Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) among Healthcare Workers in Saudi Arabia: Comparing Case and Control Hospitals

Healthcare workers (HCWs) stand at the frontline for fighting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This puts them at higher risk of acquiring the infection than other individuals in the community. Defining immunity status among health care workers is therefore of interest since it helps to mitigate the exposure risk. This study was conducted between May 20th and 30th, 2020. Eighty-five hospitals across Kingdom of Saudi Arabia were divided into 2 groups: COVID-19 referral hospitals are those to which RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients were admitted or referred for management (Case-hospitals). COVID-19 nonaffected hospitals where no COVID-19 patients had been admitted or managed and no HCW outbreak (Control hospitals). Next, seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 among HCWs was evaluated; there were 12,621 HCWs from the 85 hospitals. There were 61 case-hospitals with 9379 (74.3%) observations, and 24 control-hospitals with 3242 (25.7%) observations. The overall positivity rate by the immunoassay was 299 (2.36%) with a significant difference between the case-hospital (2.9%) and the control-group (0.8%) (P value <0.001). There was a wide variation in the positivity rate between regions and/or cities in Saudi Arabia, ranging from 0% to 6.31%. Of the serology positive samples, 100 samples were further tested using the SAS2pp neutralization assay; 92 (92%) samples showed neutralization activity. The seropositivity rate in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is low and varies across different regions with higher positivity in case-hospitals than control-hospitals. The lack of neutralizing antibodies (NAb) in 8% of the tested samples could mean that assay is a more sensitive assay or that neutralization assay has a lower detection limits; or possibly that some samples had cross-reaction to spike protein of other coronaviruses in the assay, but these were not specific to neutralize severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

Burnout among surgeons before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: an international survey

Background: SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has had many significant impacts within the surgical realm, and surgeons have been obligated to reconsider almost every aspect of daily clinical practice. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study reported in compliance with the CHERRIES guidelines and conducted through an online platform from June 14th to July 15th, 2020. The primary outcome was the burden of burnout during the pandemic indicated by the validated Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure. Results: Nine hundred fifty-four surgeons completed the survey. The median length of practice was 10&nbsp;years; 78.2% included were male with a median age of 37&nbsp;years old, 39.5% were consultants, 68.9% were general surgeons, and 55.7% were affiliated with an academic institution. Overall, there was a significant increase in the mean burnout score during the pandemic; longer years of practice and older age were significantly associated with less burnout. There were significant reductions in the median number of outpatient visits, operated cases, on-call hours, emergency visits, and research work, so, 48.2% of respondents felt that the training resources were insufficient. The majority (81.3%) of respondents reported that their hospitals were included in the management of COVID-19, 66.5% felt their roles had been minimized; 41% were asked to assist in non-surgical medical practices, and 37.6% of respondents were included in COVID-19 management. Conclusions: There was a significant burnout among trainees. Almost all aspects of clinical and research activities were affected with a significant reduction in the volume of research, outpatient clinic visits, surgical procedures, on-call hours, and emergency cases hindering the training. Trial registration: The study was registered on clicaltrials.gov "NCT04433286" on 16/06/2020

Association of flying time with hearing loss in military pilots

Background: Military pilots are exposed to harmful noise levels, and the two possible effects of this are hearing loss and tinnitus. Objective: This study was conducted to determine the prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss among Saudi military pilots and to determine its association with total flight hours and aircraft type (i.e., fixed and rotary wing). Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted at the Armed Forces Aeromedical Centre, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, between November 2015 and October 2016. A total of 150 Saudi military pilots were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. Pure-tone audiometry was used to measure hearing thresholds. Hearing threshold levels were compared between age groups and aircraft category. The association between total flying hours and the development of noise-induced hearing loss was analyzed. Results: The overall prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss in the military pilots was 18.4%, with a higher prevalence among fixed-wing pilots (42%) as compared with rotary-wing pilots (23%). Pilots with ≥2000 flying hours had a significantly higher hearing threshold compared with those in other categories. Age was a statistically significant risk factor. Conclusions: This study found that active pilots of both fixed- and rotary-wing aircrafts are at a high risk of noise-induced hearing loss; however, fixed-wing pilots with ≥2000 flying hours are at a higher risk. These findings support recommendations requiring instructions on the proper use of hearing protection devices to avoid noise-induced hearing loss

Determinants of functional status among survivors of severe sepsis and septic shock: One-year follow-up

RATIONALE: Sepsis is a leading cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions worldwide and a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Limited data exist regarding the outcomes and functional status among survivors of severe sepsis and septic shock. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the functional status among survivors of severe sepsis and septic shock a year after hospital discharge. METHODS: Adult patients admitted between April 2007 and March 2010 to the medical-surgical ICU of a tertiary hospital in Saudi Arabia, were included in this study. The ICU database was investigated for patients with a diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock. Survival status was determined based on hospital discharge. Patients who required re-admission, stayed in ICU for less than 24 hours, had incomplete data were all excluded. Survivors were interviewed through phone calls to determine their functional status one-year post-hospital discharge using Karnofsky performance status scale. RESULTS: A total of 209 patients met the eligibility criteria. We found that 38 (18.1%) patients had severe disability before admission, whereas 109 (52.2%) patients were with severe disability or died one-year post-hospital discharge. Only one-third of the survivors had good functional status one-year post-discharge (no/mild disability). After adjustment of baseline variables, age [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.01-1.04] and pre-sepsis functional status of severe disability (aOR = 50.9, 95% CI = 6.82-379.3) were found to be independent predictors of functional status of severe disability one-year post-hospital discharge among survivors. CONCLUSIONS: We found that only one-third of the survivors of severe sepsis and septic shock had good functional status one-year post-discharge (no/mild disability). Age and pre-sepsis severe disability were the factors that highly predicted the level of functional status one-year post-hospital discharge

Prospective observational cohort study on grading the severity of postoperative complications in global surgery research

Background The Clavien–Dindo classification is perhaps the most widely used approach for reporting postoperative complications in clinical trials. This system classifies complication severity by the treatment provided. However, it is unclear whether the Clavien–Dindo system can be used internationally in studies across differing healthcare systems in high- (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods This was a secondary analysis of the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), a prospective observational cohort study of elective surgery in adults. Data collection occurred over a 7-day period. Severity of complications was graded using Clavien–Dindo and the simpler ISOS grading (mild, moderate or severe, based on guided investigator judgement). Severity grading was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data are presented as frequencies and ICC values (with 95 per cent c.i.). The analysis was stratified by income status of the country, comparing HICs with LMICs. Results A total of 44 814 patients were recruited from 474 hospitals in 27 countries (19 HICs and 8 LMICs). Some 7508 patients (16·8 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication, equivalent to 11 664 complications in total. Using the ISOS classification, 5504 of 11 664 complications (47·2 per cent) were graded as mild, 4244 (36·4 per cent) as moderate and 1916 (16·4 per cent) as severe. Using Clavien–Dindo, 6781 of 11 664 complications (58·1 per cent) were graded as I or II, 1740 (14·9 per cent) as III, 2408 (20·6 per cent) as IV and 735 (6·3 per cent) as V. Agreement between classification systems was poor overall (ICC 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·20 to 0·55), and in LMICs (ICC 0·23, 0·05 to 0·38) and HICs (ICC 0·46, 0·25 to 0·59). Conclusion Caution is recommended when using a treatment approach to grade complications in global surgery studies, as this may introduce bias unintentionally

The surgical safety checklist and patient outcomes after surgery: a prospective observational cohort study, systematic review and meta-analysis

© 2017 British Journal of Anaesthesia Background: The surgical safety checklist is widely used to improve the quality of perioperative care. However, clinicians continue to debate the clinical effectiveness of this tool. Methods: Prospective analysis of data from the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), an international observational study of elective in-patient surgery, accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature. The exposure was surgical safety checklist use. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcome was postoperative complications. In the ISOS cohort, a multivariable multi-level generalized linear model was used to test associations. To further contextualise these findings, we included the results from the ISOS cohort in a meta-analysis. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: We included 44 814 patients from 497 hospitals in 27 countries in the ISOS analysis. There were 40 245 (89.8%) patients exposed to the checklist, whilst 7508 (16.8%) sustained ≥1 postoperative complications and 207 (0.5%) died before hospital discharge. Checklist exposure was associated with reduced mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.49 (0.32–0.77); P\u3c0.01], but no difference in complication rates [OR 1.02 (0.88–1.19); P=0.75]. In a systematic review, we screened 3732 records and identified 11 eligible studies of 453 292 patients including the ISOS cohort. Checklist exposure was associated with both reduced postoperative mortality [OR 0.75 (0.62–0.92); P\u3c0.01; I2=87%] and reduced complication rates [OR 0.73 (0.61–0.88); P\u3c0.01; I2=89%). Conclusions: Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine

Critical care admission following elective surgery was not associated with survival benefit: prospective analysis of data from 27 countries

This was an investigator initiated study funded by Nestle Health Sciences through an unrestricted research grant, and by a National Institute for Health Research (UK) Professorship held by RP. The study was sponsored by Queen Mary University of London