SARS-CoV-2 environmental contamination from hospitalised patients with COVID-19 receiving aerosol-generating procedures.

BACKGROUND: Continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) are considered 'aerosol-generating procedures' in the treatment of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To measure air and surface environmental contamination with SARS-CoV-2 virus when CPAP and HFNO are used, compared with supplemental oxygen, to investigate the potential risks of viral transmission to healthcare workers and patients. METHODS: 30 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen, with a fraction of inspired oxygen ≥0.4 to maintain oxygen saturation ≥94%, were prospectively enrolled into an observational environmental sampling study. Participants received either supplemental oxygen, CPAP or HFNO (n=10 in each group). A nasopharyngeal swab, three air and three surface samples were collected from each participant and the clinical environment. Real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction analyses were performed for viral and human RNA, and positive/suspected-positive samples were cultured for the presence of biologically viable virus. RESULTS: Overall 21/30 (70%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the nasopharynx. In contrast, only 4/90 (4%) and 6/90 (7%) of all air and surface samples tested positive (positive for E and ORF1a) for viral RNA respectively, although there were an additional 10 suspected-positive samples in both air and surfaces samples (positive for E or ORF1a). CPAP/HFNO use or coughing was not associated with significantly more environmental contamination than supplemental oxygen use. Only one nasopharyngeal sample was culture positive. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CPAP and HFNO to treat moderate/severe COVID-19 did not appear to be associated with substantially higher levels of air or surface viral contamination in the immediate care environment, compared with the use of supplemental oxygen.

RAND appropriateness panel to determine the applicability of UK guidelines on the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and other strategies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has become the most common cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) worldwide. Features of the pathophysiology and clinical presentation partially distinguish it from 'classical' ARDS. A Research and Development (RAND) analysis gauged the opinion of an expert panel about the management of ARDS with and without COVID-19 as the precipitating cause, using recent UK guidelines as a template. METHODS: An 11-person panel comprising intensive care practitioners rated the appropriateness of ARDS management options at different times during hospital admission, in the presence or absence of, or varying severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection on a scale of 1-9 (where 1-3 is inappropriate, 4-6 is uncertain and 7-9 is appropriate). A summary of the anonymised results was discussed at an online meeting moderated by an expert in RAND methodology. The modified online survey comprising 76 questions, subdivided into investigations (16), non-invasive respiratory support (18), basic intensive care unit management of ARDS (20), management of refractory hypoxaemia (8), pharmacotherapy (7) and anticoagulation (7), was completed again. RESULTS: Disagreement between experts was significant only when addressing the appropriateness of diagnostic bronchoscopy in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Adherence to existing published guidelines for the management of ARDS for relevant evidence-based interventions was recommended. Responses of the experts to the final survey suggested that the supportive management of ARDS should be the same, regardless of a COVID-19 diagnosis. For patients with ARDS with COVID-19, the panel recommended routine treatment with corticosteroids and a lower threshold for full anticoagulation based on a high index of suspicion for venous thromboembolic disease. CONCLUSION: The expert panel found no reason to deviate from the evidence-based supportive strategies for managing ARDS outlined in recent guidelines.

Study into the reversal of septic shock with landiolol (beta blockade): STRESS-L Study protocol for a randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: In 2013, a single-centre study reported the safe use of esmolol in patients with septic shock and tachycardia who required vasopressor therapy for more than 24 hours. Although not powered to detect a change in mortality, marked improvements were seen in survival (adjusted HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.59; p<0.001). Beta blockers are one of the most studied groups of drugs but their effect in septic shock is poorly understood; proposed mechanisms include not only the modulation of cardiac function but also immunomodulation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: STRESS-L is a randomised, open-label, non-blinded clinical trial which is enrolling a total of 340 patients with septic shock as defined by Sepsis-3 consensus definition and a tachycardia (heart rate ≥95 beats per minute (bpm)) after vasopressor treatment of at least 24 hours. Standard randomisation (1:1 ratio) allocates patients to receive usual care (according to international standards) versus usual care and a continuous landiolol infusion to reduce the heart rate between 80 and 94 bpm. The primary endpoint is the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score over 14 days from entry into the trial and while in intensive care unit. Results will inform current clinical practice guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has clinical trial authorisation from the UK competent authority, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and has been approved by the East of England-Essex Research Ethics Committee (reference: 17/EE/0368).The results of the trial will be reported first to trial collaborators. The main report will be drafted by the trial coordinating team, and the final version will be agreed by the Trial Steering Committee before submission for publication, on behalf of the collaboration. REGISTRATION: The trial is funded by the National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) (Project Number: EME-14/150/85) and registered ISRCTN12600919 and EudraCT: 2017-001785-14.