What We Learned from Ebola: Preparing Dialysis Units for the Next Outbreak

Infection Control Precautions and Care Delivery in Hemodialysis Unit during Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outbreak: A Case Series

BACKGROUND

With an estimated basic reproductive number of 3.77, the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to spread. It is urgent to exert adequate efforts for the management of dialysis patients, caregivers, and healthcare personnel (HCP). This study aimed at reporting practical workflow, identification of high-risk or suspected cases of CO-VID-19, and subsequent response measures.

METHODS

At the time of the COVID-19 outbreak, precautions and practice protocols were applied in our dialysis units (DUs). This single-center study retrospectively reviewed all high-risk/suspected cases from January 23, 2020, to February 10, 2020. Epidemiological, clinical feature, and detailed data on all cases were recorded.

RESULTS

Practical workflow for the clinical management of dialysis patients, caregivers, and HCP was initiated. A total of 6 high-risk/suspected cases were identified. Female gender, older age, presence of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, anuresis, immunocompromised status, hypoalbuminemia, and underweight were noticeable features in these cases. Direct evidence of infection or epidemiological risk was detected in five cases. Close monitoring for temperature and oxygen saturation during hemodialysis sessions may be reasonable. No confirmed COVID-19 cases were reported in our DU, but certain cases showed rapid deterioration due to other critically severe condition needing hospitalization. Portable dialysis machines are of great need to ensure dialysis care provision.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study described a practical workflow for patient-centered management during COVID-19 outbreak. Potential risk factors and underlying clinical patterns were reported. Further studies regarding the efficacy of infection control precautions and practice protocols tailored for dialysis settings are warranted.

Practical indications for the prevention and management of SARS-CoV-2 in ambulatory dialysis patients: lessons from the first phase of the epidemics in Lombardy

Confronting the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak has allowed us to appreciate how efficiently highly-resourced settings can respond to crises. However even such settings are not prepared to deal with the situation, and lessons are only slowly being learnt. There is still an urgent need to accelerate protocols that lead to the implementation of rapid point-of-care diagnostic testing and effective antiviral therapies. In some high-risk populations, such as dialysis patients, where several individuals are treated at the same time in a limited space and overcrowded areas, our objective must be to ensure protection to patients, the healthcare team and the dialysis ward. The difficult Italian experience may help other countries to face the challenges. The experience of the Lombardy underlines the need for gathering and sharing our data to increase our knowledge and support common, initially experience-based, and as soon as possible evidence-based position to face this overwhelming crisis.

Effect of isolation practice on the transmission of middle east respiratory syndrome coronavirus among hemodialysis patients: A 2-year prospective cohort study

Hemodialysis (HD) patients had a high rate of infection transmission and mortality during the middle east respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) outbreak in Saudi Arabia. A standardized guideline on isolation technique for exposed HD patients is not available. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of different isolation strategies on the prevention of secondary viral transmission and clinical outcomes among exposed HD patients.During the 2015 MERS-CoV outbreak in Korea, 116 patients in 3 HD units were incidentally exposed to individuals with confirmed MERS-CoV infection and underwent different types of isolation, which were as follows: single-room isolation (n = 54, 47%), cohort isolation (n = 46, 40%), and self-imposed quarantine (n = 16, 13%). The primary outcome was rate of secondary viral transmission. The secondary outcome measures were changes in clinical and biochemical markers during the isolation period, difference in clinical and biochemical markers according to the types of isolation practice, and effect of isolation practice on patient survival.During a mean isolation period of 15 days, no further cases of secondary transmission were detected among HD patients. Plasma hemoglobin, serum calcium, and serum albumin levels and single-pool Kt/V decreased during the isolation period but normalized thereafter. Patients who were subjected to self-imposed quarantine had higher systolic and diastolic blood pressure, lower total cholesterol level, and lower Kt/V than those who underwent single-room or cohort isolation. During the 24-month follow-up period, 12 patients died. However, none of the deaths occurred during the isolation period, and no differences were observed in patient survival rate according to different isolation strategies.Although 116 participants in 3 HD units were incidentally exposed to MERS-CoV during the 2015 outbreak in Korea, strict patient surveillance and proper isolation practice prevented secondary transmission of the virus. Thus, a renal disaster protocol, which includes proper contact surveillance and isolation practice, must be established in the future to accommodate the needs of HD patients during disasters or outbreaks.