ABSTRACT
Background: South Africa has high tobacco-attributable mortality and a smoking prevalence of 32.5% in males and 25.6% in females. There are limited data on smoking prevalence and desire to quit in hospitalised patients, who have limited access to smoking cessation services. Objectives: To determine smoking prevalence and the extent of nicotine withdrawal symptoms, using a hospital-wide inpatient survey. Methods: A 1-day point prevalence survey was conducted at Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town. All wards except the haematology isolation, active labour and psychiatry lock-up wards were evaluated. Smoking status, withdrawal symptoms and desire to quit were established. Results: Smoking status was confirmed in 85.8% of inpatients (n=501/584), of whom 31.9% (n=160) were current smokers; 43.5% (n=101/232) of male and 21.9% (n=59/269) of female inpatients were smokers. Documentation and confirmation of smoking status was highest in the maternity wards (100%) and lowest in the surgical wards (79.6%) and intensive care units (70.0%). Smoking prevalence ranged from 47.6% in male surgical patients to 15.2% in maternity patients. Of the smokers, 54.5% reported being motivated to quit, with a median (interquartile range) Fagerström test for nicotine dependence score of 4 (2 - 6), and 31.4% reported moderate to severe cravings to smoke, highest in the surgical wards. Conclusion: Smoking prevalence was higher in hospitalised patients than in the local general population. Many inpatients were not interested in quitting; however, a third had significant nicotine withdrawal symptoms. All inpatients who are active smokers should be identified and given universal brief smoking cessation advice. Patients with severe withdrawal symptoms should be allowed to smoke outside, and nicotine withdrawal pharmacotherapy should be provided to those who are bedbound or express a desire to stop smoking during the current admission. Study synopsis: What the study adds. A single data point prevalence study of active smokers at Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, was conducted. The prevalence of smoking was higher in the hospitalised patients than in the general community, but not all smokers were identified by the clinicians. Although symptoms of nicotine withdrawal were severe in some patients, motivation to quit smoking was not related to the degree of withdrawal being experienced. Many patients were not motivated to quit smoking.Implications of the findings. Better identification of inpatient smokers is required, and all should be given smoking cessation advice. Withdrawal symptoms can be severe in some patients, and those who are not interested in stopping smoking should allowed to smoke outside or be provided with nicotine withdrawal pharmacotherapy while in hospital. Those who are willing to quit should be supported as well as possible, including provision of nicotine replacement therapy or varenicline, and followed up after discharge as best practice.
ABSTRACT
Background: High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) is an accepted treatment for severe COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF). Objectives: To determine whether treatment outcomes at Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa, during the third COVID-19 wave would be affected by increased institutional experience and capacity for HNFO and more restrictive admission criteria for respiratory high-care wards and intensive care units. Methods: We included consecutive patients with COVID-19-related AHRF treated with HFNO during the first and third COVID-19 waves. The primary endpoint was comparison of HFNO failure (composite of the need for intubation or death while on HFNO) between waves. Results: A total of 744 patients were included: 343 in the first COVID-19 wave and 401 in the third. Patients treated with HFNO in the first wave were older (median (interquartile range) age 53 (46 - 61) years v. 47 (40 - 56) years; p<0.001), and had higher prevalences of diabetes (46.9% v. 36.9%; p=0.006), hypertension (51.0% v. 35.2%; p<0.001), obesity (33.5% v. 26.2%; p=0.029) and HIV infection (12.5% v. 5.5%; p<0.001). The partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2 /FiO2 ) ratio at HFNO initiation and the ratio of oxygen saturation/FiO2 to respiratory rate within 6 hours (ROX-6 score) after HFNO commencement were lower in the first wave compared with the third (median 57.9 (47.3 - 74.3) mmHg v. 64.3 (51.2 - 79.0) mmHg; p=0.005 and 3.19 (2.37 - 3.77) v. 3.43 (2.93 - 4.00); p<0.001, respectively). The likelihood of HFNO failure (57.1% v. 59.6%; p=0.498) and mortality (46.9% v. 52.1%; p=0.159) did not differ significantly between the first and third waves. Conclusion: Despite differences in patient characteristics, circulating viral variant and institutional experience with HFNO, treatment outcomes were very similar in the first and third COVID-19 waves. We conclude that once AHRF is established in COVID-19 pneumonia, the comorbidity profile and HFNO provider experience do not appear to affect outcome. Study synopsis: What the study adds. This study adds to the body of evidence demonstrating the utility of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) in avoiding invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in patients with severe COVID-19 hypoxaemic respiratory failure, and shows that this utility remained consistent across different waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.Implications of the study. In resource-constrained settings, HFNO is a feasible non-invasive alternative to IMV and can be employed with favourable and consistent outcomes outside traditional critical care wards. It also confirms that the degree of gas exchange abnormality, and not pre-existing patient-related factors, circulating wave variant or provider experience, is the main predictor of HFNO failure.
ABSTRACT
Airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 aerosol remains contentious. Importantly, whether cough or breath-generated bioaerosols can harbor viable and replicating virus remains largely unclarified. We performed size-fractionated aerosol sampling (Andersen cascade impactor) and evaluated viral culturability in human cell lines (infectiousness), viral genetics, and host immunity in ambulatory participants with COVID-19. Sixty-one percent (27/44) and 50% (22/44) of participants emitted variant-specific culture-positive aerosols <10µm and <5µm, respectively, for up to 9 days after symptom onset. Aerosol culturability is significantly associated with lower neutralizing antibody titers, and suppression of transcriptomic pathways related to innate immunity and the humoral response. A nasopharyngeal Ct <17 rules-in ~40% of aerosol culture-positives and identifies those who are probably highly infectious. A parsimonious three transcript blood-based biosignature is highly predictive of infectious aerosol generation (PPV > 95%). There is considerable heterogeneity in potential infectiousness i.e., only 29% of participants were probably highly infectious (produced culture-positive aerosols <5µm at ~6 days after symptom onset). These data, which comprehensively confirm variant-specific culturable SARS-CoV-2 in aerosol, inform the targeting of transmission-related interventions and public health containment strategies emphasizing improved ventilation.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Kinetics , Respiratory Aerosols and DropletsABSTRACT
AIM: To compare chest radiography (CXR) findings in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive and HIV-negative children who had microbiologically confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of CXRs from children with known HIV status and microbiologically confirmed PTB (culture or GeneXpert Xpert MTB/RIF positive), who were hospitalised or seen at a primary healthcare centre over a 5-year period. Radiological findings were compared according to HIV and nutritional status. RESULTS: CXRs of 130 children were analysed from 35 (27%) HIV- positive and 95 (73%) HIV-negative children with confirmed PTB, median age 45.7 months (interquartile range [IQR] 18-81.3 months). CXR changes consistent with PTB were reported in 21/35 (60%) of HIV-positive and 59/95 (62%) of HIV-negative patients, (p=0.81). Normal CXR was identified in 3/35 (8.6%) of HIV-positive and 5/95 (5.3%) of HIV-negative patients (p=0.81). Airway compression was present in 3/35 (8.6%) of HIV-positive and 7/95 (7.4%) of HIV-negative patients (p>0.99). Overall, lymphadenopathy was identified in 42/130 (32.3%) of patients, 11/35 (31.4 %) were HIV-positive compared with 31/95 (32.6%) HIV-negative patients. Airspace consolidation was present in 60% of both HIV-positive (21/35) and HIV-negative patients (57/95). Pleural effusion was present in 2/35 (5.7 %) of HIV-negative and 9/95 (9.5 %) of HIV-negative patients. There were no statistically significant radiological differences by HIV group. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in the CXR findings between the HIV-positive and HIV-negative children with confirmed PTB.
Subject(s)
HIV Infections , Tuberculosis, Pulmonary , Child , Humans , Infant , Child, Preschool , Retrospective Studies , Sputum , Tuberculosis, Pulmonary/complications , Tuberculosis, Pulmonary/diagnostic imaging , HIV Infections/complications , HIV Infections/diagnostic imaging , HIVABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The value, speed of completion and robustness of the evidence generated by TB treatment trials could be improved by implementing standards for best practice.METHODS: A global panel of experts participated in a Delphi process, using a 7-point Likert scale to score and revise draft standards until consensus was reached.RESULTS: Eleven standards were defined: Standard 1, high quality data on TB regimens are essential to inform clinical and programmatic management; Standard 2, the research questions addressed by TB trials should be relevant to affected communities, who should be included in all trial stages; Standard 3, trials should make every effort to be as inclusive as possible; Standard 4, the most efficient trial designs should be considered to improve the evidence base as quickly and cost effectively as possible, without compromising quality; Standard 5, trial governance should be in line with accepted good clinical practice; Standard 6, trials should investigate and report strategies that promote optimal engagement in care; Standard 7, where possible, TB trials should include pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic components; Standard 8, outcomes should include frequency of disease recurrence and post-treatment sequelae; Standard 9, TB trials should aim to harmonise key outcomes and data structures across studies; Standard 10, TB trials should include biobanking; Standard 11, treatment trials should invest in capacity strengthening of local trial and TB programme staff.CONCLUSION: These standards should improve the efficiency and effectiveness of evidence generation, as well as the translation of research into policy and practice.
Subject(s)
Tuberculosis , Humans , Biological Specimen Banks , Tuberculosis/drug therapy , Clinical Trials as TopicABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Adverse effects (AE) to TB treatment cause morbidity, mortality and treatment interruption. The aim of these clinical standards is to encourage best practise for the diagnosis and management of AE.METHODS: 65/81 invited experts participated in a Delphi process using a 5-point Likert scale to score draft standards.RESULTS: We identified eight clinical standards. Each person commencing treatment for TB should: Standard 1, be counselled regarding AE before and during treatment; Standard 2, be evaluated for factors that might increase AE risk with regular review to actively identify and manage these; Standard 3, when AE occur, carefully assessed and possible allergic or hypersensitivity reactions considered; Standard 4, receive appropriate care to minimise morbidity and mortality associated with AE; Standard 5, be restarted on TB drugs after a serious AE according to a standardised protocol that includes active drug safety monitoring. In addition: Standard 6, healthcare workers should be trained on AE including how to counsel people undertaking TB treatment, as well as active AE monitoring and management; Standard 7, there should be active AE monitoring and reporting for all new TB drugs and regimens; and Standard 8, knowledge gaps identified from active AE monitoring should be systematically addressed through clinical research.CONCLUSION: These standards provide a person-centred, consensus-based approach to minimise the impact of AE during TB treatment.
Subject(s)
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions , Hypersensitivity , Tuberculosis , Humans , Tuberculosis/diagnosis , Tuberculosis/drug therapy , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/etiology , Health PersonnelABSTRACT
Background: Simplified drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) treatment outcome definitions, mostly centred around receipt of treatment and sputum culture status at 6 months after treatment initiation, have been proposed, but have not been widely evaluated in resource-limited settings. Objectives: To compare DR-TB treatment outcomes, as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) at the time of treatment, with simplified definitions. Methods: We performed retrospective folder reviews of a cohort of 246 South African DR-TB patients, most of whom developed second-line drug resistance. Sequential treatment outcomes were assigned retrospectively using both simplified Tuberculosis Network European Trials Group (TBNET)-based and 2013 WHO-based definitions. Results: Of 246 patients, 40% were HIV-positive, and 88% developed second-line drug resistance. Patients were observed for a median of 38 (interquartile range 24 - 63) months from DR-TB treatment initiation. Using WHO-based definitions, 93% of patients had >1 sequential outcome, whereas with simplified definitions, 25% of patients had >1 outcome. Fewer outcomes of cure (3% v. 9%) and more outcomes of treatment failure (42% v. 22%) were assigned using simplified definitions. Conclusion: Simplified outcome definitions applied to real-world patients with long, often complex treatment histories resulted in underestimating cures and overestimating treatment failures compared with WHO-based definitions. Simplified definitions may identify more individuals at higher risk for treatment failure than WHO-based definitions, but without consistent programmatic follow-up it may be difficult to distinguish cure, failure and loss to follow-up.
ABSTRACT
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains one of the most common causes of morbidity and mortality in South Africa. Endoscopic lung volume reduction (ELVR) was first proposed by the South African Thoracic Society (SATS) for the treatment of advanced emphysema in 2015. Since the original statement was published, there has been a growing body of evidence that a certain well-defined sub-group of patients with advanced emphysema may benefit from ELVR, to the point where the current Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Guidelines and the United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) advocate the use of endoscopic valves based on level A evidence. Patients aged 40 - 75 years with severe dyspnoea (COPD Assessment Test score ≥10) despite maximal medical therapy and pulmonary rehabilitation, with forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) 20 - 50%, hyperinflation with residual volume (RV) >175% or RV/total lung capacity (TLC) >55% and a six-minute walking distance (6MWD) of 100 - 450 m (post-rehabilitation) should be referred for evaluation for ELVR, provided no contraindications (e.g. severe pulmonary hypertension) are present. Further evaluation should focus on the extent of parenchymal tissue destruction on high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) of the lungs and interlobar collateral ventilation (CV) to identify a potential target lobe. Commercially available radiology software packages and/or an endobronchial catheter system can aid in this assessment. The aim of this statement is to provide the South African medical practitioner and healthcare funders with an overview of the practical aspects and current evidence for the judicious use of the valves and other ELVR modalities which may become available in the country.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Optimal drug dosing is important to ensure adequate response to treatment, prevent development of drug resistance and reduce drug toxicity. The aim of these clinical standards is to provide guidance on 'best practice´ for dosing and management of TB drugs.METHODS: A panel of 57 global experts in the fields of microbiology, pharmacology and TB care were identified; 51 participated in a Delphi process. A 5-point Likert scale was used to score draft standards. The final document represents the broad consensus and was approved by all participants.RESULTS: Six clinical standards were defined: Standard 1, defining the most appropriate initial dose for TB treatment; Standard 2, identifying patients who may be at risk of sub-optimal drug exposure; Standard 3, identifying patients at risk of developing drug-related toxicity and how best to manage this risk; Standard 4, identifying patients who can benefit from therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM); Standard 5, highlighting education and counselling that should be provided to people initiating TB treatment; and Standard 6, providing essential education for healthcare professionals. In addition, consensus research priorities were identified.CONCLUSION: This is the first consensus-based Clinical Standards for the dosing and management of TB drugs to guide clinicians and programme managers in planning and implementation of locally appropriate measures for optimal person-centred treatment to improve patient care.
Subject(s)
Antitubercular Agents , Drug Monitoring , Tuberculosis , Humans , Patient Care , Reference Standards , Tuberculosis/drug therapy , Antitubercular Agents/administration & dosageABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of these clinical standards is to provide guidance on 'best practice´ for diagnosis, treatment and management of drug-susceptible pulmonary TB (PTB).METHODS: A panel of 54 global experts in the field of TB care, public health, microbiology, and pharmacology were identified; 46 participated in a Delphi process. A 5-point Likert scale was used to score draft standards. The final document represents the broad consensus and was approved by all 46 participants.RESULTS: Seven clinical standards were defined: Standard 1, all patients (adult or child) who have symptoms and signs compatible with PTB should undergo investigations to reach a diagnosis; Standard 2, adequate bacteriological tests should be conducted to exclude drug-resistant TB; Standard 3, an appropriate regimen recommended by WHO and national guidelines for the treatment of PTB should be identified; Standard 4, health education and counselling should be provided for each patient starting treatment; Standard 5, treatment monitoring should be conducted to assess adherence, follow patient progress, identify and manage adverse events, and detect development of resistance; Standard 6, a recommended series of patient examinations should be performed at the end of treatment; Standard 7, necessary public health actions should be conducted for each patient. We also identified priorities for future research into PTB.CONCLUSION: These consensus-based clinical standards will help to improve patient care by guiding clinicians and programme managers in planning and implementation of locally appropriate measures for optimal person-centred treatment for PTB.
Subject(s)
Tuberculosis, Pulmonary , Adult , Child , Humans , Tuberculosis, Pulmonary/diagnosis , Tuberculosis, Pulmonary/drug therapy , Tuberculosis, Pulmonary/microbiologyABSTRACT
SUMMARY: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is transmitted mainly by aerosol in particles <10 µm that can remain suspended for hours before being inhaled. Because particulate filtering facepiece respirators ('respirators'; e.g. N95 masks) are more effective than surgical masks against bio-aerosols, many international organisations now recommend that health workers (HWs) wear a respirator when caring for individuals who may have COVID-19. In South Africa (SA), however, surgical masks are still recommended for the routine care of individuals with possible or confirmed COVID-19, with respirators reserved for so-called aerosol-generating procedures. In contrast, SA guidelines do recommend respirators for routine care of individuals with possible or confirmed tuberculosis (TB), which is also transmitted via aerosol. In health facilities in SA, distinguishing between TB and COVID-19 is challenging without examination and investigation, both of which may expose HWs to potentially infectious individuals. Symptom-based triage has limited utility in defining risk. Indeed, significant proportions of individuals with COVID-19 and/or pulmonary TB may not have symptoms and/or test negative. The prevalence of undiagnosed respiratory disease is therefore likely significant in many general clinical areas (e.g. waiting areas). Moreover, a proportion of HWs are HIV-positive and are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and death. RECOMMENDATIONS: Sustained improvements in infection prevention and control (IPC) require reorganisation of systems to prioritise HW and patient safety. While this will take time, it is unacceptable to leave HWs exposed until such changes are made. We propose that the SA health system adopts a target of 'zero harm', aiming to eliminate transmission of respiratory pathogens to all individuals in every healthcare setting. Accordingly, we recommend: the use of respirators by all staff (clinical and non-clinical) during activities that involve contact or sharing air in indoor spaces with individuals who: (i) have not yet been clinically evaluated; or (ii) are thought or known to have TB and/or COVID-19 or other potentially harmful respiratory infections;the use of respirators that meet national and international manufacturing standards;evaluation of all respirators, at the least, by qualitative fit testing; andthe use of respirators as part of a 'package of care' in line with international IPC recommendations. We recognise that this will be challenging, not least due to global and national shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE). SA national policy around respiratory protective equipment enables a robust framework for manufacture and quality control and has been supported by local manufacturers and the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition. Respirator manufacturers should explore adaptations to improve comfort and reduce barriers to communication. Structural changes are needed urgently to improve the safety of health facilities: persistent advocacy and research around potential systems change remain essential.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There are no data comparing the 6-9 month oral three-drug Nix regimen (bedaquiline, pretomanid and linezolid [BPaL]) to conventional regimens containing bedaquiline (B, BDQ) and linezolid (L, LZD).METHODS: Six-month post end-of-treatment outcomes were compared between Nix-TB (n = 109) and 102 prospectively recruited extensively drug-resistant TB patients who received an Ë18-month BDQ-based regimen (median of 8 drugs). A subset of patients received BDQ and LZD (n = 86), and a subgroup of these (n = 75) served as individually matched controls in a pairwise comparison to determine differences in regimen efficacy.RESULTS: Favourable outcomes (%) were significantly better with BPaL than with the B-L-based combination regimen (98/109, 89.9% vs. 56/86, 65.1%; adjusted relative risk ratio [aRRR] 1.35; P < 0.001) and in the matched pairwise analysis (67/75, 89.3% vs. 48/75, 64.0%; aRRR 1.39; P = 0.001), despite significantly higher baseline bacterial load and prior second-line drug exposure in the BPaL cohort. Time to culture conversion (P < 0.001), time to unfavourable outcome (P < 0.01) and time to death (P < 0.03) were significantly better or lower with BPaL than the B-L-based combinations.CONCLUSION: The BPaL regimen (and hence substitution of multiple other drugs by pretomanid and/or higher starting-dose LZD) may improve outcomes in drug-resistant TB patients with poor prognostic features. However, prospective controlled studies are required to definitively answer this question.
Subject(s)
Extensively Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis , Tuberculosis, Multidrug-Resistant , Antitubercular Agents/therapeutic use , Diarylquinolines/therapeutic use , Extensively Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis/drug therapy , Humans , Linezolid/therapeutic use , Nitroimidazoles , Prospective Studies , Tuberculosis, Multidrug-Resistant/drug therapyABSTRACT
Asthma prevalence is increasing worldwide, and surveys indicate that most patients in developed and developing countries, including South Africa, do not receive optimal care and are therefore not well controlled. Standard management guidelines adapted to in-country realities are important to support optimal care. The South African Thoracic Society (SATS) first published a guideline for the management of chronic persistent asthma in 1992, which has subsequently been revised several times. The main aim of the present document was to revise and update SATS' statement on the suggested management of chronic asthma, based on the need to promote optimal care and control of asthma, together with the incorporation of new concepts and drug developments. This revised document reinforces optimal care and incorporates the following primary objectives to achieve the recent advances in asthma care: continued emphasis on the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as the foundation of asthma treatmentto reduce the reliance on short-acting beta-2 agonist (SABA) monotherapy for asthma symptomsto incorporate the evidence and strategy for the use of the combination of an ICS and formoterol for acute symptom relief (instead of a SABA)to incorporate the evidence and strategy for the use of as-needed ICS-long-acting beta agonists (LABA) for patients with infrequent symptoms or 'mild' asthmato incorporate the evidence and strategy for the use of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) in combination with ICS-LABA; andto incorporate the evidence and strategy for the use of and management with a biologic therapy in severe asthma.
ABSTRACT
Background: There are limited data about the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19)-related organisational responses and the challenges of expanding a critical care service in a resource-limited setting. Objectives: To describe the ICU organisational response to the pandemic and the main outcomes of the intensive care service of a large state teaching hospital in South Africa. Methods: Data were extracted from administrative records and a prospective patient database with ethical approval. An ICU expansion plan was developed, and resource constraints identified. A triage tool was distributed to referring wards and hospitals. Intensive care was reserved for patients who required invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The total number of ICU beds was increased from 25 to 54 at peak periods, with additional non-COVID ICU capacity required during the second wave. The availability of nursing staff was the main factor limiting expansion. A ward-based high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) service reduced the need for ICU admission of patients who failed conventional oxygen therapy. A team was established to intubate and transfer patients requiring ICU admission but was only available for the first wave. Results: We admitted 461 COVID-19 patients to the ICU over a 13-month period from 5 April 2020 to 5 May 2021 spanning two waves of admissions. The median age was 50 years and duration of ICU stay was 9 days. More than a third of the patients (35%; n=161) survived to hospital discharge. Conclusion: Pre-planning, leadership, teamwork, flexibility and good communication were essential elements for an effective response. A shortage of nurses was the main constraint on ICU expansion. HFNO may have reduced the requirement for ICU admission, but patients intubated after failing HFNO had a poor prognosis. Contributions of the study: We describe the organisational requirements to successfully expand critical care facilities and strategies to reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 pneumonia. We also present the intensive care outcomes of these patients in a resource-constrained environment.
ABSTRACT
Background. There are limited data about the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19)-related organisational responses and the challenges of expanding a critical care service in a resource-limited setting.Objectives. To describe the ICU organisational response to the pandemic and the main outcomes of the intensive care service of a large state teaching hospital in South Africa.Methods. Data were extracted from administrative records and a prospective patient database with ethical approval. An ICU expansion plan was developed, and resource constraints identified. A triage tool was distributed to referring wards and hospitals. Intensive care was reserved for patients who required invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The total number of ICU beds was increased from 25 to 54 at peak periods, with additional non-COVID ICU capacity required during the second wave. The availability of nursing staff was the main factor limiting expansion. A ward-based high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) service reduced the need for ICU admission of patients who failed conventional oxygen therapy. A team was established to intubate and transfer patients requiring ICU admission but was only available for the first wave. Results. We admitted 461 COVID-19 patients to the ICU over a 13-month period from 5 April 2020 to 5 May 2021 spanning two waves of admissions. The median age was 50 years and duration of ICU stay was 9 days. More than a third of the patients (35%; n=161) survived to hospital discharge. Conclusions. Pre-planning, leadership, teamwork, flexibility and good communication were essential elements for an effective response. A shortage of nurses was the main constraint on ICU expansion. HFNO may have reduced the requirement for ICU admission, but patients intubated after failing HFNO had a poor prognosis.
Subject(s)
Critical Care , COVID-19 , Intensive Care Units , Emergency Service, Hospital , Pandemics , Hospital AdministrationABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Given the global shortage of N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFP2 in Europe) during the COVID-19 pandemic, KN95 masks (Chinese equivalent of the N95 and FFP2) were imported and distributed in South Africa (SA). However, there are hardly any published independent safety data on KN95 masks. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the seal, fit and filtration efficiency of several brands of KN95 masks marketed for widespread use in SA healthcare facilities, using standardised testing protocols. METHODS: The verifiability of manufacturer and technical details was first ascertained, followed by evaluation of the number of layers comprising the mask material. The testing protocol involved a directly observed positive and negative pressure user seal check, which if passed was followed by qualitative fit testing (sodium saccharin) in healthy laboratory or healthcare workers. Quantitative fit testing (3M) was used to validate the qualitative fit testing method. The filtration efficacy and integrity of the mask filter material were evaluated using a particle counter-based testing rig utilising aerosolised saline (expressed as filtration efficacy of 0.3 µm particles). Halyard FLUIDSHIELD 3 N95 and 3M 1860 N95 masks were used as controls. RESULTS: Twelve KN95 mask brands (total of 36 masks) were evaluated in 7 participants. The mask type and manufacturing details were printed on only 2/12 brands (17%) as per National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and European Union regulatory requirements. There was considerable variability in the number of KN95 mask layers (between 3 and 6 layers in the 12 brands evaluated). The seal check pass rate was significantly lower in KN95 compared with N95 masks (1/36 (3%) v. 12/12 (100%); p<0.0001). Modification of the KN95 ear-loop tension using head straps or staples, or improving the facial seal using Micropore 3M tape, enhanced seal test performance in 15/36 KN95 masks evaluated (42%). However, none of these 15 passed downstream qualitative fit testing compared with the control N95 masks (0/15 v. 12/12; p<0.0001). Only 4/8 (50%) of the KN95 brands tested passed the minimum filtration requirements for an N95 mask (suboptimal KN95 filtration efficacy varied from 12% to 78%, compared with 56% for a surgical mask and >99% for the N95 masks at the 0.3 µm particle size). CONCLUSIONS: The KN95 masks tested failed the stipulated safety thresholds associated with protection of healthcare workers against airborne pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2. These preliminary data have implications for the regulation of masks and their distribution to healthcare workers and facilities in SA.