40
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      COVID‐19 pandemic: Effects and evidence‐based recommendations for otolaryngology and head and neck surgery practice

      research-article
      , MD, PhD 1 , 2 , , , MD, PhD 3 , , MD, PhD, FACS 4 , , MBChB, MD, FRCR, FHKCR, FHKAM 5 , , MD, PhD 6 , , MD, FRCSEd ad hominem, FRCS (Eng, Ir) ad eundem, FRCSGlasg, FACS 7 , , MD, PhD 8 , , MD, PhD 9 , 10 , 11 , , MD, PhD, MPH 12 , , MD 13 , , MS, FRCS (ORL‐HNS) 14 , , MD, PhD 15 , , MD, PhD 16 , 17 , , MD, MBChB, FRCS (ORL‐HNS), PhD 18 , , MD 19 , , MD, FRCSI 20 , , MD, PhD 21 , , MD 22 , , MD 23 , , MS, DNB, FRCS (Hon) 24 , , MBBS, MD, FRCR, FHKCR, FHKAM 25 , , MD, DLO, DPath, FRCSEd ad hominem, FRCS (Eng, Glasg, Ir) ad eundem, FDSRCS ad eundem, FACS, FHKCORL, FRCPath, FASCP, IFCAP 26
      Head & Neck
      John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
      contamination, COVID‐19, head neck, otolaryngology, risk of contamination, surgery

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          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

          The 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) is a highly contagious zoonosis produced by SARS‐CoV‐2 that is spread human‐to‐human by respiratory secretions. It was declared by the WHO as a public health emergency. The most susceptible populations, needing mechanical ventilation, are the elderly and people with associated comorbidities. There is an important risk of contagion for anesthetists, dentists, head and neck surgeons, maxillofacial surgeons, ophthalmologists, and otolaryngologists. Health workers represent between 3.8% and 20% of the infected population; some 15% will develop severe complaints and among them, many will lose their lives. A large number of patients do not have overt signs and symptoms (fever/respiratory), yet pose a real risk to surgeons (who should know this fact and must therefore apply respiratory protective strategies for all patients they encounter). All interventions that have the potential to aerosolize aerodigestive secretions should be avoided or used only when mandatory. Health workers who are: pregnant, over 55 to 65 years of age, with a history of chronic diseases (uncontrolled hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, and all clinical scenarios where immunosuppression is feasible, including that induced to treat chronic inflammatory conditions and organ transplants) should avoid the clinical attention of a potentially infected patient. Health care facilities should prioritize urgent and emergency visits and procedures until the present condition stabilizes; truly elective care should cease and discussed on a case‐by‐case basis for patients with cancer. For those who are working with COVID‐19 infected patients' isolation is compulsory in the following settings: (a) unprotected close contact with COVID‐19 pneumonia patients; (b) onset of fever, cough, shortness of breath, and other symptoms (gastrointestinal complaints, anosmia, and dysgeusia have been reported in a minority of cases). For any care or intervention in the upper aerodigestive tract region, irrespective of the setting and a confirmed diagnosis (eg, rhinoscopy or flexible laryngoscopy in the outpatient setting and tracheostomy or rigid endoscopy under anesthesia), it is strongly recommended that all health care personnel wear personal protective equipment such as N95, gown, cap, eye protection, and gloves. The procedures described are essential in trying to maintain safety of health care workers during COVID‐19 pandemic. In particular, otolaryngologists, head and neck, and maxillofacial surgeons are per se exposed to the greatest risk of infection while caring for COVID‐19 positive subjects, and their protection should be considered a priority in the present circumstances.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • 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: found

            Characteristics of and Important Lessons From the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak in China: Summary of a Report of 72 314 Cases From the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention

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

              Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1

              To the Editor: A novel human coronavirus that is now named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (formerly called HCoV-19) emerged in Wuhan, China, in late 2019 and is now causing a pandemic. 1 We analyzed the aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 and compared it with SARS-CoV-1, the most closely related human coronavirus. 2 We evaluated the stability of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 in aerosols and on various surfaces and estimated their decay rates using a Bayesian regression model (see the Methods section in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this letter at NEJM.org). SARS-CoV-2 nCoV-WA1-2020 (MN985325.1) and SARS-CoV-1 Tor2 (AY274119.3) were the strains used. Aerosols (<5 μm) containing SARS-CoV-2 (105.25 50% tissue-culture infectious dose [TCID50] per milliliter) or SARS-CoV-1 (106.75-7.00 TCID50 per milliliter) were generated with the use of a three-jet Collison nebulizer and fed into a Goldberg drum to create an aerosolized environment. The inoculum resulted in cycle-threshold values between 20 and 22, similar to those observed in samples obtained from the upper and lower respiratory tract in humans. Our data consisted of 10 experimental conditions involving two viruses (SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1) in five environmental conditions (aerosols, plastic, stainless steel, copper, and cardboard). All experimental measurements are reported as means across three replicates. SARS-CoV-2 remained viable in aerosols throughout the duration of our experiment (3 hours), with a reduction in infectious titer from 103.5 to 102.7 TCID50 per liter of air. This reduction was similar to that observed with SARS-CoV-1, from 104.3 to 103.5 TCID50 per milliliter (Figure 1A). SARS-CoV-2 was more stable on plastic and stainless steel than on copper and cardboard, and viable virus was detected up to 72 hours after application to these surfaces (Figure 1A), although the virus titer was greatly reduced (from 103.7 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter of medium after 72 hours on plastic and from 103.7 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). The stability kinetics of SARS-CoV-1 were similar (from 103.4 to 100.7 TCID50 per milliliter after 72 hours on plastic and from 103.6 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). On copper, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 4 hours and no viable SARS-CoV-1 was measured after 8 hours. On cardboard, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 24 hours and no viable SARS-CoV-1 was measured after 8 hours (Figure 1A). Both viruses had an exponential decay in virus titer across all experimental conditions, as indicated by a linear decrease in the log10TCID50 per liter of air or milliliter of medium over time (Figure 1B). The half-lives of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 were similar in aerosols, with median estimates of approximately 1.1 to 1.2 hours and 95% credible intervals of 0.64 to 2.64 for SARS-CoV-2 and 0.78 to 2.43 for SARS-CoV-1 (Figure 1C, and Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix). The half-lives of the two viruses were also similar on copper. On cardboard, the half-life of SARS-CoV-2 was longer than that of SARS-CoV-1. The longest viability of both viruses was on stainless steel and plastic; the estimated median half-life of SARS-CoV-2 was approximately 5.6 hours on stainless steel and 6.8 hours on plastic (Figure 1C). Estimated differences in the half-lives of the two viruses were small except for those on cardboard (Figure 1C). Individual replicate data were noticeably “noisier” (i.e., there was more variation in the experiment, resulting in a larger standard error) for cardboard than for other surfaces (Fig. S1 through S5), so we advise caution in interpreting this result. We found that the stability of SARS-CoV-2 was similar to that of SARS-CoV-1 under the experimental circumstances tested. This indicates that differences in the epidemiologic characteristics of these viruses probably arise from other factors, including high viral loads in the upper respiratory tract and the potential for persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 to shed and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. 3,4 Our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is plausible, since the virus can remain viable and infectious in aerosols for hours and on surfaces up to days (depending on the inoculum shed). These findings echo those with SARS-CoV-1, in which these forms of transmission were associated with nosocomial spread and super-spreading events, 5 and they provide information for pandemic mitigation efforts.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                lp_kowalski@uol.com.br
                Journal
                Head Neck
                Head Neck
                10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0347
                HED
                Head & Neck
                John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (Hoboken, USA )
                1043-3074
                1097-0347
                15 April 2020
                June 2020
                : 42
                : 6 ( doiID: 10.1002/hed.v42.6 )
                : 1259-1267
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Head and Neck Surgery Department University of Sao Paulo Medical School Sao Paulo Brazil
                [ 2 ] Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Otorhinolaryngology A C Camargo Cancer Center Sao Paulo Brazil
                [ 3 ] Department of Surgery, School of Medicine Universidad de Antioquia, Centro de Excelencia en Cirugia de Cabeza y Cuello‐CEXCA Medellin Colombia
                [ 4 ] Head and Neck Surgery Section, Department of Surgical Oncology Fox Chase Cancer Center Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA
                [ 5 ] Department of Clinical Oncology Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital Hong Kong China
                [ 6 ] Department of Head and Neck Surgical Oncology, UMC Utrecht Cancer Center University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht The Netherlands
                [ 7 ] University of Udine School of Medicine Udine Italy
                [ 8 ] Department of Otolaryngology‐Head and Neck Surgery Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen The Netherlands
                [ 9 ] Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital Helsinki Finland
                [ 10 ] Research Program in Systems Oncology, Faculty of Medicine University of Helsinki Helsinki Finland
                [ 11 ] Division of Ear, Nose and Throat Diseases, Department of Clinical Sciences, Intervention and Technology Karolinska Institute and Karolinska Hospital Stockholm Sweden
                [ 12 ] Screening Group International Agency for Research in Cancer. IARC Lyon France
                [ 13 ] Department of Otolaryngology University of Michigan Ann Arbor Michigan USA
                [ 14 ] Head and Neck Unit The Royal Marsden Hospital London UK
                [ 15 ] Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery Institut Gustave Roussy and University Paris‐Sud Villejuif Cedex France
                [ 16 ] Department of Oncology, Section Head and Neck Oncology KU Leuven Leuven Belgium
                [ 17 ] Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven Cancer Institute Leuven Belgium
                [ 18 ] Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, NHS Lothian University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK
                [ 19 ] Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Maxillofacial, and Thyroid Surgery, Fondazione IRCCS, National Cancer Institute of Milan University of Milan Milan Italy
                [ 20 ] Department of Otolaryngology Beaumont Hospital Dublin Ireland
                [ 21 ] Servicio de Otorrinolaringología Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Instituto Universitario de Oncología del Principado de Asturias, Universidad de Oviedo Oviedo Spain
                [ 22 ] Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Institute of Phoniatry/Pedaudiology Jena University Hospital Jena Germany
                [ 23 ] Department of Radiation Oncology University of Florida Gainesville Florida USA
                [ 24 ] Head Neck Services Tata Memorial Hospital Mumbai Maharashtra India
                [ 25 ] Department of Clinical Oncology The University of Hong Kong Hong Kong China
                [ 26 ] International Head and Neck Scientific Group Udine Italy
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Luiz P. Kowalski, University of Sao Paulo Medical School, Rua Eneas de Carvalho Aguiar 255, Room 8174, 05402‐000 São Paulo, Brazil.

                Email: lp_kowalski@ 123456uol.com.br

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0481-156X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5563-8840
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6696-3000
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7128-5814
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4784-0499
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2768-4532
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1341-829X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8919-8783
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2391-9357
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3063-0890
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9671-0784
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6592-2810
                Article
                HED26164
                10.1002/hed.26164
                7262203
                32270581
                88b46b93-cfa6-4008-a414-10fbda02c870
                © 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

                This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.

                History
                : 26 March 2020
                : 31 March 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Pages: 9, Words: 6221
                Categories
                Special Issue
                Otolaryngology‐head and Neck Surgery
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                June 2020
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.8.3 mode:remove_FC converted:01.06.2020

                Otolaryngology
                contamination,covid‐19,head neck,otolaryngology,risk of contamination,surgery
                Otolaryngology
                contamination, covid‐19, head neck, otolaryngology, risk of contamination, surgery

                Comments

                Comment on this article