Appropriateness for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for otolaryngologist and head and neck surgeons in case of pregnancy, breastfeeding, or childbearing potential: Yo-IFOS and CEORL-HNS joint clinical consensus statement.

PURPOSE: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are a key step in fighting the pandemic. Nevertheless, their rapid development did not allow for testing among specific population subgroups such as pregnant and breastfeeding women, or elaborating specific guidelines for healthcare personnel working in high infection risk specialties, such as otolaryngology (ORL). This clinical consensus statement (CCS) aims to offer guidance for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination to this high-risk population based on the best evidence available. METHODS: A multidisciplinary international panel of 33 specialists judged statements through a two-round modified Delphi method survey. Statements were designed to encompass the following topics: risk of SARS-Cov-2 infection and use of protective equipment in ORL; SARS-Cov-2 infection and vaccines and respective risks for the mother/child dyad; and counseling for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in pregnant, breastfeeding, or fertile healthcare workers (PBFHW). All ORL PBFHW were considered as the target audience. RESULTS: Of the 13 statements, 7 reached consensus or strong consensus, 2 reached no consensus, and 2 reached near-consensus. According to the statements with strong consensus otorhinolaryngologists-head and neck surgeons who are pregnant, breastfeeding, or with childbearing potential should have the opportunity to receive SARS-Cov-2 vaccination. Moreover, personal protective equipment (PPE) should still be used even after the vaccination. CONCLUSION: Until prospective evaluations on these topics are available, ORL-HNS must be considered a high infection risk specialty. While the use of PPE remains pivotal, ORL PBFHW should be allowed access to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination provided they receive up-to-date information.

Development and validation of a clinical risk calculator for mortality after colectomy for fulminant Clostridium difficile colitis.

BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile colitis is an increasingly important cause of morbidity and mortality. Fulminant C. difficile colitis (FCDC) is a severe form of the colitis driven by a significant systemic inflammatory response, and managed with a total abdominal colectomy. Despite surgery, postoperative mortality rates remain high. The aim of this study was to develop a bedside calculator to predict the risk of 30-day postoperative mortality for patients with FCDC. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2005-2015) was used to include adult patients who underwent emergency surgery for FCDC. A priori preoperative predictors of mortality were selected from the literature: age, immunosuppression, preoperative shock, intubation, and laboratory values. The predictive accuracy of different logistic regression models was measured by calculating the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve. A cohort of 124 patients from Québec was used to validate the developed mortality calculator. RESULTS: A total of 557 patients met the inclusion criteria, and the overall mortality was 44%. After developing the calculator, no statistically significant differences were found in comparison with the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program probability of mortality available in the database (area under the receiver operating curve, 75.61 vs. 75.14; p = 0.79). External validation with the cohort of patients from Quebec showed an area under the curve of 74.0% (95% confidence interval, 65.0-82.9). CONCLUSION: A clinically applicable calculator using preoperative variables to predict postoperative mortality for patients with FCDC was developed and externally validated. This calculator may help guide preoperative decision making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological study, level III.

Rectal swab screening assays of public health importance in molecular diagnostics: Sample adequacy control.

Rectal swabs are routinely used by public health authorities to screen for multi-drug resistant enteric bacteria including vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae (CRE). Screening sensitivity can be influenced by the quality of the swabbing, whether performed by the patient (self-swabbing) or a healthcare practitioner. One common exclusion criterion for rectal swabs is absence of "visible soiling" from fecal matter. In our institution, this criterion excludes almost 10% of rectal swabs received in the microbiology laboratory. Furthermore, over 30% of patients in whom rectal swabs are cancelled will not be re-screened within the next 48h, resulting in delays in removing infection prevention measures. We describe two quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR)-based assays, human RNAse P and eubacterial 16S rDNA, which might serve as suitable controls for sampling adequacy. However, lower amounts of amplifiable human DNA make the 16s rDNA assay a better candidate for sample adequacy control.

Correlation between Clostridium difficile bacterial load, commercial real-time PCR cycle thresholds, and results of diagnostic tests based on enzyme immunoassay and cell culture cytotoxicity assay.

The impact of Clostridium difficile fecal loads on diagnostic test results is poorly understood, but it may have clinical importance. In this study, we investigated the relationship between C. difficile fecal load and the results of four assays: a glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) enzyme immunoassay (EIA), a toxin A/B antigen EIA (ToxAB), a cell culture cytotoxicity assay (CCA), and PCR targeting the tcdB gene. We also compared the PCR cycle threshold (CT) with the results of quantitative culture using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Finally, we sequenced the genomes of 24 strains with different detection profiles. A total of 203 clinical samples harboring toxigenic C. difficile were analyzed and sorted into one of four groups: 17 PCR(+) (group 1), 37 PCR(+) GDH(+) (group 2), 24 PCR(+) GDH(+) CCA(+) (group 3), and 125 PCR(+) GDH(+) ToxAB(+) (group 4). The overall median fecal load in log10 CFU/g was 6.67 (interquartile range [IQR], 5.57 to 7.54). The median fecal bacterial load of groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 4.15 (IQR, 3.00 to 4.98), 5.74 (IQR, 4.75 to 6.16), 6.20 (IQR, 5.23 to 6.80), and 7.08 (IQR, 6.35 to 7.83), respectively. Group 1 samples had lower fecal loads than those from each of the other groups (P < 0.001). Group 2 samples had lower fecal loads than those from groups 3 and 4 (P < 0.001). There was a significant correlation between PCR CT and fecal loads (ρ = -0.697; P < 0.001). NAP1 strains were associated with the detection of toxins by EIA or CCA (P = 0.041). This study demonstrates an association between C. difficile fecal load and the results of routinely used diagnostic tests.

Impact of the type of diagnostic assay on Clostridium difficile infection and complication rates in a mandatory reporting program.

BACKGROUND: Most Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) surveillance programs neither specify the diagnostic method to be used nor stratify rates accordingly. We assessed the difference in healthcare-associated CDI (HA-CDI) incidence and complication rates obtained by 2 validated diagnostic methods. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of patients for whom a C. difficile test was ordered between 1 August 2010 and 31 July 2011. All specimens were tested in parallel by a commercial polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay targeting toxin B gene tcdB, and a 3-step algorithm detecting glutamate dehydrogenase and toxins A and B by enzyme immunoassay and cell culture cytotoxicity assay (EIA/CCA). CDI incidence rate ratios were calculated using univariate Poisson regression. RESULTS: A total of 1321 stool samples were tested during a period totaling 95 750 patient-days. Eighty-five HA-CDI cases were detected by PCR and 56 cases by EIA/CCA (P = .01). The overall incidence rate was 8.9 per 10 000 patient-days (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.1-10.9) by PCR and 5.8 per 10 000 patient-days (95% CI, 4.4-7.4) by EIA/CCA (P = .01). The incidence rate ratio comparing PCR and EIA/CCA was 1.52 (95% CI, 1.08-2.13; P = .015). Overall complication rate was 27% (23/85) when CDI was diagnosed by PCR and 39% (22/56) by EIA/CCA (P = .16). Cases detected by PCR only were less likely to develop a complication of CDI compared with cases detected by both PCR and EIA/CCA (3% vs 39%, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Performing PCR instead of EIA/CCA is associated with a >50% increase in the CDI incidence rate. Standardization of diagnostic methods may be indicated to improve interhospital comparison.

Patient participation: current knowledge and applicability to patient safety.

Patient participation is increasingly recognized as a key component in the redesign of health care processes and is advocated as a means to improve patient safety. The concept has been successfully applied to various areas of patient care, such as decision making and the management of chronic diseases. We review the origins of patient participation, discuss the published evidence on its efficacy, and summarize the factors influencing its implementation. Patient-related factors, such as acceptance of the new patient role, lack of medical knowledge, lack of confidence, comorbidity, and various sociodemographic parameters, all affect willingness to participate in the health care process. Among health care workers, the acceptance and promotion of patient participation are influenced by other issues, including the desire to maintain control, lack of time, personal beliefs, type of illness, and training in patient-caregiver relationships. Social status, specialty, ethnic origin, and the stakes involved also influence patient and health care worker acceptance. The London Declaration, endorsed by the World Health Organization World Alliance for Patient Safety, calls for a greater role for patients to improve the safety of health care worldwide. Patient participation in hand hygiene promotion among staff to prevent health care-associated infection is discussed as an illustrative example. A conceptual model including key factors that influence participation and invite patients to contribute to error prevention is proposed. Further research is essential to establish key determinants for the success of patient participation in reducing medical errors and in improving patient safety.