Search

Background: COVID-19 is the largest recorded pandemic in history. It causes several complications such as shock, pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and organ failure. The objective was to determine COVID-19 outcomes and risk factors in the intensive care (ICU) setting., Methods: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was conducted. Adult patients with a positive RT-PCR test for COVID-19 admitted to ICUs of a tertiary care hospital between 2020 and 2022 were included. Patients who had severe complex trauma were excluded. The outcomes examined included ventilation use and duration, length of stay (LOS), and mortality., Results: A total of 964 patients were included. The mean ( ± standard deviation, SD) age was 63.7 ± 16.9 years. The majority of the patients were males (59.0 %) and Saudi (75.7 %). Ventilation use was documented in 443 (57.1 %) patients, with a mean ( ± SD) ventilation duration of 9.7 ± 8.4 days. Death occurred in 361 (37.4 %) patients after a mean ( ± SD) of 33.3 ± 44.5 days from infection. The mean ( ± SD) LOS was 30.6 ± 54.1 days in hospital and 5.2 ± 5.4 days in ICU. Ventilation use was associated with older age, males, longer ICU LOS, mortality, and admission to medical-surgical ICU. Crude mortality use was associated with older age, longer ICU LOS, use of ventilator, shorter ventilation duration, and admission to medical-surgical or respiratory ICUs., Conclusions: COVID-19 patients admitted to adult ICUs are at high risk of death and mechanical ventilation. The crude risks of both outcomes are higher in older age and longer ICU LOS and are very variable by ICU type., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest This manuscript is an original work and is not under consideration for publication by other journals. Some of this study’s findings have been presented at a conference KSA ID week on 13 December 2022., (Copyright © 2024 King Abdulaziz Medical City. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This retrospective study compared central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates per 1 000 central line days, and overall mortality before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in adult, paediatric, and neonatal ICU patients at King Abdul-Aziz Medical City-Riyadh who had a central line and were diagnosed with CLABSI according to the National Healthcare Safety Network standard definition. The study spanned between January 2018 and December 2019 (pre-pandemic), and January 2020 and December 2021 (pandemic). SARS-CoV-2 was confirmed by positive RT-PCR testing. The study included 156 CLABSI events and 46 406 central line days; 52 and 22 447 (respectively) in pre-pandemic, and 104 and 23 959 (respectively) during the pandemic. CLABSI rates increased by 2.02 per 1 000 central line days during the pandemic period (from 2.32 to 4.34, p  < 0.001). Likewise, overall mortality rates increased by 0.86 per 1 000 patient days (from 0.93 to 1.79, p  = 0.003). Both CLABSI rates (6.18 vs. 3.7, p  = 0.006) and overall mortality (2.72 vs. 1.47, p  = 0.014) were higher among COVID-19 patients compared to non-COVID-19 patients. The pandemic was associated with a substantial increase in CLABSI-associated morbidity and mortality.

Background: Hospital outbreaks caused by Burkholderia spp. have been linked to contamination of several medical solutions and products and are frequently associated with delayed detection and high mortality., Aim: To describe the management of two consecutive Burkholderia contaminans outbreaks caused by contaminated mouthwash of different brands during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients involved in two outbreaks caused by B. contaminans detected in 2021 and 2022. The investigation was initiated after a cluster of positive respiratory specimens, followed by retrospective and prospective case-finding., Findings: A total of 69 patients were affected, 47 in 2021 and 22 in 2022. The majority of affected patients had positive respiratory specimens (85.5%); 55.1% of cases had COVID-19, and 72.5% had multidrug-resistant organisms. Almost all (97.1%) patients required ventilation and 42.0% died. Seventeen percent of cases in the first outbreak were deemed to have been acquired by patient-to-patient transmission, whereas all of the cases in the second outbreak were infected directly from using mouthwash. The experience gained from the first outbreak and the formation of a multidisciplinary Infection Control Rapid Response Team resulted in more rapid recognition and control of the second outbreak. Multivariate analysis showed that older age, intensive care unit admission, and COVID-19 infection were independent predictors of mortality., Conclusion: Burkholderia outbreaks at the time of COVID-19 were associated with high mortality. Rapid detection and response by a dedicated experienced team (as in the second outbreak) can reduce mortality and prevent superimposed cross-transmission between patients., (Copyright © 2023 The Healthcare Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The general human immune responses similarity against different coronaviruses may reflect some degree of cross-immunity, whereby exposure to one coronavirus may confer partial immunity to another. The aim was to determine whether previous MERS-CoV infection was associated with a lower risk of subsequent COVID-19 disease and its related outcomes., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among all patients screened for MERS-CoV at a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia between 2012 and early 2020. Both MERS-CoV positive and negative patients were followed up from early 2020 to September 2021 for developing COVID-19 infection confirmed by RT-PCR testing., Results: A total of 397 participants followed for an average 15 months during COVID-19 pandemic (4.9 years from MERS-CoV infection). Of the 397 participants, 93 (23.4%) were positive for MERS-CoV at baseline; 61 (65.6%) of the positive cases were symptomatic. Out of 397, 48 (12.1%) participants developed COVID-19 by the end of the follow-up period. Cox regression analysis adjusted for age, gender, and major comorbidity showed a marginally significant lower risk of COVID-19 disease (hazard ratio = 0.533, p = 0.085) and hospital admission (hazard ratio = 0.411, p = 0.061) in patients with positive MERS-CoV. Additionally, the risk of COVID-19 disease was further reduced and became significant in patients with symptomatic MERS-CoV infection (hazard ratio = 0.324, p = 0.034) and hospital admission (hazard ratio = 0.317, p = 0.042)., Conclusions: The current findings may indicate a partial cross-immunity, where patients with symptomatic MERS-CoV have a lower risk of future COVID-19 infection and related hospitalization. The present results may need further examination nationally using immunity markers., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The higher risk of COVID-19 in health care workers (HCWs) is well-known. However, the risk within HCWs is not fully understood. The objective was to compare the COVID-19 risk in intensive care unit (ICU) vs non-ICU locations., Methods: A prospective surveillance study was conducted among HCWs at a large tertiary care facility in Riyadh between March 1st to November 30th, 2020. HCWs included both clinical (provide direct patient care) and nonclinical positions (do not provide direct patient care)., Results: A total 1,594 HCWs with COVID-19 were included; 103 (6.5%) working in ICU and 1,491 (93.5%) working in non-ICU locations. Compared with non-ICU locations, ICU had more nurses (54.4% vs 22.1%, P < .001) and less support staff (2.9% vs 53.1%, P < .001). COVID-19 infection was similar in ICU and non-ICU locations (9.0% vs 9.8%, P = .374). However, it was significantly higher in ICU nurses (12.3% vs 6.5%, P < .001). Support staff had higher risk than other HCWs, irrespective of ICU working status (15.1% vs 7.2%, P < 0.001). The crude relative risk of COVID-19 in ICU vs non-ICU locations was 0.92, 95% confidence interval ( was 0.76-1.11 (P = .374). However, relative risk adjusted for professional category was significantly increased to 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.50 (P = .036)., Conclusions: ICU had a significantly higher risk of COVID-19 infection only after adjusting for the distribution and risk of different professional categories. The latter is probably determined by both exposure level and protection practices. The finding underscores the importance of strict implementation of preventive measures among all HCWs, including those performing nonclinical services., (Copyright © 2022 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Since the occurrence of coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID-19), the global community has witnessed its exponential spread with devastating outcomes within the general population and specifically within hemodialysis patients., Objectives: Compare the state of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 among hemodialysis patients and staff., Design: Cross-sectional study with a prospective follow-up period., Setting: Hemodialysis centers in Madinah region., Patients and Methods: We prospectively tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in dialysis patients using dialysis centers staff as controls. The participants were tested on four occasions when feasible for the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We also analyzed factors that might be associated with seropositivity., Main Outcome Measures: SARS-CoV-2 positivity using immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels SAMPLE SIZE: 830 participants, 677 patients and 153 dialysis centers staff as controls., Results: Of the total participants, 325 (257 patients and 68 staff) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies, for a prevalence of 38.0% and 44.4% among patients and staff, respectively ( P =.1379). Participants with a history of COVID-19 or related symptoms were more likely to have positive IgG ( P <.0001). Surprisingly, positivity was also center-dependent. In a multivariable logistic regression, a history of infection and related symptoms contributed significantly to developing immunity., Conclusion: The high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibody among hemodialysis patients and previously asymptomatic staff suggested past asymptomatic infection. Some centers showed more immunity effects than others., Limitations: Unable to collect four samples for each participant; limited to one urban center., Conflict of Interest: None.

Healthcare workers have been categorized among the priority groups for COVID-19 vaccination. However, post-vaccination infections have been identified. This study was conducted to investigate SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers (HCWs) who received the COVID-19 vaccine. A case series in a multicenter healthcare system in Saudi Arabia was created from HCWs who had (PCR-RT) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection after at least one dose of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination. A total of 20 healthcare workers (HCWs) have been included. The majority (70.0%) were males and the average age was 39.4 ± 10.1 years. They included physicians (55.0%), nurses (25.0%) and other HCWs (20.0%). Eighteen (90%) HCWs had infection after the first dose; 47.1% within the first week, 41.2% within the second week, and 11.8% within the third week. Only two HCWs (10.0%) had infection one week after the second dose. The majority (63.2%) had mild (52.6%) or moderate (10.3%) disease with no severe disease or hospitalization. The majority of post-vaccination COVID-19 infections among HCWs occurred before the full protection of the vaccine is gained. Suspicion of COVID-19 infection should be considered even with a history of COVID-19 vaccination. Recently vaccinated HCWs should be advised to fully comply with all recommended precautions to prevent COVID-19 transmission., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: COVID-19 pandemic caused enormous implications on the frontline staff. The objective was to share our nursing experience in responding to COVID-19 pandemic at a large hospital and its impact on nursing safety and healthcare services., Methods: Six nursing strategic pillars were implemented. Pillar 1: establishing corona command centre. Pillar 2: limiting exposure by virtual care model, strict infection control measures, altered patient flow, active surveillance, and contact tracing. Pillar 3: maintaining sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment. Pillar 4: creating surge capacity by establishing dedicated COVID-19 units and increasing critical care beds. Pillar 5: training and redeployment of nurses and implementing alternate staffing models. Pillar 6: monitoring staff wellbeing, establishing mental health support hotline and clinic, providing hotel self-quarantine, and financial incentives., Results: Out of 5483 nurses, 543 (10%) were trained for redeployment, mainly at acute and intensive care units. After serving 11,623 infected patient including 1646 hospitalizations during the first 9 months of the pandemic, only 385 (7.0%) nurses were infected with COVID-19. Out of them, only 10 (2.6%) required hospitalization, one (0.3%) required ICU admission, and none died. Although the number of patients hospitalized at our hospital during the current pandemic was 17 folds higher than the 2015 outbreak of middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, the hospital administration did not have to close the hospital as they did in 2015., Conclusions: Proactive nursing leadership and implementation of multiple nursing pillars enabled the facility to maintain the safety of nursing workforce while serving large influx of COVID-19 patients., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To estimate COVID-19 infection and outcomes among healthcare workers (HCWs) compared with non-HCWs., Methods: A prospective surveillance study was conducted among HCWs and non-HCWs eligible for treatment at a large tertiary care facility in Riyadh between March 1st to November 30th, 2020., Results: A total 13,219 cases with confirmed COVID-19 have been detected during the study; 1596 (12.1%) HCW patients (HCWPs) and 11623 (87.9%) non-HCWPs. Infection per 100 population was almost ten-fold higher in HCWs compared with non-HCWs (9.78 versus 1.01, p<0.001). The risk of infection in support staff (15.1%) was almost double the risk in other professional groups (p<0.001). Hospitalization (14.1% versus 1.8%, p<0.001), ICU admission (3.0% versus 0.5%, p<0.001), and case fatality (0.13% versus 2.77%, p<0.001) were significantly lower in HCWPs compared with non-HCWPs. The mortality per 100,000 population was significantly lower in HCWs compared with non-HCWs (12.3 and 28.1, p<0.001)., Conclusion: HCWs are at ten-fold higher risk of COVID-19 infection but have much better outcomes compared with non-HCWs. More strict infection control measures are still required to protect HCWs, including those who are not involved in direct patient care., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interests The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)