Establishing Healthcare Worker Performance and Safety in Providing Critical Care for Patients in a Simulated Ebola Treatment Unit: Non-Randomized Pilot Study.

Improving the provision of supportive care for patients with Ebola is an important quality improvement initiative. We designed a simulated Ebola Treatment Unit (ETU) to assess performance and safety of healthcare workers (HCWs) performing tasks wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) in hot (35 °C, 60% relative humidity) or thermo-neutral (20 °C, 20% relative humidity) conditions. In this pilot phase to determine the feasibility of study procedures, HCWs in PPE were non-randomly allocated to hot or thermo-neutral conditions to perform peripheral intravenous (PIV) and midline catheter (MLC) insertion and endotracheal intubation (ETI) on mannequins. Eighteen HCWs (13 physicians, 4 nurses, 1 nurse practitioner; 2 with prior ETU experience; 10 in hot conditions) spent 69 (10) (mean (SD)) minutes in the simulated ETU. Mean (SD) task completion times were 16 (6) min for PIV insertion; 33 (5) min for MLC insertion; and 16 (8) min for ETI. Satisfactory task completion was numerically higher for physicians vs. nurses. Participants' blood pressure was similar, but heart rate was higher (p = 0.0005) post-simulation vs. baseline. Participants had a median (range) of 2.0 (0.0-10.0) minor PPE breaches, 2.0 (0.0-6.0) near-miss incidents, and 2.0 (0.0-6.0) health symptoms and concerns. There were eight health-assessment triggers in five participants, of whom four were in hot conditions. We terminated the simulation of two participants in hot conditions due to thermal discomfort. In summary, study tasks were suitable for physician participants, but they require redesign to match nurses' expertise for the subsequent randomized phase of the study. One-quarter of participants had a health-assessment trigger. This research model may be useful in future training and research regarding clinical care for patients with highly infectious pathogens in austere settings.

Quantitative Assessment of Viral Dispersion Associated with Respiratory Support Devices in a Simulated Critical Care Environment.

Rationale: Patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) require supplemental oxygen and ventilatory support. It is unclear whether some respiratory support devices may increase the dispersion of infectious bioaerosols and thereby place healthcare workers at increased risk of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).Objectives: To quantitatively compare viral dispersion from invasive and noninvasive respiratory support modalities.Methods: This study used a simulated ICU room with a breathing-patient simulator exhaling nebulized bacteriophages from the lower respiratory tract with various respiratory support modalities: invasive ventilation (through an endotracheal tube with an inflated cuff connected to a mechanical ventilator), helmet ventilation with a positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) valve, noninvasive bilevel positive-pressure ventilation, nonrebreather face masks, high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO), and nasal prongs.Measurements and Main Results: Invasive ventilation and helmet ventilation with a PEEP valve were associated with the lowest bacteriophage concentrations in the air, and HFNO and nasal prongs were associated with the highest concentrations. At the intubating position, bacteriophage concentrations associated with HFNO (2.66 × 104 plaque-forming units [PFU]/L of air sampled), nasal prongs (1.60 × 104 PFU/L of air sampled), nonrebreather face masks (7.87 × 102 PFU/L of air sampled), and bilevel positive airway pressure (1.91 × 102 PFU/L of air sampled) were significantly higher than those associated with invasive ventilation (P < 0.05 for each). The difference between bacteriophage concentrations associated with helmet ventilation with a PEEP valve (4.29 × 10-1 PFU/L of air sampled) and bacteriophage concentrations associated with invasive ventilation was not statistically significant.Conclusions: These findings highlight the potential differential risk of dispersing virus among respiratory support devices and the importance of appropriate infection prevention and control practices and personal protective equipment for healthcare workers when caring for patients with transmissible respiratory viral infections such as SARS-CoV-2.

Treatment of Ebola-related critical illness.

PURPOSE: To explore contemporary clincial case management of patients with Ebola virus disease. METHODS: A narrative review from a clinical perspective of clinical features, diagnostic tests, treatments and outcomes of patients with Ebola virus disease. RESULTS: Substantial advances have been made in the care of patients with Ebola virus disease (EVD), precipitated by the unprecedented extent of the 2014-2016 outbreak. There has been improved point-of-care diagnostics, improved characterization of the clinical course of EVD, improved patient-optimized standards of care, evaluation of effective anti-Ebola therapies, administration of effective vaccines, and development of innovative Ebola treatment units. A better understanding of the Ebola virus disease clinical syndrome has led to the appreciation of a central role for critical care clinicians-over 50% of patients have life-threatening complications, including hypotension, severe electrolyte imbalance, acute kidney injury, metabolic acidosis and respiratory failure. Accordingly, patients often require critical care interventions such as monitoring of vital signs, intravenous fluid resuscitation, intravenous vasoactive medications, frequent diagnostic laboratory testing, renal replacement therapy, oxygen and occasionally mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSION: With advanced training and adherence to infection prevention and control practices, clinical interventions, including critical care, are feasible and safe to perform in critically ill patients. With specific anti-Ebola medications, most patients can survive Ebola virus infection.

Principles and Practices of Establishing a Hospital-Based Ebola Treatment Unit.

Outbreaks of Ebola virus disease and high-risk transmissible infections are increasing and pose threats to health care workers and global health systems. Previous outbreaks offer lessons for health system preparedness and response, including establishment of hospital-based high-risk pathogen treatment units. Their creation demands early preparation and interprofessional coordination; infection prevention and control; case management training; prepositioning of supplies; conversion of existing structures to treatment units; and strengthening communication and research platforms. Hospital-based Ebola and high-risk pathogen treatment units may improve case detection, interrupt transmission, and improve staff safety and patient care.

Anti-Ebola therapy for patients with Ebola virus disease: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Management of Ebola virus disease (EVD) has historically focused on infection prevention, case detection and supportive care. Several specific anti-Ebola therapies have been investigated, including during the 2014-2016 West African outbreak. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of the effect of anti-Ebola virus therapies on clinical outcomes to guide their potential use and future evaluation. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Global Health, Cochrane Library, African Index Medicus, WHOLIS (inception-9 April 2018), and trial registries for observational studies or clinical trials, in any language, that enrolled patients with confirmed EVD who received therapy targeting Ebola virus and reported on mortality, symptom duration, or adverse effects. RESULTS: From 11,257 citations and registered trials, we reviewed 55 full-text citations, of which 35 met eligibility criteria (1 randomized clinical trial (RCT), 8 non-randomized comparative studies, 9 case series and 17 case reports) and collectively examined 21 anti-Ebola virus agents. The 31 studies performed during the West African outbreak reported on 4.8% (1377/28616) of all patients with Ebola. The only RCT enrolled 72 patients (0.25% of all patients with Ebola) and compared the monoclonal antibody ZMapp vs. standard care (mortality, 22% vs. 37%; 95% confidence interval for risk difference, - 36 to 7%). Studies of convalescent plasma, interferon-ß-1a, favipiravir, brincidofovir, artesunate-amodiaquine and TKM-130803 were associated with at least moderate risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Research evaluating anti-Ebola virus agents has reached very few patients with EVD, and inferences are limited by non-randomized study designs. ZMapp has the most promising treatment signal.