Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objective We aimed to examine the efficacy of medical masks and respirators in protecting against respiratory infections using pooled data from two homogenous randomised control clinical trials (RCTs). Methods The data collected on 3591 subjects in two similar RCTs conducted in Beijing, China, which examined the same infection outcomes, were pooled. Four interventions were compared: (i) continuous N95 respirator use, (ii) targeted N95 respirator use, (iii) medical mask use and (iv) control arm. The outcomes were laboratory‐confirmed viral respiratory infection, influenza A or B, laboratory‐confirmed bacterial colonisation and pathogens grouped by mode of transmission. Results Rates of all outcomes were consistently lower in the continuous N95 and/or targeted N95 arms. In adjusted analysis, rates of laboratory‐confirmed bacterial colonisation (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21‐0.51), laboratory‐confirmed viral infections (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23‐0.91) and droplet‐transmitted infections (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.16‐0.42) were significantly lower in the continuous N95 arm. Laboratory‐confirmed influenza was also lowest in the continuous N95 arm (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.10‐1.11), but the difference was not statistically significant. Rates of laboratory‐confirmed bacterial colonisation (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33‐0.87) and droplet‐transmitted infections (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25‐0.72) were also lower in the targeted N95 arm, but not in medical mask arm. Conclusion The results suggest that the classification of infections into droplet versus airborne transmission is an oversimplification. Most guidelines recommend masks for infections spread by droplets. N95 respirators, as “airborne precautions,” provide superior protection for droplet‐transmitted infections. To ensure the occupational health and safety of healthcare worker, the superiority of respirators in preventing respiratory infections should be reflected in infection control guidelines.

Objective The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks. Setting 14 secondary-level/tertiary-level hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam. Participants 1607 hospital HCWs aged ≥18 years working full-time in selected high-risk wards. Intervention Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks. Main outcome measure Clinical respiratory illness (CRI), influenza-like illness (ILI) and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection. Results The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. Conclusions This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated. Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12610000887077.

We compared three policy options for the use of medical masks and N95 respirators in healthcare workers (HCWs). A cluster randomized clinical trial of 1,669 hospital-based HCWs in Beijing, China in the winter of 2009-2010. Participants were randomized to medical masks, N95 respirators, or targeted use of N95 respirators while doing high-risk procedures or barrier nursing. Outcomes included clinical respiratory illness (CRI) and laboratory-confirmed respiratory pathogens in symptomatic subjects. The rate of CRI was highest in the medical mask arm (98 of 572; 17%), followed by the targeted N95 arm (61 of 516; 11.8%), and the N95 arm (42 of 581; 7.2%) (P < 0.05). Bacterial respiratory tract colonization in subjects with CRI was highest in the medical mask arm (14.7%; 84 of 572), followed by the targeted N95 arm (10.1%; 52 of 516), and lowest in the N95 arm (6.2%; 36 of 581) (P = 0.02). After adjusting for confounders, only continuous use of N95 remained significant against CRI and bacterial colonization, and for just CRI compared with targeted N95 use. Targeted N95 use was not superior to medical masks. Continuous use of N95 respirators was more efficacious against CRI than intermittent use of N95 or medical masks. Most policies for HCWs recommend use of medical masks alone or targeted N95 respirator use. Continuous use of N95s resulted in significantly lower rates of bacterial colonization, a novel finding that points to more research on the clinical significance of bacterial infection in symptomatic HCWs. This study provides further data to inform occupational policy options for HCWs. Clinical trial registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry http://www.anzctr.org.au (ACTRN 12609000778280).

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association of airborne colony-forming units (CFU) at incision sites during implantation of prostheses with the incidence of either incisional or prosthesis-related surgical site infections. DESIGN Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING Primary, public institution. PATIENTS Three hundred patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, instrumented spinal procedures, or vascular bypass graft implantation. METHODS Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention group or the control group. A novel device (Air Barrier System), previously shown to reduce airborne CFU at incision sites, was utilized in the intervention group. Procedures assigned to the control group were performed without the device, under routine operating room atmospheric conditions. Patients were followed up for 12 months to determine whether airborne CFU levels at the incision sites predicted the incidence of incisional or prosthesis-related infection. RESULTS Data were available for 294 patients, 148 in the intervention group and 146 in the control group. CFU density at the incision site was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (P<.001). The density of airborne CFU at the incision site during the procedures was significantly related to the incidence of implant infection (P=.021). Airborne CFU densities were 4 times greater in procedures with implant infection versus no implant infection. All 4 of the observed prosthesis infections occurred in the control group. CONCLUSION Reduction of airborne CFU specifically at the incision site during operations may be an effective strategy to reduce prosthesis-related infections. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01610271 Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;1-8.

BackgroundIn a previous randomised controlled trial (RCT) in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs), cloth masks resulted in a higher risk of respiratory infections compared with medical masks. This was the only published RCT of cloth masks at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic.ObjectiveTo do a post hoc analysis of unpublished data on mask washing and mask contamination from the original RCT to further understand poor performance of the two-layered cotton cloth mask used by HCWs in that RCT.Setting14 secondary-level/tertiary-level hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam.ParticipantsA subgroup of 607 HCWs aged ≥18 years working full time in selected high-risk wards, who used a two-layered cloth mask and were part of a randomised controlled clinical trial comparing medical masks and cloth masks.InterventionWashing method for cloth masks (self-washing or hospital laundry). A substudy of contamination of a sample of 15 cloth and medical masks was also conducted.Outcome measureInfection rate over 4 weeks of follow up and viral contamination of masks tested by multiplex PCR.ResultsViral contamination with rhinovirus was identified on both used medical and cloth masks. Most HCW (77% of daily washing) self-washed their masks by hand. The risk of infection was more than double among HCW self-washing their masks compared with the hospital laundry (HR 2.04 (95% CI 1.03 to 4.00); p=0.04). There was no significant difference in infection between HCW who wore cloth masks washed in the hospital laundry compared with medical masks (p=0.5).ConclusionsUsing self-reported method of washing, we showed double the risk of infection with seasonal respiratory viruses if masks were self-washed by hand by HCWs. The majority of HCWs in the study reported hand-washing their mask themselves. This could explain the poor performance of two layered cloth masks, if the self-washing was inadequate. Cloth masks washed in the hospital laundry were as protective as medical masks. Both cloth and medical masks were contaminated, but only cloth masks were reused in the study, reiterating the importance of daily washing of reusable cloth masks using proper method. A well-washed cloth mask can be as protective as a medical mask.Trial resgistration numberACTRN12610000887077.

Drug-resistant tuberculosis transmission in hospitals threatens staff and patient health. Surgical face masks used by patients with tuberculosis (TB) are believed to reduce transmission but have not been rigorously tested. We sought to quantify the efficacy of surgical face masks when worn by patients with multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB). Over 3 months, 17 patients with pulmonary MDR-TB occupied an MDR-TB ward in South Africa and wore face masks on alternate days. Ward air was exhausted to two identical chambers, each housing 90 pathogen-free guinea pigs that breathed ward air either when patients wore surgical face masks (intervention group) or when patients did not wear masks (control group). Efficacy was based on differences in guinea pig infections in each chamber. Sixty-nine of 90 control guinea pigs (76.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 68-85%) became infected, compared with 36 of 90 intervention guinea pigs (40%; 95% CI, 31-51%), representing a 56% (95% CI, 33-70.5%) decreased risk of TB transmission when patients used masks. Surgical face masks on patients with MDR-TB significantly reduced transmission and offer an adjunct measure for reducing TB transmission from infectious patients.

RationaleMedical masks are commonly used by sick individuals with influenza-like illness (ILI) to prevent spread of infections to others, but clinical efficacy data are absent.ObjectiveDetermine whether medical mask use by sick individuals with ILI protects well contacts from related respiratory infections.Setting6 major hospitals in 2 districts of Beijing, China.DesignCluster randomised controlled trial.Participants245 index cases with ILI.InterventionIndex cases with ILI were randomly allocated to medical mask (n=123) and control arms (n=122). Since 43 index cases in the control arm also used a mask during the study period, an as-treated post hoc analysis was performed by comparing outcomes among household members of index cases who used a mask (mask group) with household members of index cases who did not use a mask (no-mask group).Main outcome measurePrimary outcomes measured in household members were clinical respiratory illness, ILI and laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infection.ResultsIn an intention-to-treat analysis, rates of clinical respiratory illness (relative risk (RR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.13), ILI (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.13) and laboratory-confirmed viral infections (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.54) were consistently lower in the mask arm compared with control, although not statistically significant. A post hoc comparison between the mask versus no-mask groups showed a protective effect against clinical respiratory illness, but not against ILI and laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections.ConclusionsThe study indicates a potential benefit of medical masks for source control, but is limited by small sample size and low secondary attack rates. Larger trials are needed to confirm efficacy of medical masks as source control.Trial registration numberACTRN12613000852752; Results.

To avoid hospital spread of Coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) and to analyze out of hospital outcomes after amputation. Prospective analysis of data obtained from 60 diabetic patients in 2020 was performed at Cantonal Hospital Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Personal protection equipment included double surgical mask, glasses, disposable surgical coats, and surgical masks for patients. Swabs were used to take samples from wounds. We randomly divided patients in 2 groups of 30 patients each. In pre-operative treatment, we used local anesthesia lidocaine hydrochloride 2% (Belupo, Koprivnica, Croatia) in group A and systemic analgesia intravenous tramadol chloride 100 mg intravenous (Krka, Novo Mesto, Slovenia) in group B. Wounds were surgically treated each day and heal spontaneously. Periodical control exams were performed. Wound healing did not present any statistically significant differences between groups (group A: 69±21.97 and B: 61±22.13 days, t=-1.22; =0.11). No statistically significant differences ( <0.05) between groups A and B in wound healing regarding to gender or cigarette use was noted. No significant differences in amputation treatment between the 2 comparative groups were noted. No confirmed COVID-19 infections in medical staff who performed surgical interventions or in treated patients were detected.

AbstractObjectiveTo examine the protective effects of appropriate personal protective equipment for frontline healthcare professionals who provided care for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignCross sectional study.SettingFour hospitals in Wuhan, China.Participants420 healthcare professionals (116 doctors and 304 nurses) who were deployed to Wuhan by two affiliated hospitals of Sun Yat-sen University and Nanfang Hospital of Southern Medical University for 6-8 weeks from 24 January to 7 April 2020. These study participants were provided with appropriate personal protective equipment to deliver healthcare to patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 and were involved in aerosol generating procedures. 77 healthcare professionals with no exposure history to covid-19 and 80 patients who had recovered from covid-19 were recruited to verify the accuracy of antibody testing.Main outcome measuresCovid-19 related symptoms (fever, cough, and dyspnoea) and evidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, defined as a positive test for virus specific nucleic acids in nasopharyngeal swabs, or a positive test for IgM or IgG antibodies in the serum samples.ResultsThe average age of study participants was 35.8 years and 68.1% (286/420) were women. These study participants worked 4-6 hour shifts for an average of 5.4 days a week; they worked an average of 16.2 hours each week in intensive care units. All 420 study participants had direct contact with patients with covid-19 and performed at least one aerosol generating procedure. During the deployment period in Wuhan, none of the study participants reported covid-19 related symptoms. When the participants returned home, they all tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 specific nucleic acids and IgM or IgG antibodies (95% confidence interval 0.0 to 0.7%).ConclusionBefore a safe and effective vaccine becomes available, healthcare professionals remain susceptible to covid-19. Despite being at high risk of exposure, study participants were appropriately protected and did not contract infection or develop protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2. Healthcare systems must give priority to the procurement and distribution of personal protective equipment, and provide adequate training to healthcare professionals in its use.

The aim of this review is to describe variation in standards and guidelines on ‘heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC)’ system maintenance in the intensive care units, across the world, which is required to maintain good ‘indoor air quality’ as an important non-pharmacological strategy in preventing hospital-acquired infections. An online search and review of standards and guidelines published by various societies including American Institute of Architects (AIA), American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health Estates and Facilities Division, Health Technical Memorandum 2025 (HTM) and Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) along with various national expert committee consensus statements, regional and hospital-based protocols available in a public domain were retrieved. Selected publications and textbooks describing HVAC structural aspects were also reviewed, and we described the basic structural details of HVAC system as well as variations in the practised standards of HVAC system in the ICU, worldwide. In summary, there is a need of universal standards for HVAC system with a specific mention on the type of ICU, which should be incorporated into existing infection control practice guidelines.