ABSTRACT
Nosocomial coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a major airborne health threat for inpatients. Architecture and ventilation are key elements to prevent nosocomial COVID-19 (NC), but real-life data are challenging to collect. We aimed to retrospectively assess the impact of the type of ventilation and the ratio of single/double rooms on the risk of NC (acquisition of COVID-19 at least 48 h after admission). This study was conducted in a tertiary hospital composed of two main structures (one historical and one modern), which were the sites of acquisition of NC: historical (H) (natural ventilation, 53% single rooms) or modern (M) hospital (double-flow mechanical ventilation, 91% single rooms). During the study period (1 October 2020 to 31 May 2021), 1020 patients presented with COVID-19, with 150 (14.7%) of them being NC (median delay of acquisition, 12 days). As compared with non-nosocomial cases, the patients with NC were older (79 years vs. 72 years; p < 0.001) and exhibited higher mortality risk (32.7% vs. 14.1%; p < 0.001). Among the 150 NC cases, 99.3% were diagnosed in H, mainly in four medical departments. A total of 73 cases were diagnosed in single rooms versus 77 in double rooms, including 26 secondary cases. Measured air changes per hour were lower in H than in M. We hypothesized that in H, SARS-CoV-2 transmission was favored by short-range transmission within a high ratio of double rooms, but also during clusters, via far-afield transmission through virus-laden aerosols favored by low air changes per hour. A better knowledge of the mechanism of airborne risk in healthcare establishments should lead to the implementation of corrective measures when necessary. People's health is improved using not only personal but also collective protective equipment, i.e., ventilation and architecture, thereby reinforcing the need to change institutional and professional practices.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Outcome of children with bladder-prostate rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) has improved with multimodal therapies, including surgery and/or radiotherapy for local treatment. Our aim was to report long-term urological complications after a conservative approach combining conservative surgery and brachytherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty-six patients, free of disease, were retrospectively reviewed. Symptoms related to urinary tract obstruction, incontinence, infection, and lithiasis were reported and graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) classification. Only symptomatic patients underwent urodynamic studies. Risk factors for complications were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 76 males and 10 females. The median follow-up was 6.3 years (18 months to 24 years). Complications occurred after a median follow-up of 5 years (0-21). Twenty-two patients (26%) had long-term urological complications. Urinary tract obstruction was found in 15 patients (17%) and urinary incontinence in 14 patients (16%). Recurrent urinary tract infection occurred in four patients and urinary lithiasis in four (5%). The underlying physiopathology included bladder dysfunction in 15 patients (17%), urethral stenosis in six (7%), and ureterovesical junction stenosis in five (6%). On univariate analysis, posterior bladder wall dissection (p = .001), bladder neck trigone dissection (p = .010), and partial prostatectomy (p = .023) were significantly associated with an increased risk of bladder dysfunction; on multivariate analysis, only age ≤2 years (p = .028) at operation and posterior bladder wall dissection (p = .006) were found to be significant. CONCLUSION: The conservative surgical approach combined with brachytherapy for bladder-prostate RMS leads to long-term urological complications in 26% of survivors. Optimizing brachytherapy doses for young children and establishing a clear and long-term follow-up protocol could help to reduce these complications.
