A comprehensive health effects assessment of the use of sanitizers and disinfectants during COVID-19 pandemic: a global survey.

COVID-19 has affected all aspects of human life so far. From the outset of the pandemic, preventing the spread of COVID-19 through the observance of health protocols, especially the use of sanitizers and disinfectants was given more attention. Despite the effectiveness of disinfection chemicals in controlling and preventing COVID-19, there are critical concerns about their adverse effects on human health. This study aims to assess the health effects of sanitizers and disinfectants on a global scale. A total of 91,056 participants from 154 countries participated in this cross-sectional study. Information on the use of sanitizers and disinfectants and health was collected using an electronic questionnaire, which was translated into 26 languages via web-based platforms. The findings of this study suggest that detergents, alcohol-based substances, and chlorinated compounds emerged as the most prevalent chemical agents compared to other sanitizers and disinfectants examined. Most frequently reported health issues include skin effects and respiratory effects. The Chi-square test showed a significant association between chlorinated compounds (sodium hypochlorite and per-chlorine) with all possible health effects under investigation (p-value <0.001). Examination of risk factors based on multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that alcohols and alcohols-based materials were associated with skin effects (OR, 1.98; 95%CI, 1.87-2.09), per-chlorine was associated with eye effects (OR, 1.83; 95%CI, 1.74-1.93), and highly likely with itching and throat irritation (OR, 2.00; 95%CI, 1.90-2.11). Furthermore, formaldehyde was associated with a higher prevalence of neurological effects (OR, 2.17; 95%CI, 1.92-2.44). Furthermore, formaldehyde was associated with a higher prevalence of neurological effects (OR, 2.17; 95%CI, 1.92-2.44). The use of sodium hypochlorite and per-chlorine also had a high chance of having respiratory effects. The findings of the current study suggest that health authorities need to implement more awareness programs about the side effects of using sanitizers and disinfectants during viral epidemics especially when they are used or overused.VoRSUNY DownstateEnvironmental and Occupational Health SciencesN/

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome associated with COVID-19: An Emulated Target Trial Analysis.

RATIONALE: Whether COVID patients may benefit from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) compared with conventional invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effect of ECMO on 90-Day mortality vs IMV only Methods: Among 4,244 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 included in a multicenter cohort study, we emulated a target trial comparing the treatment strategies of initiating ECMO vs. no ECMO within 7 days of IMV in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FiO2 <80 or PaCO2 ≥60 mmHg). We controlled for confounding using a multivariable Cox model based on predefined variables. MAIN RESULTS: 1,235 patients met the full eligibility criteria for the emulated trial, among whom 164 patients initiated ECMO. The ECMO strategy had a higher survival probability at Day-7 from the onset of eligibility criteria (87% vs 83%, risk difference: 4%, 95% CI 0;9%) which decreased during follow-up (survival at Day-90: 63% vs 65%, risk difference: -2%, 95% CI -10;5%). However, ECMO was associated with higher survival when performed in high-volume ECMO centers or in regions where a specific ECMO network organization was set up to handle high demand, and when initiated within the first 4 days of MV and in profoundly hypoxemic patients. CONCLUSIONS: In an emulated trial based on a nationwide COVID-19 cohort, we found differential survival over time of an ECMO compared with a no-ECMO strategy. However, ECMO was consistently associated with better outcomes when performed in high-volume centers and in regions with ECMO capacities specifically organized to handle high demand. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Stroke in critically ill patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19:Disparities between low-middle and high-income countries

Purpose: We aimed to compare the incidence of stroke in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) versus high-income countries (HICs) in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and its impact on in-hospital mortality. Methods: International observational study conducted in 43 countries. Stroke and mortality incidence rates and rate ratios (IRR) were calculated per admitted days using Poisson regression. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to address the HICs vs. LMICs imbalance for confounders. Results: 23,738 patients [20,511(86.4 %) HICs vs. 3,227(13.6 %) LMICs] were included. The incidence stroke/1000 admitted-days was 35.7 (95 %CI = 28.4–44.9) LMICs and 17.6 (95 %CI = 15.8–19.7) HICs; ischemic 9.47 (95 %CI = 6.57–13.7) LMICs, 1.97 (95 %CI = 1.53, 2.55) HICs; hemorrhagic, 7.18 (95 %CI = 4.73–10.9) LMICs, and 2.52 (95 %CI = 2.00–3.16) HICs; unspecified stroke type 11.6 (95 %CI = 7.75–17.3) LMICs, 8.99 (95 %CI = 7.70–10.5) HICs. In regression with IPW, LMICs vs. HICs had IRR = 1.78 (95 %CI = 1.31–2.42, p &lt; 0.001). Patients from LMICs were more likely to die than those from HICs [43.6% vs 29.2 %; Relative Risk (RR) = 2.59 (95 %CI = 2.29–2.93), p &lt; 0.001)]. Patients with stroke were more likely to die than those without stroke [RR = 1.43 (95 %CI = 1.19–1.72), p &lt; 0.001)]. Conclusions: Stroke incidence was low in HICs and LMICs although the stroke risk was higher in LMICs. Both LMIC status and stroke increased the risk of death. Improving early diagnosis of stroke and redistribution of healthcare resources should be a priority. Trial registration: ACTRN12620000421932 registered on 30/03/2020

A comprehensive health effects assessment of the use of sanitizers and disinfectants during COVID-19 pandemic: a global survey

COVID-19 has affected all aspects of human life so far. From the outset of the pandemic, preventing the spread of COVID-19 through the observance of health protocols, especially the use of sanitizers and disinfectants was given more attention. Despite the effectiveness of disinfection chemicals in controlling and preventing COVID-19, there are critical concerns about their adverse effects on human health. This study aims to assess the health effects of sanitizers and disinfectants on a global scale. A total of 91,056 participants from 154 countries participated in this cross-sectional study. Information on the use of sanitizers and disinfectants and health was collected using an electronic questionnaire, which was translated into 26 languages via web-based platforms. The findings of this study suggest that detergents, alcohol-based substances, and chlorinated compounds emerged as the most prevalent chemical agents compared to other sanitizers and disinfectants examined. Most frequently reported health issues include skin effects and respiratory effects. The Chi-square test showed a significant association between chlorinated compounds (sodium hypochlorite and per-chlorine) with all possible health effects under investigation (p-value <0.001). Examination of risk factors based on multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that alcohols and alcohols-based materials were associated with skin effects (OR, 1.98; 95%CI, 1.87-2.09), per-chlorine was associated with eye effects (OR, 1.83; 95%CI, 1.74-1.93), and highly likely with itching and throat irritation (OR, 2.00; 95%CI, 1.90-2.11). Furthermore, formaldehyde was associated with a higher prevalence of neurological effects (OR, 2.17; 95%CI, 1.92-2.44). Furthermore, formaldehyde was associated with a higher prevalence of neurological effects (OR, 2.17; 95%CI, 1.92-2.44). The use of sodium hypochlorite and per-chlorine also had a high chance of having respiratory effects. The findings of the current study suggest that health authorities need to implement more awareness programs about the side effects of using sanitizers and disinfectants during viral epidemics especially when they are used or overused

Care of the critically ill begins in the emergency medicine setting

International audienceAbstract Background Patients infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV 2) and requiring mechanical ventilation suffer from a high incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP), mainly related to Enterobacterales. Data regarding extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E) VAP are scarce. We aimed to investigate risk factors and outcomes of ESBL-E related VAP among critically ill coronavirus infectious disease-19 (COVID-19) patients who developed Enterobacterales related VAP. Patients and methods We performed an ancillary analysis of a multicenter prospective international cohort study (COVID-ICU) that included 4929 COVID-19 critically ill patients. For the present analysis, only patients with complete data regarding resistance status of the first episode of Enterobacterales related VAP (ESBL-E and/or carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, CRE) and outcome were included. Results We included 591 patients with Enterobacterales related VAP. The main causative species were Enterobacter sp (n = 224) , E. coli (n = 111) and K. pneumoniae (n = 104). One hundred and fifteen patients (19%), developed a first ESBL-E related VAP, mostly related to Enterobacter sp (n = 40), K. pneumoniae (n = 36), and E. coli (n = 31). Eight patients (1%) developed CRE related VAP. In a multivariable analysis, African origin (North Africa or Sub-Saharan Africa) (OR 1.7 [1.07–2.71], p = 0.02), time between intubation and VAP (OR 1.06 [1.02–1.09], p = 0.002), PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio on the day of VAP (OR 0.997 [0.994–0.999], p = 0.04) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole exposure (OR 3.77 [1.15–12.4], p = 0.03) were associated with ESBL-E related VAP. Weaning from mechanical ventilation and mortality did not significantly differ between ESBL-E and non ESBL-E VAP. Conclusion ESBL-related VAP in COVID-19 critically-ill patients was not infrequent. Several risk factors were identified, among which some are modifiable and deserve further investigation. There was no impact of resistance of the first Enterobacterales related episode of VAP on outcome

Benefits and risks of noninvasive oxygenation strategy in COVID-19: a multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID-ICU) in 137 hospitals

Abstract Rational To evaluate the respective impact of standard oxygen, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on oxygenation failure rate and mortality in COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Methods Multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID-ICU) in 137 hospitals in France, Belgium, and Switzerland. Demographic, clinical, respiratory support, oxygenation failure, and survival data were collected. Oxygenation failure was defined as either intubation or death in the ICU without intubation. Variables independently associated with oxygenation failure and Day-90 mortality were assessed using multivariate logistic regression. Results From February 25 to May 4, 2020, 4754 patients were admitted in ICU. Of these, 1491 patients were not intubated on the day of ICU admission and received standard oxygen therapy (51%), HFNC (38%), or NIV (11%) (P &lt; 0.001). Oxygenation failure occurred in 739 (50%) patients (678 intubation and 61 death). For standard oxygen, HFNC, and NIV, oxygenation failure rate was 49%, 48%, and 60% (P &lt; 0.001). By multivariate analysis, HFNC (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36–0.99, P = 0.013) but not NIV (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.78–3.21) was associated with a reduction in oxygenation failure). Overall 90-day mortality was 21%. By multivariable analysis, HFNC was not associated with a change in mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61–1.33), while NIV was associated with increased mortality (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.79–4.21, P &lt; 0.001). Conclusion In patients with COVID-19, HFNC was associated with a reduction in oxygenation failure without improvement in 90-day mortality, whereas NIV was associated with a higher mortality in these patients. Randomized controlled trials are needed. </jats:sec

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Associated with COVID-19: An Emulated Target Trial Analysis

International audienc