Search

Background: Continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) are considered 'aerosol-generating procedures' in the treatment of COVID-19.Objective: To measure air and surface environmental contamination with SARS-CoV-2 virus when CPAP and HFNO are used, compared with supplemental oxygen, to investigate the potential risks of viral transmission to healthcare workers and patients.Methods: 30 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen, with a fraction of inspired oxygen ≥0.4 to maintain oxygen saturation ≥94%, were prospectively enrolled into an observational environmental sampling study. Participants received either supplemental oxygen, CPAP or HFNO (n=10 in each group). A nasopharyngeal swab, three air and three surface samples were collected from each participant and the clinical environment. Real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction analyses were performed for viral and human RNA, and positive/suspected-positive samples were cultured for the presence of biologically viable virus.Results: Overall 21/30 (70%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the nasopharynx. In contrast, only 4/90 (4%) and 6/90 (7%) of all air and surface samples tested positive (positive for E and ORF1a) for viral RNA respectively, although there were an additional 10 suspected-positive samples in both air and surfaces samples (positive for E or ORF1a). CPAP/HFNO use or coughing was not associated with significantly more environmental contamination than supplemental oxygen use. Only one nasopharyngeal sample was culture positive.Conclusions: The use of CPAP and HFNO to treat moderate/severe COVID-19 did not appear to be associated with substantially higher levels of air or surface viral contamination in the immediate care environment, compared with the use of supplemental oxygen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COVID-19 has become the most common cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) worldwide. Features of the pathophysiology and clinical presentation partially distinguish it from 'classical' ARDS. A Research and Development (RAND) analysis gauged the opinion of an expert panel about the management of ARDS with and without COVID-19 as the precipitating cause, using recent UK guidelines as a template.Methods: An 11-person panel comprising intensive care practitioners rated the appropriateness of ARDS management options at different times during hospital admission, in the presence or absence of, or varying severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection on a scale of 1-9 (where 1-3 is inappropriate, 4-6 is uncertain and 7-9 is appropriate). A summary of the anonymised results was discussed at an online meeting moderated by an expert in RAND methodology. The modified online survey comprising 76 questions, subdivided into investigations (16), non-invasive respiratory support (18), basic intensive care unit management of ARDS (20), management of refractory hypoxaemia (8), pharmacotherapy (7) and anticoagulation (7), was completed again.Results: Disagreement between experts was significant only when addressing the appropriateness of diagnostic bronchoscopy in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Adherence to existing published guidelines for the management of ARDS for relevant evidence-based interventions was recommended. Responses of the experts to the final survey suggested that the supportive management of ARDS should be the same, regardless of a COVID-19 diagnosis. For patients with ARDS with COVID-19, the panel recommended routine treatment with corticosteroids and a lower threshold for full anticoagulation based on a high index of suspicion for venous thromboembolic disease.Conclusion: The expert panel found no reason to deviate from the evidence-based supportive strategies for managing ARDS outlined in recent guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients suspected of ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections (VA-LRTIs) commonly receive broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy unnecessarily. We tested whether exhaled breath analysis can discriminate between patients suspected of VA-LRTI with confirmed infection, from patients with negative cultures. Breath from 108 patients suspected of VA-LRTI was analysed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. The breath test had a sensitivity of 98% at a specificity of 49%, confirmed with a second analytical method. The breath test had a negative predictive value of 96% and excluded pneumonia in half of the patients with negative cultures. Trial registration number: UKCRN ID number 19086, registered May 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthcare associated infections, including ventilator associated pneumonia, are difficult to diagnose and treat, and are associated with significant morbidity, mortality and cost. We aimed to demonstrate proof of concept that breath volatile profiles were associated with the presence of clinically relevant pathogens in the lower respiratory tract. Methods:Patients with sterile brain injury requiring intubation and ventilation on the intensive care unit were eligible for inclusion. Serial clinical and breath data were obtained three times a week, from admission up to a maximum of 10 days. Bronchial lavage for semiquantitative culture was collected immediately prior to breath sampling. Breath samples were collected in triplicate for off-line analysis by thermal-desorption/gas chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Breath data were recorded as retention time/mass ion pairs, and analysed (pathogen present vs absent) by ANOVA-mean centre principal component analysis. Results: Samples were collected from 46 patients (mean (SD) age 49 (19) years; 27 male). The dominant factors affecting breath sample analysis were the individual breath profile and duration of intubation. When these were taken into account, clear separation was seen between breath profiles at each time point by the presence/absence of pathogens. Loadings plots identified consistent metabolite peaks contributing to this separation at each time point. Conclusions: Breath volatile analysis is able to classify breath profiles of patients with and without significant pathogen load in the lower respiratory tract. If validated in independent cohorts, these findings could lead to development of rapid non-invasive point-of-care surveillance systems and diagnostics for lower respiratory tract infection in the intensive care unit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]