Hospital contact patterns and vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

The transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2 within hospitals can exceed that in the general community because of more frequent close proximity interactions (CPIs). Heterogeneity of risk across wards is still poorly described. We measured CPIs in 15 clinical wards across three hospitals using wearable sensors over 36 hours in spring 2020. This data was combined with a transmission model to estimate and compare transmission risks across wards. We found a four-fold range of epidemic risk between wards, with patients frequently presenting high risk to patients and healthcare workers (HCWs). Using a simulation study, we then assessed the potential impact on global risk of targeting individuals for prevention based on their contact patterns. We found that targeting individuals with the highest cumulative contact hours was most impactful. This study reveals patterns of interactions between individuals in hospital during a pandemic and opens new routes for research into airborne nosocomial risk. One Sentence SummaryWe measured contacts between staff, patients and visitors in 15 hospital wards, and used models to predict epidemic risk and evaluate interventions.

Comparison of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation in ICU patients with acute respiratory failure and a do-not-intubate orders: a multicentre prospective study OXYPAL.

INTRODUCTION: A palliative approach to intensive care unit (ICU) patients with acute respiratory failure and a do-not-intubate order corresponds to a poorly evaluated target for non-invasive oxygenation treatments. Survival alone should not be the only target; it also matters to avoid discomfort and to restore the patient's quality of life. We aim to conduct a prospective multicentre observational study to analyse clinical practices and their impact on outcomes of palliative high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFOT) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in ICU patients with do-not-intubate orders. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an investigator-initiated, multicentre prospective observational cohort study comparing the three following strategies of oxygenation: HFOT alone, NIV alternating with HFOT and NIV alternating with standard oxygen in patients admitted in the ICU for acute respiratory failure with a do-not-intubate order. The primary outcome is the hospital survival within 14 days after ICU admission in patients weaned from NIV and HFOT. The sample size was estimated at a minimum of 330 patients divided into three groups according to the oxygenation strategy applied. The analysis takes into account confounding factors by modelling a propensity score. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the ethics committee and patients will be included after informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03673631.

Sharing ventilators in the Covid-19 pandemics. A bench study

COVID-19 pandemics sets the healthcare system to a shortage of ventilators. We aimed at assessing tidal volume (VT) delivery and air recirculation during expiration when one ventilator is divided into 2 patients. The study was performed in a research laboratory in a medical ICU of a University hospital. An ICU-dedicated (V500) and a lower-level ventilator (Elisee 350) were attached to two test-lungs (QuickLung) through a dedicated flow-splitter. A 50 mL/cmH2O Compliance (C) and 5 cmH2O/L/s Resistance (R) were set in both A and B lungs (step1), C50R20 in A / C20R20 in B (step 2), C20R20 in A / C10R20 in B (step 3), and C50R20 in A / C20R5 in B (step 4). Each ventilator was set in volume and pressure control mode to deliver 0.8L VT. We assessed VT from a pneumotachograph placed immediately before each lung, rebreathed volume, and expiratory resistance (circuit and valve). Values are median (1st-3rd quartiles) and compared between ventilators by non-parametric tests. Between Elisee 350 and V500 in volume control VT in A/B patients were 0.381/0.387 vs. 0.412/0.433L in step 1, 0.501/0.270 vs. 0.492/0.370L in step 2, 0.509/0.237 vs. 0.496/0.332L in step 3, and 0.496/0.281 vs. 0.480/0.329L in step 4. In pressure control the corresponding values were 0.373/0.336 vs. 0.430/0.414L, 0.416/0.185/0.322/0.234L, 0.193/0.108 vs. 0.176/0.092L and 0.422/0.201 vs. 0.481/0.329L, respectively (P<0.001 between ventilators at each step for each volume). Rebreathed air volume ranged between 0.7 to 37.8 ml and negatively correlated with expiratory resistance in steps 2 and 3. The lower-level ventilator performed closely to the ICU-dedicated ventilator. Due to dependence of VT to C pressure control should be used to maintain adequate VT at least in one patient when C and/or R changes abruptly and monitoring of VT should be done carefully. Increasing expiratory resistance should reduce rebreathed volume.