27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
4 collections
    0
    shares

      Call for Papers: Green Renal Replacement Therapy: Caring for the Environment

      Submit here before July 31, 2024

      About Blood Purification: 3.0 Impact Factor I 5.6 CiteScore I 0.83 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Convalescent COVID-19 Patients on Hemodialysis: When Should We End Isolation?

      letter
      * ,
      Nephron
      S. Karger AG

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Dear Editor, All hemodialysis facilities are putting extensive efforts to protect their patients from the COVID-19 pandemic. Screening for the symptoms is the first step of all. When there is fever, cough, or shortness of breath, the patient becomes a suspected case to be tested for COVID-19. Suspected and confirmed COVID-19 patients should ideally be dialysed in a separate isolation room [1]. When an isolation room cannot be established, these patients may be placed in the last shift or sent to a COVID-19 designated dialysis facility. The staff should follow institutional guidance to use appropriate personal protective equipment. All of the suggested algorithms necessitate isolation of patients when they are either suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases [2]. Many institutions have established isolation rooms for dialysis, and experiences in this context are growing. As understanding of the disease evolves, we have more patients for whom a discharge is planned, and none of the guides has mentioned about the ideal timing to end the isolation for hemodialysis patients yet. The following are the generally accepted criteria to discharge patients from COVID wards: being afebrile for at least three consecutive days having two negative respiratory SARS-CoV2 PCR tests done 24 hours apart having improved respiratory symptoms with absorbed inflammation in imaging studies. Discharging a patient from a COVID ward may be relatively easy when compared to a nephrologist's dilemma to decide the best for both this particular patient and other hemodialysis patients. Should this patient be accepted to a standard facility as the PCR tests are negative? We know that RT-PCR done for SARS-CoV2 has 70% sensitivity [3] and it can miss some cases even if it is done twice. Although not extensively studied yet, viral shedding could be detected on the 37th day for SARS-CoV2, with a median of 20 days [4]. Besides, PCR assays may turn positive for some discharged patients [5]. In summary, we suggest that nephrologists should continue hemodialysis in an isolation room even if the patient is discharged. The use of relevant personal protective equipment should also be continued during this period. The decision to end the isolation should be given with an additional PCR test which is done 1 month after the patient was confirmed to have COVID-19. We believe that such an approach will be valuable to protect other patients as viral shedding may continue even if the patient is accepted to be convalescent. Disclosure Statement The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Funding Sources The authors did not receive any funding. Author Contributions Dr. Ahmet Murt conceptualized the idea, did the literature search, and wrote the manuscript. Prof. Mehmet Riza Altiparmak supervised the work and revised the text.

          Related collections

          Most cited references6

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study

          Summary Background Since December, 2019, Wuhan, China, has experienced an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 have been reported but risk factors for mortality and a detailed clinical course of illness, including viral shedding, have not been well described. Methods In this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included all adult inpatients (≥18 years old) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital (Wuhan, China) who had been discharged or had died by Jan 31, 2020. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data, including serial samples for viral RNA detection, were extracted from electronic medical records and compared between survivors and non-survivors. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods to explore the risk factors associated with in-hospital death. Findings 191 patients (135 from Jinyintan Hospital and 56 from Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital) were included in this study, of whom 137 were discharged and 54 died in hospital. 91 (48%) patients had a comorbidity, with hypertension being the most common (58 [30%] patients), followed by diabetes (36 [19%] patients) and coronary heart disease (15 [8%] patients). Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital death associated with older age (odds ratio 1·10, 95% CI 1·03–1·17, per year increase; p=0·0043), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5·65, 2·61–12·23; p<0·0001), and d-dimer greater than 1 μg/mL (18·42, 2·64–128·55; p=0·0033) on admission. Median duration of viral shedding was 20·0 days (IQR 17·0–24·0) in survivors, but SARS-CoV-2 was detectable until death in non-survivors. The longest observed duration of viral shedding in survivors was 37 days. Interpretation The potential risk factors of older age, high SOFA score, and d-dimer greater than 1 μg/mL could help clinicians to identify patients with poor prognosis at an early stage. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future. Funding Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences; National Science Grant for Distinguished Young Scholars; National Key Research and Development Program of China; The Beijing Science and Technology Project; and Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Sensitivity of Chest CT for COVID-19: Comparison to RT-PCR

            Summary In a series of 51 patients with chest CT and RT-PCR assay performed within 3 days, the sensitivity of CT for COVID-19 infection was 98% compared to RT-PCR sensitivity of 71% (p<.001). Introduction In December 2019, an outbreak of unexplained pneumonia in Wuhan [1] was caused by a new coronavirus infection named COVID-19 (Corona Virus Disease 2019). Noncontrast chest CT may be considered for early diagnosis of viral disease, although viral nucleic acid detection using real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) remains the standard of reference. Chung et al. reported that chest CT may be negative for viral pneumonia of COVID-19 [2] at initial presentation (3/21 patients). Recently, Xie reported 5/167 (3%) patients who had negative RT-PCR for COVID-19 at initial presentation despite chest CT findings typical of viral pneumonia [3]. The purpose of this study was to compare the sensitivity of chest CT and viral nucleic acid assay at initial patient presentation. Materials and Methods The retrospective analysis was approved by institutional review board and patient consent was waived. Patients at Taizhou Enze Medical Center (Group) Enze Hospital were evaluated from January 19, 2020 to February 4, 2020. During this period, chest CT and RT-PCR (Shanghai ZJ Bio-Tech Co, Ltd, Shanghai, China) was performed for consecutive patients who presented with a history of 1) travel or residential history in Wuhan or local endemic areas or contact with individuals with individuals with fever or respiratory symptoms from these areas within 14 days and 2) had fever or acute respiratory symptoms of unknown cause. In the case of an initial negative RT-PCR test, repeat testing was performed at intervals of 1 day or more. Of these patients, we included all patients who had both noncontrast chest CT scan (slice thickness, 5mm) and RT-PCR testing within an interval of 3 days or less and who had an eventual confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 infection by RT-PCR testing (Figure 1). Typical and atypical chest CT findings were recorded according to CT features previously described for COVD-19 (4,5). The detection rate of COVID-19 infection based on the initial chest CT and RT-PCR was compared. Statistical analysis was performed using McNemar Chi-squared test with significance at the p <.05 level. Figure 1: Flowchart for patient inclusion. Results 51 patients (29 men and 22 women) were included with median age of 45 (interquartile range, 39- 55) years. All patients had throat swab (45 patients) or sputum samples (6 patients) followed by one or more RT-PCR assays. The average time from initial disease onset to CT was 3 +/- 3 days; the average time from initial disease onset to RT-PCR testing was 3 +/- 3 days. 36/51 patients had initial positive RT-PCR for COVID-19. 12/51 patients had COVID-19 confirmed by two RT-PCR nucleic acid tests (1 to 2 days), 2 patients by three tests (2-5 days) and 1 patient by four tests (7 days) after initial onset. 50/51 (98%) patients had evidence of abnormal CT compatible with viral pneumonia at baseline while one patient had a normal CT. Of 50 patients with abnormal CT, 36 (72%) had typical CT manifestations (e.g. peripheral, subpleural ground glass opacities, often in the lower lobes (Figure 2) and 14 (28%) had atypical CT manifestations (Figure 3) [2]. In this patient sample, difference in detection rate for initial CT (50/51 [98%, 95% CI 90-100%]) patients was greater than first RT-PCR (36/51 [71%, 95%CI 56-83%]) patients (p<.001). Figure 2a: Examples of typical chest CT findings compatible with COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with epidemiological and clinical presentation suspicious for COVID-19 infection. A, male, 74 years old with fever and cough for 5 days. Axial chest CT shows bilateral subpleural ground glass opacities (GGO). B, female, 55 years old, with fever and cough for 7 days. Axial chest CT shows extensive bilateral ground glass opacities and consolidation; C, male, 43 years old, presenting with fever and cough for 1 week. Axial chest CT shows small bilateral areas of peripheral GGO with minimal consolidation; D, female, 43 years old presenting with fever with cough for 5 days. Axial chest CT shows a right lung region of peripheral consolidation. Figure 2b: Examples of typical chest CT findings compatible with COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with epidemiological and clinical presentation suspicious for COVID-19 infection. A, male, 74 years old with fever and cough for 5 days. Axial chest CT shows bilateral subpleural ground glass opacities (GGO). B, female, 55 years old, with fever and cough for 7 days. Axial chest CT shows extensive bilateral ground glass opacities and consolidation; C, male, 43 years old, presenting with fever and cough for 1 week. Axial chest CT shows small bilateral areas of peripheral GGO with minimal consolidation; D, female, 43 years old presenting with fever with cough for 5 days. Axial chest CT shows a right lung region of peripheral consolidation. Figure 2c: Examples of typical chest CT findings compatible with COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with epidemiological and clinical presentation suspicious for COVID-19 infection. A, male, 74 years old with fever and cough for 5 days. Axial chest CT shows bilateral subpleural ground glass opacities (GGO). B, female, 55 years old, with fever and cough for 7 days. Axial chest CT shows extensive bilateral ground glass opacities and consolidation; C, male, 43 years old, presenting with fever and cough for 1 week. Axial chest CT shows small bilateral areas of peripheral GGO with minimal consolidation; D, female, 43 years old presenting with fever with cough for 5 days. Axial chest CT shows a right lung region of peripheral consolidation. Figure 2d: Examples of typical chest CT findings compatible with COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with epidemiological and clinical presentation suspicious for COVID-19 infection. A, male, 74 years old with fever and cough for 5 days. Axial chest CT shows bilateral subpleural ground glass opacities (GGO). B, female, 55 years old, with fever and cough for 7 days. Axial chest CT shows extensive bilateral ground glass opacities and consolidation; C, male, 43 years old, presenting with fever and cough for 1 week. Axial chest CT shows small bilateral areas of peripheral GGO with minimal consolidation; D, female, 43 years old presenting with fever with cough for 5 days. Axial chest CT shows a right lung region of peripheral consolidation. Figure 3a: Examples of chest CT findings less commonly reported in COVID-19 infection (atypical) in patients with epidemiological and clinical presentation suspicious for COVID-19 infection. A, male, 36 years old with cough for 3 days. Axial chest CT shows a small focal and central ground glass opacity (GGO) in the right upper lobe; B, female, 40 years old. Axial chest CT shows small peripheral linear opacities bilaterally. C, male, 38 years old. Axial chest CT shows a GGO in the central left lower lobe; D, male, 31 years old with fever for 1 day. Axial chest CT shows a linear opacity in the left lower lateral mid lung. Figure 3b: Examples of chest CT findings less commonly reported in COVID-19 infection (atypical) in patients with epidemiological and clinical presentation suspicious for COVID-19 infection. A, male, 36 years old with cough for 3 days. Axial chest CT shows a small focal and central ground glass opacity (GGO) in the right upper lobe; B, female, 40 years old. Axial chest CT shows small peripheral linear opacities bilaterally. C, male, 38 years old. Axial chest CT shows a GGO in the central left lower lobe; D, male, 31 years old with fever for 1 day. Axial chest CT shows a linear opacity in the left lower lateral mid lung. Figure 3c: Examples of chest CT findings less commonly reported in COVID-19 infection (atypical) in patients with epidemiological and clinical presentation suspicious for COVID-19 infection. A, male, 36 years old with cough for 3 days. Axial chest CT shows a small focal and central ground glass opacity (GGO) in the right upper lobe; B, female, 40 years old. Axial chest CT shows small peripheral linear opacities bilaterally. C, male, 38 years old. Axial chest CT shows a GGO in the central left lower lobe; D, male, 31 years old with fever for 1 day. Axial chest CT shows a linear opacity in the left lower lateral mid lung. Figure 3d: Examples of chest CT findings less commonly reported in COVID-19 infection (atypical) in patients with epidemiological and clinical presentation suspicious for COVID-19 infection. A, male, 36 years old with cough for 3 days. Axial chest CT shows a small focal and central ground glass opacity (GGO) in the right upper lobe; B, female, 40 years old. Axial chest CT shows small peripheral linear opacities bilaterally. C, male, 38 years old. Axial chest CT shows a GGO in the central left lower lobe; D, male, 31 years old with fever for 1 day. Axial chest CT shows a linear opacity in the left lower lateral mid lung. Discussion In our series, the sensitivity of chest CT was greater than that of RT-PCR (98% vs 71%, respectively, p<.001). The reasons for the low efficiency of viral nucleic acid detection may include: 1) immature development of nucleic acid detection technology; 2) variation in detection rate from different manufacturers; 3) low patient viral load; or 4) improper clinical sampling. The reasons for the relatively lower RT-PCR detection rate in our sample compared to a prior report are unknown (3). Our results support the use of chest CT for screening for COVD-19 for patients with clinical and epidemiologic features compatible with COVID-19 infection particularly when RT-PCR testing is negative.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Mitigating Risk of COVID-19 in Dialysis Facilities

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                NEF
                Nephron
                10.1159/issn.1660-8151
                Nephron
                S. Karger AG
                1660-8151
                2235-3186
                2020
                July 2020
                19 May 2020
                : 144
                : 7
                : 343-344
                Affiliations
                Nephrology Unit, Internal Medicine Department, Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
                Author notes
                *Dr. Ahmet Murt, Internal Medicine / Nephrology, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty, Cerrahpasa, Istanbul 34098 (Turkey), ahmet.murt@istanbul.edu.tr
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1948-2914
                Article
                508380 Nephron 2020;144:343–344
                10.1159/000508380
                32428901
                56c211ea-3bab-4d77-8035-d2d01012a522
                © 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                History
                : 10 April 2020
                : 01 May 2020
                Page count
                Pages: 2
                Categories
                Clinical Practice: Letter to the Editor

                Cardiovascular Medicine,Nephrology
                Cardiovascular Medicine, Nephrology

                Comments

                Comment on this article