Are medical procedures that induce coughing or involve respiratory suctioning associated with increased generation of aerosols and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection? A rapid systematic review

Assessment of COVID-19 incidence after performing pulmonary function tests during the pandemic: Findings from a real-life cohort

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary function testing (PFT) is paramount in assessing patients with respiratory symptoms and chronic cardiopulmonary diseases. Although seminal studies have demonstrated that PFT generates aerosols, this simple observation does not confirm the potential for enhanced pathogen transmission.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe the frequency of patients who developed suspected symptoms of COVID-19, prompting SARS-CoV-2 testing after undergoing PFT during the reopening of a laboratory amid the deceleration of the pandemic.

METHODS

We analyzed a retrospective cohort of individuals referred for PFT between May and August 2021. Two weeks post-PFT, phone calls were made asking about suspected symptoms of COVID-19, leading to SARS-CoV-2 testing. The medical data of the participants who did not answer the phone calls were reviewed through institutional electronic records. The minimum sample size of 338 individuals was calculated to detect an incidence of COVID-19 at least ten times higher than the surrounding local rate (0.08 %).

RESULTS

Three hundred and sixty patients (40.6 % men; 56.5 ± 17.6 years) were included. PFT was primarily indicated for functional and prognostic assessments of chronic respiratory diseases. Three hundred and sixteen patients answered the follow-up phone calls. Following PFT, most patients (357/360) did not report suspected symptoms leading to COVID-19 confirmation testing. Three patients underwent RT-PCR testing, which yielded negative results.

CONCLUSION

Patients in this real-life cohort, after performing PFT, did not experience an outbreak (with a rate of at least ten times the surrounding local rate) or a cluster (with two or more cases) of symptomatic COVID-19.

Effectiveness of SplashGuard Caregiver prototype in reducing the risk of aerosol transmission in intensive care unit rooms of SARS-CoV-2 patients: a prospective and simulation study

BACKGROUND

The contagiousness of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is known to be linked to the emission of bioaerosols. Thus, aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) could increase the risk of infection among healthcare workers (HCWs).

AIM

To investigate the impact of an aerosol protection box, the SplashGuard Caregiver (SGGC) with suction system, by direct analysis of the presence of viral particles after an AGP, and by using the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation method.

METHODS

This prospective observational study investigated HCWs caring for patients with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Rooms were categorized as: SGCG present and SGCG absent. Virus detection was performed through direct analysis, and using a CFD model to simulate the movement dynamics of airborne particles produced by a patient's respiratory activities.

FINDINGS

Of the 67 analyses performed, three samples tested positive on quantitative polymerase chain reaction: one of 33 analyses in the SCCG group (3%) and two of 34 analyses in the non-SGCG group (5.9%). CFD simulations showed that: (1) reduction of the gaps of an SGCG could decrease the number of emitted particles remaining airborne within the room by up to 70%; and (2) positioning HCWs facing the opposite direction to the main air flow would reduce their exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

This study documented the presence of SARS-CoV-2 among HCWs in a negative pressure ICU room of an infected patient with or without the use of an SGCG. The simulation will help to improve the design of the SGCG and the positioning of HCWs in the room.

Pulmonary function testing during SARS-CoV-2: An ANZSRS/TSANZ position statement

The Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand (TSANZ) and the Australian and New Zealand Society of Respiratory Science (ANZSRS) commissioned a joint position paper on pulmonary function testing during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in July 2021. A working group was formed via an expression of interest to members of both organizations and commenced work in September 2021. A rapid review of the literature was undertaken, with a 'best evidence synthesis' approach taken to answer the research questions formed. This allowed the working group to accept findings of prior relevant reviews or societal document where appropriate. The advice provided is for providers of pulmonary function tests across all settings. The advice is intended to supplement local infection prevention and state, territory or national directives. The working group's key messages reflect a precautionary approach to protect the safety of both healthcare workers (HCWs) and patients in a rapidly changing environment. The decision on strategies employed may vary depending on local transmission and practice environment. The advice is likely to require review as evidence grows and the COVID-19 pandemic evolves. While this position statement was contextualized specifically to the COVID-19 pandemic, the working group strongly advocates that any changes to clinical/laboratory practice, made in the interest of optimizing the safety and well-being of HCWs and patients involved in pulmonary function testing, are carefully considered in light of their potential for ongoing use to reduce transmission of other droplet and/or aerosol borne diseases.

Artificial intelligence in COVID-19 evidence syntheses was underutilized, but impactful: a methodological study

OBJECTIVES

A rapidly developing scenario like a pandemic requires the prompt production of high-quality systematic reviews, which can be automated using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques. We evaluated the application of AI tools in COVID-19 evidence syntheses.

STUDY DESIGN

After prospective registration of the review protocol, we automated the download of all open-access COVID-19 systematic reviews in the COVID-19 Living Overview of Evidence database, indexed them for AI-related keywords, and located those that used AI tools. We compared their journals' JCR Impact Factor, citations per month, screening workloads, completion times (from pre-registration to preprint or submission to a journal) and AMSTAR-2 methodology assessments (maximum score 13 points) with a set of publication date matched control reviews without AI.

RESULTS

Of the 3,999 COVID-19 reviews, 28 (0.7%, 95% CI 0.47-1.03%) made use of AI. On average, compared to controls (n = 64), AI reviews were published in journals with higher Impact Factors (median 8.9 vs. 3.5, P < 0.001), and screened more abstracts per author (302.2 vs. 140.3, P = 0.009) and per included study (189.0 vs. 365.8, P < 0.001) while inspecting less full texts per author (5.3 vs. 14.0, P = 0.005). No differences were found in citation counts (0.5 vs. 0.6, P = 0.600), inspected full texts per included study (3.8 vs. 3.4, P = 0.481), completion times (74.0 vs. 123.0, P = 0.205) or AMSTAR-2 (7.5 vs. 6.3, P = 0.119).

CONCLUSION

AI was an underutilized tool in COVID-19 systematic reviews. Its usage, compared to reviews without AI, was associated with more efficient screening of literature and higher publication impact. There is scope for the application of AI in automating systematic reviews.

Aerosol-Generating Procedures and Virus Transmission

During the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, many respiratory therapies were classified as aerosol-generating procedures. This categorization resulted in a broad range of clinical concerns and a shortage of essential medical resources for some patients. In the past 2 years, many studies have assessed the transmission risk posed by various respiratory care procedures. These studies are discussed in this narrative review, with recommendations for mitigating transmission risk based on the current evidence.

Quantitative evaluation of aerosol generation from upper airway suctioning assessed during tracheal intubation and extubation sequences in anaesthetized patients

BACKGROUND

Open respiratory suctioning is defined as an aerosol generating procedure (AGP). Laryngopharyngeal suctioning, used to clear secretions during anaesthesia, is widely managed as an AGP. However, it is uncertain whether upper airway suctioning should be designated as an AGP due to the lack of both aerosol and epidemiological evidence.

AIM

To assess the relative risk of aerosol generation by upper airway suctioning during tracheal intubation and extubation in anaesthetized patients.

METHODS

This prospective environmental monitoring study was undertaken in an ultraclean operating theatre setting to assay aerosol concentrations during intubation and extubation sequences, including upper airway suctioning, for patients undergoing surgery (N=19). An optical particle sizer (particle size 0.3-10 μm) sampled aerosol 20 cm above the patient's mouth. Baseline recordings (background, tidal breathing and volitional coughs) were followed by intravenous induction of anaesthesia with neuromuscular blockade. Four periods of laryngopharyngeal suctioning were performed with a Yankauer sucker: pre-laryngoscopy, post-intubation, pre-extubation and post-extubation.

FINDINGS

Aerosol was reliably detected {median 65 [interquartile range (IQR) 39-259] particles/L} above background [median 4.8 (IQR 1-7) particles/L, P<0.0001] when sampling in close proximity to the patient's mouth during tidal breathing. Upper airway suctioning was associated with a much lower average aerosol concentration than breathing [median 6.0 (IQR 0-12) particles/L, P=0.0007], and was indistinguishable from background (P>0.99). Peak aerosol concentrations recorded during suctioning [median 45 (IQR 30-75) particles/L] were much lower than during volitional coughs [median 1520 (IQR 600-4363) particles/L, P<0.0001] and tidal breathing [median 540 (IQR 300-1826) particles/L, P<0.0001].

CONCLUSION

Upper airway suctioning during airway management was not associated with a higher aerosol concentration compared with background, and was associated with a much lower aerosol concentration compared with breathing and coughing. Upper airway suctioning should not be designated as a high-risk AGP.

Inanimate surface contamination of SARS-CoV-2 during midfacial fracture repair in asymptomatic COVID-19 patients

Purposes

To evaluate inanimate surface contamination of SARS-CoV-2 during midfacial fracture repair (MFR) and to identify relevant aggregating factors.

Methods

Using a prospective non-randomised comparative study design, we enrolled a cohort of asymptomatic COVID-19 patients undergoing MFR. The predictor variables were osteofixation system (conventional titanium plates [CTiP] vs. ultrasound-assisted resorbable plates [USaRP]). The main outcomes were the presence of SARS-CoV-2 on four different surfaces. Other study variables were categorised into demographic, anatomical, and operative. Descriptive, bi- and multivariate statistics were computed.

Results

The sample consisted of 11 patients (27.3% females, 63.6% right side, 72.7% displaced fractures) with a mean age of 52.7 ± 20.1 years (range, 19–85). Viral spread was, on average, 1.9 ± 0.4 m. from the operative field, including most oral and orbital retractors’ tips (81.8% and 72.7%) and no virus was found at 3 m from the operative field, but no significant difference was found between 2 osteofixation types. On binary adjustments, significantly broader contamination was linked to centrolateral MFR (P = 0.034; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05 to 1.02), and displaced MFR > 45 min (P = 0.022; 95% CI, 0.1 to 1.03).

Conclusions

USaRP, albeit presumably heavily aerosol-producing, cause similar SARS-CoV-2 distribution to CTiP. Non-surgical operating room (OR) staff should stay ≥ 3 m from the operative field, if the patient is SARS-CoV-2-positive. Enoral and orbital instruments are a potential virus source, especially during displaced MFR > 45 min and/or centrolateral MFR, emphasising an importance of appropriate patient screening and OR organisation.

The Aftermath of the COVID-19 Crisis in Saudi Arabia: Respiratory Rehabilitation Recommendations by Physical Therapists

Since late 2019, the number of COVID-19 patients has gradually increased in certain regions as consecutive waves of infections hit countries. Whenever this wave hits the corresponding areas, the entire healthcare system must respond quickly to curb the diseases, morbidities, and mortalities in intensive care settings. The healthcare team involved in COVID-19 patients' care must work tirelessly without having breaks. Our understanding of COVID-19 is limited as new challenges emerge with new COVID-19 variants appearing in different world regions. Though medical therapies are finding solutions to deal with the disease, there are few recommendations for respiratory rehabilitation therapies. A group of respiratory rehabilitation care professionals in Saudi Arabia and international experts have agreed with the World Health bodies such as the World Health Organization (WHO) on the treatment and rehabilitation of patients with COVID-19. Professionals participating in COVID-19 patient treatment, rehabilitation, and recovery formulated respiratory rehabilitation guidelines based on the DELPHI Method, combining scientific research and personal practical experience. As a result, it is envisaged that the number of individuals in the region suffering from respiratory ailments due to post-COVID-19 will decrease. This narrative review and clinical expertise guidelines may give physiotherapists acceptable and standard clinical guideline protocols for treating COVID-19 patients.