Cardiac surgery outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A case-series report.

OBJECTIVE: The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the postoperative course of patients after cardiac surgery is unknown. We experienced a major severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak in our cardiac surgery unit, with several patients who tested positive early after surgery. Here we describe the characteristics, postoperative course, and laboratory findings of these patients, along with the fate of the health care workers. We also discuss how we reorganize and reallocate hospital resources to resume the surgical activity without further positive patients. METHODS: After diagnosis of the first symptomatic patient, surgery was suspended. Nasopharyngeal swabs were performed in all patients and health care workers. Patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 were isolated and monitored throughout the in-hospital stay and followed up after discharged until death or clinical recovery. RESULTS: Twenty patients were found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 sometime after cardiac surgery (mean age 69 ± 10.4 years; median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II score 3 [interquartile range, 5.1]); the median time from surgery to diagnosis was 15 days (interquartile range, 11). Among the patients, 18 had undergone cardiac surgery and 2 of them transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Overall mortality was 15%. Specific COVID-19-related symptoms were identified in 7 patients (35%). Among the 12 health care workers infected, 1 developed a bilateral mild-grade interstitial pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 infection after cardiac surgery, regardless the time of the onset, is a serious condition. The systemic inflammatory state that follows extracorporeal circulation may mask the typical COVID-19 laboratory findings, making the diagnosis more difficult. A strict reorganization of the hospital resources is necessary to safely resume the cardiac surgical activity.

Transmission of community- and hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 in hospital settings in the UK: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Nosocomial spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been widely reported, but the transmission pathways among patients and healthcare workers (HCWs) are unclear. Identifying the risk factors and drivers for these nosocomial transmissions is critical for infection prevention and control interventions. The main aim of our study was to quantify the relative importance of different transmission pathways of SARS-CoV-2 in the hospital setting. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This is an observational cohort study using data from 4 teaching hospitals in Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, from January to October 2020. Associations between infectious SARS-CoV-2 individuals and infection risk were quantified using logistic, generalised additive and linear mixed models. Cases were classified as community- or hospital-acquired using likely incubation periods of 3 to 7 days. Of 66,184 patients who were hospitalised during the study period, 920 had a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test within the same period (1.4%). The mean age was 67.9 (±20.7) years, 49.2% were females, and 68.5% were from the white ethnic group. Out of these, 571 patients had their first positive PCR tests while hospitalised (62.1%), and 97 of these occurred at least 7 days after admission (10.5%). Among the 5,596 HCWs, 615 (11.0%) tested positive during the study period using PCR or serological tests. The mean age was 39.5 (±11.1) years, 78.9% were females, and 49.8% were nurses. For susceptible patients, 1 day in the same ward with another patient with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 was associated with an additional 7.5 infections per 1,000 susceptible patients (95% credible interval (CrI) 5.5 to 9.5/1,000 susceptible patients/day) per day. Exposure to an infectious patient with community-acquired Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) or to an infectious HCW was associated with substantially lower infection risks (2.0/1,000 susceptible patients/day, 95% CrI 1.6 to 2.2). As for HCW infections, exposure to an infectious patient with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 or to an infectious HCW were both associated with an additional 0.8 infection per 1,000 susceptible HCWs per day (95% CrI 0.3 to 1.6 and 0.6 to 1.0, respectively). Exposure to an infectious patient with community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 was associated with less than half this risk (0.2/1,000 susceptible HCWs/day, 95% CrI 0.2 to 0.2). These assumptions were tested in sensitivity analysis, which showed broadly similar results. The main limitations were that the symptom onset dates and HCW absence days were not available. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that exposure to patients with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 is associated with a substantial infection risk to both HCWs and other hospitalised patients. Infection control measures to limit nosocomial transmission must be optimised to protect both staff and patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Knowledge, attitude and occupational risks to hepatitis B infection among health workers in Gulu Regional Referral Hospital, Northern Uganda: a cross-sectional study design.

INTRODUCTION: hepatitis B virus (HBV) is one of the commonest causes of acute and chronic liver diseases worldwide. HBV can be transmitted by exposure to infected blood and human secretions through sharp injuries and splashes. Health workers are among the most high-risk groups because they regularly interact with patients. A seroprevalence survey conducted in Uganda in 2014 found a higher prevalence of HBV in Gulu Municipality compared to the rest of Uganda. METHODS: a cross-sectional study was conducted among health workers in Gulu Regional Hospital. A stratified random sampling was used. Knowledge ratings and Likert scale were used to score knowledge, attitudes and risks of HBV infections in a qualitative assessment. Ethical approval was obtained and SPSS was used for data analysis. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: one hundred and twenty-six (126) respondents participated; 65 (51.6%) were male, 80 (63.5%) were aged 20-29 years, 74 (58.7%) were not married, 86 (68.3%) had a work experience of 0-9 years, 64 (50.8%) had good knowledge, 90(71.4%) had positive attitude, 114 (90.5%) had high to very high pre-exposure risks, and 75 (59.5%) had moderate to high exposure and post-exposure risks. There was no significant difference in knowledge (X 2= 13.895; p = 0.178) and work experience (X 2= 21.196; p = 0.097) among the health workers. CONCLUSION: there is a high pre-exposure, exposure and post-exposure risks of HBV infection among health workers in Gulu Hospital. There is need to augment awareness on HBV infection and design strategies to strengthen and implement infection control measures including HBV vaccination among health workers.

Assessment of Attentional Functioning in Health Professionals of a Brazilian Tertiary Referral Hospital for COVID-19.

This study is aimed at assessing differences in basic attentional functioning between substantial and minimal work-related exposure to COVID-19 patients in professionals working in a tertiary referral hospital in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Therefore, hospital employees performed a Continuous Visual Attention Test. This test consisted of a 90-second Go/No-Go task with 72 (80%) targets and 18 (20%) nontargets. For each participant, reaction time and intraindividual variability of reaction times of all correct target responses, as well as the number of omission and commission errors, were evaluated. Participants were divided into 2 groups based on their exposure to COVID-19 patients (substantial versus minimal exposure). The substantial exposure group consisted of participants with 24 hours/week or more direct contact with COVID-19 patients. This cut-off was based on the clear division between professionals working and not working with COVID-19 patients and considered that 12-hour and 24-hour daily shifts are common for hospital employees in Brazil. A MANCOVA was performed to examine between-group differences, using age, sleep quality, sex, education level, previous COVID-19 infection, and profession as covariates. Of 124 participants, 80 had substantial exposure and 44 had minimal exposure to COVID-19. The overall MANCOVA reached statistical significance (P = 0.048). Post hoc ANCOVA analysis showed that the substantial exposure group had a statistically significantly higher intraindividual variability of reaction time of all correct target responses (P = 0.017, Cohen's δ = -0.55). This result remained after removing those with a previous COVID-19 infection (P = 0.010, Cohen's δ = -0.64) and after matching groups for sample size (P = 0.004, Cohen's δ = -0.81). No other variables reached statistical significance. Concluding, hospital professionals with a substantial level of exposure to patients with COVID-19 show a significant attention decrement and, thus, may be at a higher risk of accidental SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The front-line during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: healthcare personnel.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: An estimated four to 11% of reported coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases occurs in healthcare personnel (HCP). HCP are at high risk of acquiring and transmitting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) given their close contact with individuals with recognized and unrecognized COVID-19. We summarize the literature to date describing the epidemiology, identifying risk factors associated with COVID-19, and analyzing clinical characteristics and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCP. RECENT FINDINGS: The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among HCP ranges from 0.7 to 45%. Although there is heterogeneity in the seroprevalence rate reported in the literature, HCP may be at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from exposure to patients with COVID-19. The literature supports that this can be minimized with adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) supply, proper hand hygiene, appropriate PPE use, and other infection prevention measures. In addition, infections in HCP are commonly acquired in the community as well as in nonclinical care settings including break rooms or work rooms. SUMMARY: While much focus has been on minimizing patient-to-HCP transmission of SARS-CoV-2, additional efforts are needed to prevent exposures in nonclinical care settings and in the community.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among 925 staff members in an urban hospital accepting COVID-19 patients in Osaka prefecture, Japan: A cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT: The subclinical severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection rate in hospitals during the pandemic remains unclear. To evaluate the effectiveness of our hospital's current nosocomial infection control measures, we conducted a serological survey of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (immunoglobulin [Ig] G) among the staff of our hospital, which is treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.The study design was cross-sectional. We measured anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG in the participants using a laboratory-based quantitative test (Abbott immunoassay), which has a sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 99.6%, respectively. To investigate the factors associated with seropositivity, we also obtained some information from the participants with an anonymous questionnaire. We invited 1133 staff members in our hospital, and 925 (82%) participated. The mean age of the participants was 40.0 ±â€Š11.8 years, and most were women (80.0%). According to job title, there were 149 medical doctors or dentists (16.0%), 489 nurses (52.9%), 140 medical technologists (14.2%), 49 healthcare providers (5.3%), and 98 administrative staff (10.5%). The overall prevalence of seropositivity for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG was 0.43% (4/925), which was similar to the control seroprevalence of 0.54% (16/2970) in the general population in Osaka during the same period according to a government survey conducted with the same assay. Seropositive rates did not significantly differ according to job title, exposure to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients, or any other investigated factors.The subclinical SARS-CoV-2 infection rate in our hospital was not higher than that in the general population under our nosocomial infection control measures.

The Spread of COVID-19 Among 15,000 Physical Therapists in Italy: A Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to explore the prevalence, personal- and work-related exposures, and signs and symptoms among physical therapists during the first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Italy. METHODS: This cross-sectional, survey-based study collected demographic and exposure data from physical therapists from April to May 2020. All physical therapists working in inpatient and outpatient care in Italy were eligible. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed among all eligible physical therapists to collect (1) demographic characteristics, (2-3) personal- and work-related exposures, and (4) signs and symptoms of COVID-19. Factors associated with a COVID-19-positive nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) were explored through logistic regression models and multivariate methods. RESULTS: A total of 15,566 respondents completed the survey, with a response rate of 43.3%, achieving high statistical precision (99% CI, 1% type I error). Among physical therapists who received NPS testing, 13.1% (95% CI = 12.1-14.1%) had a positive result, with a peak reached in March 2020 (36%). The top 5 symptoms were fatigue and tiredness (69.1%), loss of smell (64.5%), aches and pains (60.8%), loss of taste (58.3%), and headache (51.1%). No symptoms were reported by 8.9%. Working in a health care institution (odds ratio [OR] = 12.0; 95% CI = 7.8-18.4), being reallocated to a different unit (OR = 1.9; 95% CI = 1.3-2.7), and changing job tasks (OR = 1.6; 95% CI = 1.2-2.3) increased the risk of being COVID-19 positive. In therapists with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, comorbidities were associated with male sex and age older than 51 years. CONCLUSION: During the first wave in Italy, almost 1 out of 7 physical therapists tested positive on the COVID-19 NPS test. Considering personal- and work-related exposures, health care organizations should adopt prevention measures and adequate preparedness to prevent high rate of infections during future pandemics. IMPACT: This is the largest investigation about the spread of and main risk factors for COVID-19 in the physical therapy field.

Effectivity of a Program for the Control and Prevention of COVID-19 Healthcare-Associated Infections in a Spanish Academic Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Although recommendations to prevent COVID-19 healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) have been proposed, data on their effectivity are currently limited. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the effectivity of a program of control and prevention of COVID-19 in an academic general hospital in Spain. METHODS: We captured the number of COVID-19 cases and the type of contact that occurred in hospitalized patients and healthcare personnel (HCP). To evaluate the impact of the continuous use of a surgical mask among HCP, the number of patients with COVID-19 HAIs and accumulated incidence of HCP with COVID-19 was compared between the preintervention and intervention periods. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-two patients with COVID-19 have been admitted to the hospital. Seven of them had an HAI origin (6 in the preintervention period and 1 in the intervention period). One hundred forty-two HCP were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Of them, 22 (15.5%) were attributed to healthcare (2 in the emergency department and none in the critical care departments), and 120 (84.5%) were attributed to social relations in the workplace or during their non-work-related personal interactions. The accumulated incidence during the preintervention period was 22.3 for every 1000 HCP and 8.2 for every 1000 HCP during the intervention period. The relative risk was 0.37 (95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.55) and the attributable risk was -0.014 (95% confidence interval, -0.020 to -0.009). CONCLUSIONS: A program of control and prevention of HAIs complemented with the recommendation for the continuous use of a surgical mask in the workplace and social environments of HCP effectively decreased the risk of COVID-19 HAIs in admitted patients and HCP.

The Effect of Test Timing on the Probability of Positive SARS-CoV-2 Swab Test Results: Mixed Model Approach.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, swab tests proved to be effective in containing the infection and served as a means for early diagnosis and contact tracing. However, little evidence exists regarding the correct timing for the execution of the swab test, especially for asymptomatic individuals and health care workers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze changes in the positive findings over time in individual SARS-CoV-2 swab tests during a health surveillance program. METHODS: The study was conducted with 2071 health care workers at the University Hospital of Verona, with a known date of close contact with a patient with COVID-19, between February 29 and April 17, 2020. The health care workers underwent a health surveillance program with repeated swab tests to track their virological status. A generalized additive mixed model was used to investigate how the probability of a positive test result changes over time since the last known date of close contact, in an overall sample of individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 and in a subset of individuals with an initial negative swab test finding before being proven positive, to assess different surveillance time intervals. RESULTS: Among the 2071 health care workers in this study, 191 (9.2%) tested positive for COVID-19, and 103 (54%) were asymptomatic with no differences based on sex or age. Among 49 (25.7%) cases, the initial swab test yielded negative findings after close contact with a patient with COVID-19. Sex, age, symptoms, and the time of sampling were not different between individuals with an initial negative swab test finding and those who initially tested positive after close contact. In the overall sample, the estimated probability of testing positive was 0.74 on day 1 after close contact, which increased to 0.77 between days 5 and 8. In the 3 different scenarios for scheduled repeated testing intervals (3, 5, and 7 days) in the subgroup of individuals with an initially negative swab test finding, the probability peaked on the sixth, ninth and tenth, and 13th and 14th days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Swab tests can initially yield false-negative outcomes. The probability of testing positive increases from day 1, peaking between days 5 and 8 after close contact with a patient with COVID-19. Early testing, especially in this final time window, is recommended together with a health surveillance program scheduled in close intervals.

Laparoscopic vs open surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: what are the risks?

INTRODUCTION: The initial intercollegiate surgical guidance from the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in significant changes to practice. Avoidance of laparoscopy was recommended, to reduce aerosol generation and risk of virus transmission. Evidence on the safety profile of laparoscopy during the pandemic is lacking. This study compares patient outcomes and risk to staff from laparoscopic and open gastrointestinal operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Single-centre retrospective study of gastrointestinal operations performed during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Demographic, comorbidity, perioperative and survival data were collected from electronic medical records and supplemented with patient symptoms reported at telephone follow up. Outcomes assessed were: patient mortality, illness among staff, patient COVID-19 rates, length of hospital stay and postdischarge symptomatology. RESULTS: A total of 73 patients with median age of 56 years were included; 55 (75%) and 18 (25%) underwent laparoscopic and open surgery, respectively. All-cause mortality was 5% (4/73), was related to COVID-19 in all cases, with no mortality after laparoscopic surgery. A total of 14 staff members developed COVID-19 symptoms within 2 weeks, with no significant difference between laparoscopic and open surgery (10 vs 4; p=0.331). Median length of stay was shorter in the laparoscopic versus the open group (4.5 vs 9.9 days; p=0.011), and postdischarge symptomatology across 15 symptoms was similar between groups (p=0.135-0.814). CONCLUSIONS: With appropriate protective measures, laparoscopic surgery is safe for patients and staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. The laparoscopic approach maintains an advantage of shorter length of hospital stay compared with open surgery.

Transmission of infection among health care personnel performing surgical tracheostomies on COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Staff and patient safety are of paramount importance while performing a surgical tracheostomy (ST) during the corona virus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The aim was to assess the incidence of COVID-19 infection among the healthcare personnel (HCP) performing ST on COVID-19 patients. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-two HCP participating in 71 ST procedures performed at our institution between 26th March 2020 and 27th May 2020 were identified. A COVID-19 health questionnaire was distributed among staff with their consent. Data related to the presence of COVID-19 symptoms (new onset continuous cough, fever, loss of taste and/or loss of smell) among HCP involved in ST as well as patient related data were collected. RESULTS: Of the HCP who responded, eleven (15%,11/72) reported key COVID-19 symptoms and went into self-isolation. Ten members from this group underwent a COVID-19 swab test and three tested positive. Only one HCP attended hospital for symptomatic treatment, none required hospitalisation. Sixty percent (43/72) of the responders had a COVID-19 antibody test with a positive rate of 18.6% (8/43). Among the patients undergoing a ST, 67% (37/55) required a direct intensive care unit (ICU) admission; the mean age was 58 years (29-78) with a male preponderance (65.5%). The median time from intubation to ST was 15 days (range 5-33,IQR = 9). The overall mortality was 11% (6/55). CONCLUSIONS: ST can be carried out safely with strict adherence to both, personnel protective equipment and ST protocols which are vital to mitigate the potential transmission of COVID-19 to the HCP.

Protective Modifications in Ophthalmology Practice during COVID-19 Pandemic: Challenges and Lessons Learned.

Ophthalmology is a specialty which involves close contact with patients. Personal protective equipment (PPE) along with modifications in examination techniques and equipment are needed to avoid spread of coronavirus infectious disease (COVID-19) to health professionals. This communication aims to highlight and critically analyse the measures suggested to control this spread. We also highlighted our experience with protective gear modifications. As with any practice, triage is cornerstone. Use of disinfectants, good personal hygiene practices and PPE for patients and staff, must be adopted for safe ophthalmology practices. Key Words: COVID-19, Ophthalmology, Personal protective equipment (PPE).

Investigation of intra-hospital SARS-CoV-2 transmission using nanopore whole-genome sequencing.

BACKGROUND: During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, healthcare workers (HCWs) are being exposed to infection both at work and in their communities. Determining where HCWs might have been infected is challenging based on epidemiological data alone. At Akershus University Hospital, Norway, several clusters of possible intra-hospital SARS-CoV-2 transmission were identified based on routine contact tracing. AIM: To determine whether clusters of suspected intra-hospital SARS-CoV-2 transmission could be resolved by combining whole genome sequencing (WGS) of SARS-CoV-2 with contact tracing data. METHODS: Epidemiological data were collected during routine contact tracing of polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive HCWs. Possible outbreaks were identified as wards with two or more infected HCWs defined as close contacts who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 less than three weeks apart. Viral RNA from naso-/oropharyngeal samples underwent nanopore sequencing in direct compliance to the ARTIC Network protocol. FINDINGS: Five outbreaks were suspected from contact tracing. Viral consensus sequences from 24 HCWs, two patients, and seven anonymous samples were analysed. Two outbreaks were confirmed, one refuted, and two remained undetermined. One new potential outbreak was discovered. CONCLUSION: Combined with epidemiological data, nanopore WGS was a useful tool for investigating intra-hospital SARS-CoV-2 transmission. WGS helped to resolve questions about possible outbreaks and to guide local infection prevention and control measures.

Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 1 and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 During Aerosol-Generating Procedures in Critical Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk of coronavirus transmission to healthcare workers performing aerosol-generating procedures and the potential benefits of personal protective equipment during these procedures. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched using a combination of related MeSH terms and keywords. STUDY SELECTION: Cohort studies and case controls investigating common anesthetic and critical care aerosol-generating procedures and transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 to healthcare workers were included for quantitative analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Qualitative and quantitative data on the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus to healthcare workers via aerosol-generating procedures in anesthesia and critical care were collected independently. The Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions tool was used to assess the risk of bias of included studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seventeen studies out of 2,676 yielded records were included for meta-analyses. Endotracheal intubation (odds ratio, 6.69, 95% CI, 3.81-11.72; p < 0.001), noninvasive ventilation (odds ratio, 3.65; 95% CI, 1.86-7.19; p < 0.001), and administration of nebulized medications (odds ratio, 10.03; 95% CI, 1.98-50.69; p = 0.005) were found to increase the odds of healthcare workers contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The use of N95 masks (odds ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.03-0.39; p < 0.001), gowns (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.73; p < 0.001), and gloves (odds ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.29-0.53; p < 0.001) were found to be significantly protective of healthcare workers from contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. CONCLUSIONS: Specific aerosol-generating procedures are high risk for the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 from patients to healthcare workers. Personal protective equipment reduce the odds of contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.