Search

Background An endotracheal tube cuff pressure between 20 and 30 cmH2O is recommended to prevent ventilator-associated respiratory infection (VARI). We aimed to evaluate whether continuous cuff pressure control (CPC) was associated with reduced VARI incidence compared with intermittent CPC. Methods We conducted a multicenter open-label randomized controlled trial in intensive care unit (ICU) patients within 24 hours of intubation in Vietnam. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either continuous CPC using an automated electronic device or intermittent CPC using a manually hand-held manometer. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of VARI, evaluated by an independent reviewer blinded to the CPC allocation. Results We randomized 600 patients; 597 received the intervention or control and were included in the intention to treat analysis. Compared with intermittent CPC, continuous CPC did not reduce the proportion of patients with at least one episode of VARI (74/296 [25%] vs 69/301 [23%]; odds ratio [OR] 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI].77–1.67]. There were no significant differences between continuous and intermittent CPC concerning the proportion of microbiologically confirmed VARI (OR 1.40; 95% CI.94–2.10), the proportion of intubated days without antimicrobials (relative proportion [RP] 0.99; 95% CI.87–1.12), rate of ICU discharge (cause-specific hazard ratio [HR] 0.95; 95% CI.78–1.16), cost of ICU stay (difference in transformed mean [DTM] 0.02; 95% CI −.05 to.08], cost of ICU antimicrobials (DTM 0.02; 95% CI −.25 to.28), cost of hospital stay (DTM 0.02; 95% CI −.04 to.08), and ICU mortality risk (OR 0.96; 95% CI.67–1.38). Conclusions Maintaining CPC through an automated electronic device did not reduce VARI incidence. Clinical Trial Registration NCT02966392. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Little is known about the natural history of asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Methods We conducted a prospective study at a quarantine center for coronavirus disease 2019 in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. We enrolled quarantined people with reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, collecting clinical data, travel and contact history, and saliva at enrollment and daily nasopharyngeal/throat swabs (NTSs) for RT-PCR testing. We compared the natural history and transmission potential of asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals. Results Between 10 March and 4 April 2020, 14 000 quarantined people were tested for SARS-CoV-2; 49 were positive. Of these, 30 participated in the study: 13 (43%) never had symptoms and 17 (57%) were symptomatic. Seventeen (57%) participants imported cases. Compared with symptomatic individuals, asymptomatic people were less likely to have detectable SARS-CoV-2 in NTS collected at enrollment (8/13 [62%] vs 17/17 [100%]; P  = .02). SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 20 of 27 (74%) available saliva samples (7 of 11 [64%] in the asymptomatic group and 13 of 16 [81%] in the symptomatic group; P  = .56). Analysis of RT-PCR positivity probability showed that asymptomatic participants had faster viral clearance than symptomatic participants (P  < .001 for difference over the first 19 days). This difference was most pronounced during the first week of follow-up. Two of the asymptomatic individuals appeared to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to 4 contacts. Conclusions Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection is common and can be detected by analysis of saliva or NTSs. The NTS viral loads fall faster in asymptomatic individuals, but these individuals appear able to transmit the virus to others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]