses. Early isolation and containment is challenging. Although screening all patients with respiratory symptoms for COVID-19 has been recommended, the practicality of such an effort has yet to be assessed. METHODS: Over a 6-week period during a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, our institution introduced a "respiratory surveillance ward" (RSW) to segregate all patients with respiratory symptoms in designated areas, where appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) could be utilized until SARS-CoV-2 testing was done. Patients could be transferred when SARS-CoV-2 tests were negative on 2 consecutive occasions, 24 hours apart. RESULTS: Over the study period, 1,178 patients were admitted to the RSWs. The mean length-of-stay (LOS) was 1.89 days (SD, 1.23). Among confirmed cases of pneumonia admitted to the RSW, 5 of 310 patients (1.61%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. This finding was comparable to the pickup rate from our isolation ward. In total, 126 HCWs were potentially exposed to these cases; however, only 3 (2.38%) required quarantine because most used appropriate PPE. In addition, 13 inpatients overlapped with the index cases during their stay in the RSW; of these 13 exposed inpatients, 1 patient subsequently developed COVID-19 after exposure. No patient-HCW transmission was detected despite intensive surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Our institution successfully utilized the strategy of an RSW over a 6-week period to contain a cluster of COVID-19 cases and to prevent patient-HCW transmission. However, this method was resource-intensive in terms of testing and bed capacity.
Subject(s)Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Cross Infection/transmission , Infection Control/methods , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Patient Isolation , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Population Surveillance/methods , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Early Diagnosis , Female , Humans , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patients' Rooms/organization & administration , Personal Protective Equipment , Pneumonia/virology , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Singapore , Symptom Assessment , Tertiary Care Centers
Subject(s)COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Disease Outbreaks/statistics & numerical data , Health Facility Closure , Physician Impairment , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Humans , Medically Underserved Area , Taiwan/epidemiology
Subject(s)Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Cross Infection/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Cross Infection/diagnosis , France , Geriatrics , Hospital Units , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2
INTRODUCTION: In the management of acute hospital admissions during the COVID-19 pandemic, safe patient cohorting depends on robust admission diagnostic strategies. It is essential that screening strategies are sensitive and rapid, to prevent nosocomial transmission of COVID-19 and maintain patient flow. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all COVID-19 positive and suspected cases at our institution screened by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) between 4 April and 28 June 2020. Using RT-PCR positivity within 7 days as our reference standard, we assessed sensitivity and net-benefit of three admission screening strategies: single admission RT-PCR, composite admission RT-PCR and CXR and repeat RT-PCR with 48 h. RESULTS: RT-PCR single-test sensitivity was 91.5% (87.8%-94.4%) versus 97.7% (95.4%-99.1%) (p = 0.025) for RT-PCR/CXR composite testing and 95.1% (92.1%-97.2%) (p = 0.03) for repeated RT-PCR. Net-benefit was 0.83 for single RT-PCR versus 0.89 for RT-PCR/CXR and 0.87 for repeated RT-PCR at 0.02% threshold probability. CONCLUSION: The RT-PCR/CXR composite testing strategy was highly sensitive when screening patients at the point of hospital admission. Real-world sensitivity of this approach was comparable to repeat RT-PCR testing within 48 h; however, faster facilitating improved patient flow.
Subject(s)COVID-19 , Cross Infection , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Hospitals , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Sensitivity and Specificity
BACKGROUND: To control COVID-19 pandemic is of critical importance to the global public health. To capture the prevalence in an accurate and timely manner and to understand the mode of nosocomial infection are essential for its preventive measure. METHODS: We recruited 685 healthcare workers (HCW's) at Tokyo Shinagawa Hospital prior to the vaccination with COVID-19 vaccine. Sera of the subjects were tested by assays for the titer of IgG against S protein's receptor binding domain (IgG (RBD)) or IgG against nucleocapsid protein (IgG (N)) of SARS-CoV-2. Together with PCR data, the positive rates by these methods were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall positive rates among HCW's by PCR, IgG (RBD), IgG (N) with a cut-off of 1.4 S/C (IgG (N)1.4), and IgG (N) with a cut-off of 0.2 S/C (IgG (N)0.2) were 3.5%, 9.5%, 6.1%, and 27.7%, respectively. Positive rates of HCW's working in COVID-19 ward were significantly higher than those of HCW's working in non-COVID-19 ward by all the four methods. Concordances of IgG (RBD), IgG (N)1.4, and IgG (N)0.2 against PCR were 97.1%, 71.4%, and 88.6%, respectively. By subtracting the positive rates of PCR from that of IgG (RBD), the rate of overall silent infection and that of HCW's in COVID-19 ward were estimated to be 6.0% and 21.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For the prevention of nosocomial infection of SARS-CoV-2, identification of silent infection is essential. For the detection of ongoing infection, periodical screening with IgG (RBD) in addition to PCR would be an effective measure. For the surveillance of morbidity in the population, on the other hand, IgG (N)0.2 could be the most reliable indicator among the three serological tests.
Subject(s)COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Japan , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Serologic Tests/methods , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus
BACKGROUND: Patients with liver disease may be at increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection due to immune dysfunction. However, the risk of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection in these patients remains unknown. This study aimed to determine whether patients with liver disease are at an increased risk of nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection upon admission to the hospital for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. METHODS: The study prospectively enrolled 143 patients who were admitted at least once to the hepatology unit at our hospital; 95 patients (66%) were admitted at least twice during the study period. History of past symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 exposure was assessed on the day before hospital admission via an interview. Patients were evaluated for active SARS-CoV-2 infection via real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) performed on nasopharyngeal swabs and tests for serum anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies. RESULTS: None of the patients enrolled tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR at the first or the second clinical evaluation. One patient who had previously received a liver transplant and who had a history of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection that occurred 4 months before hospital admission tested positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG but not IgM antibodies at each of the two hospital admissions. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study suggest that patients with liver disease are at no increased risk of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection. These data support the policy of maintaining clinical hospital checks that will be necessary until or possibly even after the completion of the current SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaign.
Subject(s)COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Digestive System Diseases , Gastroenterology , Liver Diseases , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Hospitals , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Immunoglobulin M , Liver Diseases/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
Patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at high risk for healthcare-acquired infections (HAI) due to the high prevalence of invasive procedures and devices, induced immunosuppression, comorbidity, frailty and increased age. Over the past decade we have seen a successful reduction in the incidence of HAI related to invasive procedures and devices. However, the rate of ICU-acquired infections remains high. Within this context, the ongoing emergence of new pathogens, further complicates treatment and threatens patient outcomes. Additionally, the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted the challenge that an emerging pathogen provides in adapting prevention measures regarding both the risk of exposure to caregivers and the need to maintain quality of care. ICU nurses hold a special place in the prevention and management of HAI as they are involved in basic hygienic care, steering and implementing quality improvement initiatives, correct microbiological sampling, and aspects antibiotic stewardship. The emergence of more sensitive microbiological techniques and our increased knowledge about interactions between critically ill patients and their microbiota are leading us to rethink how we define HAIs and best strategies to diagnose, treat and prevent these infections in the ICU. This multidisciplinary expert review, focused on the ICU setting, will summarise the recent epidemiology of ICU-HAI, discuss the place of modern microbiological techniques in their diagnosis, review operational and epidemiological definitions and redefine the place of several controversial preventive measures including antimicrobial-impregnated medical devices, chlorhexidine-impregnated washcloths, catheter dressings and chlorhexidine-based mouthwashes. Finally, general guidance is suggested that may reduce HAI incidence and especially outbreaks in ICUs.
Subject(s)COVID-19 , Catheter-Related Infections , Cross Infection , Adult , Chlorhexidine , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Intensive Care Units , SARS-CoV-2
OBJECTIVES: Risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 (HA-COVID-19) infection is increased by cohorting infected and non-infected patients together in assessment areas, whist awaiting laboratory PCR results. Molecular point-of-care tests (mPOCT) reduce time to results and improve patient flow but the impact on HA-COVID-19 is unknown. METHODS: In this pre and post implementation study patients were evaluated across two time periods: March 1st to August 13th 2020, prior to the introduction of mPOCT in medical admissions areas, and 14th August 2020 to 1st April 2021, after mPOCT introduction. The primary outcome was proportion of HA-COVID-19 infection among all COVID-19 positive patients. Secondary outcome measures included time to SARS-CoV-2 results, length of time spent in the medical assessment area and comparison of local, regional and national proportions of HA-COVID-19. RESULTS: 1988 patients were admitted through the acute medicine admission cohorting area and tested for SARS-CoV-2 prior to introducing mPOCT and 4640 afterwards. Median (IQR) time to SARS-CoV-2 result was 6.5 (2.1-17.9) hours prior to introducing mPOCT and 1.0 (0.8-1.3) hours afterwards (p < 0.0001). Median (IQR) duration in the assessment cohort area was 12.0 (4.8-20.6) hours prior to introduction of POCT and 3.2 (2.0-5.6) hours afterwards (p < 0.0001). The proportion of hospital-acquired COVID-19 cases was 108 (16.5%) of 654 prior to introducing mPOCT compared with 168 (9.4%) of 1782 afterwards, (HR 0.55, 95%CI 0.43-0.70; p < 0.0001). In the period following the introduction of mPOCT up to 1st April 2021 the median proportion of HA-COVID-19 was 13.6% (95%CI 8.2-18.9%) locally, compared with 43.8% (95%CI 37.8-49.9%) for all acute NHS trusts regionally and 30.9% (95%CI 28.4-33.5%) for all NHS trusts nationally. CONCLUSIONS: Routine mPOCT for SARS-CoV-2 was associated with reduced time to results, time spent in admission cohort areas, and hospital-acquired COVID-19, compared to laboratory PCR.
Subject(s)COVID-19 , Cross Infection , COVID-19/diagnosis , Cohort Studies , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Hospitals , Humans , Point-of-Care Testing , SARS-CoV-2
Healthcare facilities are vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 introductions and subsequent nosocomial outbreaks. Antigen rapid diagnostic testing (Ag-RDT) is widely used for population screening, but its health and economic benefits as a reactive response to local surges in outbreak risk are unclear. We simulate SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a long-term care hospital with varying COVID-19 containment measures in place (social distancing, face masks, vaccination). Across scenarios, nosocomial incidence is reduced by up to 40-47% (range of means) with routine symptomatic RT-PCR testing, 59-63% with the addition of a timely round of Ag-RDT screening, and 69-75% with well-timed two-round screening. For the latter, a delay of 4-5 days between the two screening rounds is optimal for transmission prevention. Screening efficacy varies depending on test sensitivity, test type, subpopulations targeted, and community incidence. Efficiency, however, varies primarily depending on underlying outbreak risk, with health-economic benefits scaling by orders of magnitude depending on the COVID-19 containment measures in place.
Subject(s)COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , SARS-CoV-2 , Antigens, Viral , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Cross Infection/transmission , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Epidemiological Monitoring , Hospitals , Humans , Risk Factors , Vaccination
BackgroundInfluenza virus presents a considerable challenge to public health by causing seasonal epidemics and occasional pandemics. Nanopore metagenomic sequencing has the potential to be deployed for near-patient testing, providing rapid infection diagnosis, rationalising antimicrobial therapy, and supporting infection-control interventions.AimTo evaluate the applicability of this sequencing approach as a routine laboratory test for influenza in clinical settings.MethodsWe conducted Oxford Nanopore Technologies (Oxford, United Kingdom (UK)) metagenomic sequencing for 180 respiratory samples from a UK hospital during the 2018/19 influenza season, and compared results to routine molecular diagnostic standards (Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV assay; BioFire FilmArray Respiratory Panel 2 assay). We investigated drug resistance, genetic diversity, and nosocomial transmission using influenza sequence data.ResultsCompared to standard testing, Nanopore metagenomic sequencing was 83% (75/90) sensitive and 93% (84/90) specific for detecting influenza A viruses. Of 59 samples with haemagglutinin subtype determined, 40 were H1 and 19 H3. We identified an influenza A(H3N2) genome encoding the oseltamivir resistance S331R mutation in neuraminidase, potentially associated with an emerging distinct intra-subtype reassortant. Whole genome phylogeny refuted suspicions of a transmission cluster in a ward, but identified two other clusters that likely reflected nosocomial transmission, associated with a predominant community-circulating strain. We also detected other potentially pathogenic viruses and bacteria from the metagenome.ConclusionNanopore metagenomic sequencing can detect the emergence of novel variants and drug resistance, providing timely insights into antimicrobial stewardship and vaccine design. Full genome generation can help investigate and manage nosocomial outbreaks.
Subject(s)Cross Infection , Influenza, Human , Nanopores , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/drug therapy , Drug Resistance , Drug Resistance, Viral/genetics , Humans , Influenza A Virus, H3N2 Subtype/genetics , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/drug therapy , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Metagenome , Neuraminidase/genetics , Seasons , United Kingdom
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic which may compromise the management of vascular emergencies. An uncompromised treatment for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) during such a health crisis represents a challenge. This study aimed to demonstrate the treatment outcomes of rAAA and the perioperative prevention of cross-infection under the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In cases of rAAA during the pandemic, a perioperative workflow was applied to expedite coronavirus testing and avoid pre-operative delay, combined with a strategy for preventing cross-infection. Data of rAAA treated in 11 vascular centers between January-March 2020 collected retrospectively were compared to the corresponding period in 2018 and 2019. RESULTS: Eight, 12, and 14 rAAA patients were treated in 11 centers in January-March 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively. An increased portion were treated at local hospitals with a comparable outcome compared with large centers in Guangzhou. With EVAR-first strategy, 85.7% patients with rAAA in 2020 underwent endovascular repair, similar to that in 2018 and 2019. The surgical outcomes during the pandemic were not inferior to that in 2018 and 2019. The average length of ICU stay was 1.8 ± 3.4 days in 2020, tending to be shorter than that in 2018 and 2019, whereas the length of hospital stay was similar among 3 years. The in-hospital mortality of 2018, 2019, and 2020 was 37.5%, 25.0%, and 14.3%, respectively. Three patients undergoing emergent surgeries were suspected of COVID-19, though turned out to be negative after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience for emergency management of rAAA and infection prevention for healthcare providers is effective in optimizing emergent surgical outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Subject(s)Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal/surgery , Aortic Rupture/surgery , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Infection Control , Vascular Surgical Procedures , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal/diagnosis , Aortic Rupture/diagnosis , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Testing , China , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/transmission , Cross Infection/virology , Emergencies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Safety , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , Vascular Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Workflow
In the present study, we retrospectively evaluated outcomes in 8 patients (mean age 67 ± 7, range 55-77 years; male/female 7/1) who acquired nosocomial COVID-19 infection postoperatively out of the 39 adults who underwent elective thoracic surgery in November 2020. All patients were tested negative for COVID-19 on admission. The mortality rate in the eight patients was 25%. The surviving six patients were discharged in a good clinical condition. Fatal outcomes were due to the development of severe and unrelenting acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and were associated with preoperatively reduced serum albumin (<3 g/dL), an open surgical approach, oxygen saturation <90% at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, and the real-time PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value <20. A high mortality rate indicates a need for systematic and frequent COVID-19 screening in patients scheduled for elective thoracic surgery and the use of minimally invasive procedures whenever feasible.
Subject(s)COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Thoracic Surgery , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 Testing , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies
Little is known about the impact of COVID-19 on the outcomes of patients undergoing surgery and intervention. This study was conducted between 20 March and 20 May 2020 in six hospitals in Istanbul, and aimed to investigate the effects of surgery and intervention on COVID-19 disease progression, intensive care (ICU) need, mortality and virus transmission to patients and healthcare workers. Patients were examined in three groups: group I underwent emergency surgery, group II had an emergency non-operating room intervention, and group III received inpatient COVID-19 treatment but did not have surgery or undergo intervention. Mortality rates, mechanical ventilation needs and rates of admission to the ICU were compared between the three groups. During this period, patient and healthcare worker transmissions were recorded. In total, 1273 surgical, 476 non-operating room intervention patients and 1884 COVID-19 inpatients were examined. The rate of ICU requirement among patients who had surgery was nearly twice that for inpatients and intervention patients, but there was no difference in mortality between the groups. The overall mortality rates were 2.3% in surgical patients, 3.3% in intervention patients and 3% in inpatients. COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction positivity among hospital workers was 2.4%. Only 3.3% of infected frontline healthcare workers were anaesthesiologists. No deaths occurred among infected healthcare workers. We conclude that emergency surgery and non-operating room interventions during the pandemic period do not increase postoperative mortality and can be performed with low transmission rates.
Subject(s)COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , General Surgery/statistics & numerical data , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , Critical Care/statistics & numerical data , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/transmission , Female , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Turkey/epidemiology
BACKGROUND: Nosocomial bloodstream infection (nBSI) is an important clinical concern among COVID-19 hospitalised patients. It can cause sepsis and septic shock leading to high morbidity, mortality, and the emergence of antibiotic resistance. The aim of this case-control study is to identify the risk factors associated with the nBSI development in COVID-19 hospitalised patients and its incidence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A retrospective case-control study will be performed. Cases will include nBSI episodes of adult patients (≥18 years) admitted to Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Barcelona, Spain, from April to December 2020 with a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Patients transferred from other hospitals will be excluded. Controls will include hospitalisation episodes of COVID-19 patients without nBSI. We will recruit a minimum of 74 nBSI episodes (cases) and 74 controls (according to sample size calculation). We will collect data on sociodemographics, clinical status at admission, hospital admission, in-hospital mortality, and exposure data (use of antivirals, glucocorticoids or immunomodulatory agents, length of hospitalisation, and use of medical devices such as intravenous catheters). A bivariate and a subsequent multivariate regression analysis will be performed to assess the independent effect of the associated risk factors after adjusting for confounders. The nBSI incidence rate will be estimated according to the number of nBSI episodes in admitted COVID-19 patients among the total person-month of follow-up. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol of this study was approved by the Ethical Committee for Drug Investigation of the Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol. The results of this case-control study will be published in a peer reviewed journal.
Subject(s)COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Sepsis , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Case-Control Studies , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
BACKGROUND: Initial local and global evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2-infected patients who undergo surgery, and those who become infected perioperatively, have an increased mortality risk post surgery. OBJECTIVES: To analyse and describe the 30-day mortality, presurgical COVID-19 status and hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of patients, both SARS-CoV-2-positive and negative, undergoing orthopaedic surgery at a tertiary academic hospital in South Africa (SA) during the first COVID-19 peak. METHODS: This single-centre, observational, prospective study included patients who underwent orthopaedic procedures from 1 April 2020 (beginning of the COVID-19 case increase in SA) to 31 July 2020 (first COVID-19 peak in SA). All patients were screened for COVID-19 and were confirmed positive if they had a positive laboratory quantitative polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 RNA on a nasopharyngeal or oral swab. Thirty-day mortality, presurgical COVID-19 status and hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, a total of 433 operations were performed on 346 patients during the timeframe. Of these patients, 65.9% (n=228) were male and 34.1% (n=118) were female. The mean (standard deviation) age was 42.5 (16.8) years (range 9 - 89). Of the patients, 5 (1.4%) were identified as COVID-19 patients under investigation (PUI) on admission and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 before surgery, and 1 (0.3%) contracted SARS-CoV-2 perioperatively; all survived 30 days post surgery. Twenty-nine patients were lost to follow-up, and data were missing for 6 patients. The final analysis was performed excluding these 35 patients. Of the 311 patients included in the final 30-day mortality analysis, 303 (97%) had a follow-up observation ≥30 days after the operation. The overall 30-day mortality for these patients was 2.5% (n=8 deaths). None of the recorded deaths were of screened COVID-19 PUI. CONCLUSIONS: We report a low 30-day mortality rate of 2.5% (n=8) for patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery at our hospital during the first COVID-19 peak. None of the deaths were COVID-19 related, and all patients who tested SARS-CoV-2-positive, before or after surgery, survived. Our overall 30-day mortality rate correlates with several other reports of orthopaedic centres analysing over similar timeframes during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Regarding mortality and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk, we can conclude that with the appropriate measures taken, it was safe to undergo orthopaedic procedures at our hospital during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in SA.
Subject(s)COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Orthopedic Procedures/mortality , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 Testing , Child , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Postoperative Period , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , South Africa/epidemiology
Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been concern about the concomitant rise of antimicrobial resistance. While bacterial co-infections seem rare in COVID-19 patients admitted to hospital wards and intensive care units (ICUs), an increase in empirical antibiotic use has been described. In the ICU setting, where antibiotics are already abundantly-and often inappropriately-prescribed, the need for an ICU-specific antimicrobial stewardship programme is widely advocated. Apart from essentially warning against the use of antibacterial drugs for the treatment of a viral infection, other aspects of ICU antimicrobial stewardship need to be considered in view of the clinical course and characteristics of COVID-19. First, the distinction between infectious and non-infectious (inflammatory) causes of respiratory deterioration during an ICU stay is difficult, and the much-debated relevance of fungal and viral co-infections adds to the complexity of empirical antimicrobial prescribing. Biomarkers such as procalcitonin for the decision to start antibacterial therapy for ICU nosocomial infections seem to be more promising in COVID-19 than non-COVID-19 patients. In COVID-19 patients, cytomegalovirus reactivation is an important factor to consider when assessing patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 as it may have a role in modulating the patient immune response. The diagnosis of COVID-19-associated invasive aspergillosis is challenging because of the lack of sensitivity and specificity of the available tests. Furthermore, altered pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties need to be taken into account when prescribing antimicrobial therapy. Future research should now further explore the 'known unknowns', ideally with robust prospective study designs.
Subject(s)Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Antimicrobial Stewardship/methods , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacokinetics , Antimicrobial Stewardship/organization & administration , Biomarkers/analysis , Coinfection/drug therapy , Coinfection/microbiology , Cross Infection/drug therapy , Cytomegalovirus Infections/drug therapy , Cytomegalovirus Infections/virology , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis/diagnosis , Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis/drug therapy , Virus Activation/drug effects
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has imposed a considerable burden on hospitals and healthcare workers (HCWs) worldwide, increasing the risk of outbreaks and nosocomial transmission to 'non-COVID-19' patients, who represent the highest-risk population in terms of mortality, and HCWs. Since HCWs are at the interface between hospitals on the one hand and the community on the other, they are potential reservoirs, carriers, or victims of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 cross-transmission. In addition, there has been a paradigm shift in the management of viral respiratory outbreaks, such as the widespread testing of patients and HCWs, including asymptomatic individuals. In hospitals, there is a risk of aerosol transmission in poorly ventilated spaces, and when performing aerosol-producing procedures, it is imperative to take measures against aerosol transmission. In particular, spatial separation of the inpatient ward for non-COVID-19 patients from that designated for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 as well as negative-pressure isolation on the floor of the ward, using an airborne infection isolation device could help prevent nosocomial infection.
Subject(s)COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Hospitals , Infection Control , Physical Distancing , Ventilation , Aerosols , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Testing , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/transmission , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Ventilation/methods , Ventilation/statistics & numerical data
SARS-CoV-2 is the etiologic agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and is mainly detected by RT-PCR methods from upper respiratory specimens, as recommended by the World Health Organization. Oro/nasopharyngeal swabbing can be discomfortable to the patients, requires trained healthcare personnel and may generate aerosol, increasing the risk of nosocomial infections. In this study, we describe two SARS-CoV-2 RNA extraction-free single RT-PCR protocols on saliva samples and compared the results with the paired oro/nasopharyngeal swab specimens from 400 patients. The two saliva protocols demonstrated a substantial agreement when compared to the oro/nasopharyngeal swab protocol. Moreover, the positivity rate of saliva protocols increased according to the disease period. The 95 % limit of detection of one of the therefore implemented saliva protocol was determined as 9441 copies/mL. Our results support the conclusion that RNA extraction-free RT-PCR using self-collected saliva specimens is an alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs, especially in the early phase of symptom onset.