Personal protective equipment use by healthcare workers in intensive care unit during the early phase of COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: a secondary analysis of the PPE-SAFE survey.

BACKGROUND: Italy was the first Western country to be heavily affected by COVID-19. Healthcare workers (HCWs) were exposed to a high risk of occupational infection, partially due to insufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) supplies. This study aimed to describe the practices, availability, training, confidence in PPE use and the adverse effects due to extended PPE use, as reported by HCWs in Italy. We also aimed to provide a comparison between Italian data and those from other countries. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of a previously published international study, the PPE-SAFE Survey, conducted in April 2020. Data were analysed from the original study database. RESULTS: We analysed the responses from 380 healthcare workers based in Italy, out of the 2711 respondents to the international survey. Among the Italian respondents, FFP2 and FFP3 respirators or equivalent were the most used masks for routine tasks (respectively 188/380, 50%; and 163/380, 43%). The median time of wearing PPE without taking a break was 5 h [interquartile range (IQR) 4-6], with statistically significant difference from other countries [median 4 h (IQR 2-5) p < 0.0001]. In Italy, 249 out of 380 (65%) HCWs had never performed a formal fit test for a N95 mask or equivalent and 91/380 (24%) never had a partner for donning and doffing procedures. Most of the respondents (299/380, 79%) had received formal training in PPE use at any time. CONCLUSION: Most of the surveyed Italian HCWs reported working at above usual capacity, long shifts with PPE without breaks and routine use in intensive care unit of aerosol protection (e.g. FFP2/FFP3), hazmat suits and face shields/visors. The correct adherence to safety procedures (e.g. donning/doffing in pairs, performing fit test) has substantial scope for improvement in the future.

Albumin replacement therapy in immunocompromised patients with sepsis - Secondary analysis of the ALBIOS trial.

BACKGROUND: The best fluid replacement strategy and the role of albumin in immunocompromised patients with sepsis is unclear. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of immunocompromised patients enrolled in the ALBIOS trial which randomized patients with severe sepsis or septic shock to receive either 20% albumin (target 30 g per liter or more) and crystalloid or crystalloid alone during ICU stay. RESULTS: Of 1818 patients originally enrolled, 304 (16.4%) were immunocompromised. One-hundred-thirty-nine (45.7%) patients were randomized in the albumin while 165 (54.2%) in the crystalloid group. At 90 days, 69 (49.6%) in the albumin group and 89 (53.9%) in the crystalloids group died (hazard ratio - HR - 0.94; 95% CI 0.69-1.29). No differences were observed with regards to 28-day mortality, SOFA score (and sub-scores), length of stay in the ICU and in the hospital, proportion of patients who had developed acute kidney injury or received renal replacement therapy, duration of mechanical ventilation. Albumin was not independently associated with a higher or lower 90-day mortality (HR 0.979, 95% CI 0.709-1.352) as compared to crystalloid. CONCLUSION: Albumin replacement during the ICU stay, as compared with crystalloids alone, did not affect clinical outcomes in a cohort of immunocompromised patients with sepsis.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prone position: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: The ongoing pandemic of COVID-19 brought to the fore prone positioning as treatment for patients with acute respiratory failure. With the increasing number of patients in prone position, both spontaneously breathing and mechanically ventilated, cardiac arrest in this position is more likely to occur. This scoping review aimed to summarize the available evidence on cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prone position ('reverse CPR') and knowledge or research gaps to be further evaluated. The protocol of this scoping review was prospectively registered on 10th May 2020 in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/nfuh9). METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE and pre-print repositories (bioRxiv and medRxiv) for simulation, pre-clinical and clinical studies on reverse CPR until 31st May 2020. RESULTS: We included 1 study on manikins, 31 case reports (29 during surgery requiring prone position) and 2 nonrandomized studies describing reverse CPR. No studies were found regarding reverse CPR in patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Even if the algorithms provided by the guidelines on basic and advanced life support remain valid in cardiac arrest in prone position, differences exist in the methods of performing CPR. There is no clear evidence of superiority in terms of effectiveness of reverse compared to supine CPR in patients with cardiac arrest occurring in prone position. The quality of evidence is low and knowledge gaps (e.g. protocols, training of healthcare personnel, devices for skill acquisition) should be fulfilled by further research. Meanwhile, a case-by-case evaluation of patient and setting characteristics should guide the decision on how to start CPR in such cases.

Accidental poisoning with Aconitum: Case report and review of the literature.

Aconitine intoxication by ingestion of Aconitum roots can lead to ventricular tachycardia and cardiac arrest and provides an example of the potential effect of self-medication. Educational campaigns should be implemented to contain acute intoxications caused by herbal-derived products.