RESUMEN
At the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, individual and social measures were strengthened through restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions, labelled with the term "lockdown". In Italy, there were two lockdowns (9 March 2020−3 May 2020 and 3 November 2020−27 March 2021). As part of preventive measures, healthcare workers and the administrative staff population of Policlinico A. Gemelli underwent nasopharyngeal swab tests from 1 March 2020 to 9 February 2022, a long time interval that includes the two aforementioned lockdowns. The population included 8958 people from 1 March 2020 to 31 December 2020; 8981 people from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021; and 8981 people from 1 January 2022 to 9 February 2022. We then analysed pseudo-anonymized data, using a retrospective observational approach to evaluate the impact of the lockdown on the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections within the population. Given the 14 day contagious period, the swab positivity rate (SPR) among the staff decreased significantly at the end of the first lockdown, every day prior to 18 May 2020, by 0.093 (p < 0.0001, CI = (−0.138−−0.047)). After the fourteenth day post the end of the first lockdown (18 May 2020), the SPR increased daily at a rate of 0.024 (p < 0.0001, 95% CI = (0.013−0.034)). In addition, the SPR appeared to increase significantly every day prior to 17 November 2020 by 0.024 (p < 0.0001, CI = (0.013−0.034)). After the fourteenth day post the start of the second lockdown (17 November 2020), the SPR decreased daily at a rate of 0.039 (p < 0.0001, 95% CI = (−0.050−−0.027)). These data demonstrate that, in our Institution, the lockdowns helped to both protect healthcare workers and maintain adequate standards of care for COVID and non-COVID patients for the duration of the state of emergency in Italy.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: High levels of exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO) are a marker of airway or lung inflammation. We investigated whether hypo- or hyperventilation can affect measured values. METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers were trained to achieve sustained end-tidal CO2 (etCO(2)) concentrations of 30 (hyperventilation), 40 (normoventilation), and 50 mmHg (hypoventilation). As soon as target etCO(2) values were achieved for 120 sec, exhaled breath was analyzed for eCO with a photoacoustic spectrometer. At etCO(2) values of 30 and 40 mmHg exhaled breath was sampled both after a deep inspiration and after a normal one. All measurements were performed in two different environmental conditions: A) ambient CO concentration = 0.8 ppm and B) ambient CO concentration = 1.7 ppm. RESULTS: During normoventilation, eCO mean (standard deviation) was 11.5 (0.8) ppm; it decreased to 10.3 (0.8) ppm during hyperventilation (p < 0.01) and increased to 11.9 (0.8) ppm during hypoventilation (p < 0.01). eCO changes were less pronounced than the correspondent etCO(2) changes (hyperventilation: 10% Vs 25% decrease; hypoventilation 3% Vs 25% increase). Taking a deep inspiration before breath sampling was associated with lower eCO values (p < 0.01), while environmental CO levels did not affect eCO measurement. CONCLUSIONS: eCO measurements should not be performed during marked acute hyperventilation, like that induced in this study, but the influence of less pronounced hyperventilation or of hypoventilation is probably negligible in clinical practice.