Explore the vast range of titles available.

Oxygen is commonly administered after extubation. Although several devices are available, data about their clinical efficacy are scarce. To compare the effects of the Venturi mask and the nasal high-flow (NHF) therapy on PaO2/FiO2SET ratio after extubation. Secondary endpoints were to assess effects on patient discomfort, adverse events, and clinical outcomes. Randomized, controlled, open-label trial on 105 patients with a PaO2/FiO2 ratio less than or equal to 300 immediately before extubation. The Venturi mask (n = 52) or NHF (n = 53) were applied for 48 hours postextubation. PaO2/FiO2SET, patient discomfort caused by the interface and by symptoms of airways dryness (on a 10-point numerical rating scale), interface displacements, oxygen desaturations, need for ventilator support, and reintubation were assessed up to 48 hours after extubation. From the 24th hour, PaO2/FiO2SET was higher with the NHF (287 ± 74 vs. 247 ± 81 at 24 h; P = 0.03). Discomfort related both to the interface and to airways dryness was better with NHF (respectively, 2.6 ± 2.2 vs. 5.1 ± 3.3 at 24 h, P = 0.006; 2.2 ± 1.8 vs. 3.7 ± 2.4 at 24 h, P = 0.002). Fewer patients had interface displacements (32% vs. 56%; P = 0.01), oxygen desaturations (40% vs. 75%; P < 0.001), required reintubation (4% vs. 21%; P = 0.01), or any form of ventilator support (7% vs. 35%; P < 0.001) in the NHF group. Compared with the Venturi mask, NHF results in better oxygenation for the same set FiO2 after extubation. Use of NHF is associated with better comfort, fewer desaturations and interface displacements, and a lower reintubation rate. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01575353).

PurposeCOVID-19 infection has manifested as a major threat to both patients and healthcare providers around the world. Radiation oncology institutions (ROI) deliver a major component of cancer treatment, with protocols that might span over several weeks, with the result of increasing susceptibility to COVID-19 infection and presenting with a more severe clinical course when compared with the general population. The aim of this manuscript is to investigate the impact of ROI protocols and performance on daily practice in the high-risk cancer patients during this pandemic.MethodsWe addressed the incidence of positive COVID-19 cases in both patients and health care workers (HCW), in addition to the protective measures adopted in ROIs in Germany, Austria and Switzerland using a specific questionnaire.ResultsThe results of the questionnaire showed that a noteworthy number of ROIs were able to complete treatment in SARS-CoV‑2 positive cancer patients, with only a short interruption. The ROIs reported a significant decrease in patient volume that was not impacted by the circumambient disease incidence, the type of ROI or the occurrence of positive cases. Of the ROIs 16.5% also reported infected HCWs. About half of the ROIs (50.5%) adopted a screening program for patients whereas only 23.3% also screened their HCWs. The range of protective measures included the creation of working groups, instituting home office work and protection with face masks.Regarding the therapeutic options offered, curative procedures were performed with either unchanged or moderately decreased schedules, whereas palliative or benign radiotherapy procedures were more often shortened. Most ROIs postponed or cancelled radiation treatment for benign indications (88.1%). The occurrence of SARS-CoV‑2 infections did not affect the treatment options for curative procedures. Non-university-based ROIs seemed to be more willing to change their treatment options for curative and palliative cases than university-based ROIs.ConclusionMost ROIs reported a deep impact of SARS-CoV‑2 infections on their work routine. Modification and prioritization of treatment regimens and the application of protective measures preserved a well-functioning radiation oncology service and patient care.

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.

Background The use of face masks remains contentious, with international variation in practice. Their prevalence in the UK, is likely to increase due to new legislation. Clear information regarding the appropriate use of masks is needed, to ensure compliance with policies to reduce transmission of COVID-19. We aimed to assess the impact of visual representations of guidance, or infographics, upon the knowledge of appropriate face mask usage in a representative UK cohort. Methods Adult patients were recruited to this randomised internet-based questionnaire study during the 12–14 May 2020 from across the UK. Respondents viewed one of five public health stimuli regarding the use of face masks, or no stimulus. The groups accessed aids by the European Centre for Disease Control (EUCDC), World Health Organisation (WHO), Singaporean Ministry of Health (SMOH), text from the UK government (UK Gov), or an infographic designed by the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT). The primary outcome was to evaluate the effect of each infographic upon participants’ recall of face mask technique, sentiments and willingness to wear a face covering. Secondary outcomes included the effect of symptomology and socio-demographic factors. Results 4099 respondents were randomised (1009 control, 628 EUCDC, 526 WHO, 639 SMOH, 661 UKGOV and 606 BIT). Stimuli from the WHO, SMOH and BIT demonstrated significantly higher average recall scores compared to the controls (7.40 v. 7.38 v. 7.34 v. 6.97, P  < 0.001). BIT’s stimulus led to the highest confidence about mask-wearing (87%). Only 48.2% of the cohort felt stimuli reduced anxiety about COVID-19. However, willingness to use a mask was high, (range 84 to 88%). Conclusions To ensure the appropriate use of masks, as mandated by UK law, guidance must provide sufficient information, yet remain understandable. Infographics can aid the recall of correct mask techniques by highlighting salient steps and reducing cognitive burden. They have also demonstrated greater trustworthiness than text-only guidance. The effect of infographics upon COVID-19-related anxiety was poor, and they should be further developed to address this sentiment. A willingness to wear face masks has, however, been demonstrated.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of surfactant delivery via endotracheal tube (ETT) using an intubation-surfactant-rapid extubation approach with premedication) vs laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in preventing the need for mechanical ventilation in preterm neonates with moderate respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Study Design: Moderately preterm infants diagnosed with RDS, receiving nasal continuous positive airway pressure with FiO 2 0.30 to 0.60, were randomized to two groups at age 3 to 48 h. Those in the ETT group were intubated following premedication with atropine and morphine, whereas the LMA group received only atropine. Both groups received calfactant before a planned reinstitution of nasal continuous positive airway pressure, and had equivalent pre-specified criteria for subsequent mechanical ventilation and surfactant retreatment. The primary outcome was failure of surfactant treatment strategy to avoid mechanical ventilation; we differentiated early from late failures to assess the contribution of potential mechanisms such as respiratory depression versus less-effective surfactant delivery. Secondary outcomes addressed efficacy and safety end points. Result: Sixty-one patients were randomized, one excluded and 30 analyzed in each group, with similar baseline characteristics. Failure rate was 77% in the ETT group and 30% in the LMA group ( P <0.001). The difference was related to early failure, as late failure rates did not differ between groups. FiO 2 decrease after surfactant and rates of adverse events were similar between groups. Conclusion: Surfactant therapy through an LMA decreases the proportion of newborns with moderate RDS who require mechanical ventilation, when compared with a standard endotracheal intubation procedure with sedation. The efficacy of surfactant in decreasing RDS severity appears similar with both methods. Morphine premedication likely contributed to early post-surfactant failures.

Background and Objectives: Percutaneous liver radiofrequency ablation (RFA) under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) carries a risk of hypoxia due to respiratory depression. Ensuring adequate oxygenation during such procedures is essential for patient safety. This study aimed to evaluate whether a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) improves oxygenation compared to a simple facemask during RFA. Materials and Methods: In this prospective, randomized controlled trial, 51 patients undergoing ultrasound-guided RFA under MAC were allocated to receive oxygen via an HFNC (30 L/min) or a facemask (6 L/min). Arterial blood gases were collected at the baseline and 5 min after oxygenation. The primary outcome was the arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2). Secondary outcomes included hypoxia incidence (SpO2 < 95%), the difference in the ratio of the arterial partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen concentration (ΔP/F ratio), the difference in the arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (ΔPaCO2), respiratory rate (RR) changes, and patient satisfaction. Results: After adjustment for the baseline PaO2, the HFNC group showed significantly higher intra-procedural PaO2 compared to the facemask group (299 ± 18.6 vs. 194 ± 19.0 mmHg, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in the ΔP/F ratio, ΔPaCO2, or patient satisfaction. Among the secondary outcomes, RR was more stable in the HFNC group throughout the procedure (Group × Time interaction, p = 0.003). Conclusions: The HFNC significantly improved intra-procedural PaO2 during RFA under MAC but did not reduce hypoxia incidence or improve other clinical outcomes compared to facemask oxygenation. The stability of RR observed with the HFNC may reflect a physiological advantage, though further studies are needed to determine its clinical relevance.

This randomized crossover trial examines the effects of wearing a cloth mask or N95 respirator vs no mask at peak exercise among healthy, active adults.

While laryngeal mask is widely used for laparoscopic interventions in some countries, concerns exist regarding pulmonary aspiration and inadequate ventilation. We compared the LM-Supreme™ (LM-S) with the endotracheal tube (ETT) for laparoscopic gynecological interventions in terms of ventilation parameters and gastric distention. This prospective randomized and double-blind study. The patients were divided into two groups: ETT (n = 50) and LM-S group (n = 50). All patients in the LM-S and ETT groups recieved total intravenous general anaesthesia and standard ventilation protocols. Ventilation parameters (airway peak pressure, mean airway pressure, end-tidal carbon dioxide, total volume, oropharyngeal leak pressure) and perioperative laryngopharyngeal morbidity were recorded before peritoneal insufflation, during and after the peroperative period. The mean airway pressure values in the ETT group 2 min after airway device insertion were significantly higher. The gastric distension after the laparoscope entered the abdomen in the LM-S group was found to be significantly lower. In the first hour postoperative sore throat, disphonia and dysphagia were statistically significantly higher in the ETT group. In our study we concluded that LM-S provides reliable endotracheal intubation in ASA I & II patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery under positive pressure ventilation.ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02127632.

There are sparse data on whether non-pharmaceutical interventions can reduce the spread of influenza. We implemented a study of the feasibility and efficacy of face masks and hand hygiene to reduce influenza transmission among Hong Kong household members. We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial of households (composed of at least 3 members) where an index subject presented with influenza-like-illness of <48 hours duration. After influenza was confirmed in an index case by the QuickVue Influenza A+B rapid test, the household of the index subject was randomized to 1) control or 2) surgical face masks or 3) hand hygiene. Households were visited within 36 hours, and 3, 6 and 9 days later. Nose and throat swabs were collected from index subjects and all household contacts at each home visit and tested by viral culture. The primary outcome measure was laboratory culture confirmed influenza in a household contact; the secondary outcome was clinically diagnosed influenza (by self-reported symptoms). We randomized 198 households and completed follow up home visits in 128; the index cases in 122 of those households had laboratory-confirmed influenza. There were 21 household contacts with laboratory confirmed influenza corresponding to a secondary attack ratio of 6%. Clinical secondary attack ratios varied from 5% to 18% depending on case definitions. The laboratory-based or clinical secondary attack ratios did not significantly differ across the intervention arms. Adherence to interventions was variable. The secondary attack ratios were lower than anticipated, and lower than reported in other countries, perhaps due to differing patterns of susceptibility, lack of significant antigenic drift in circulating influenza virus strains recently, and/or issues related to the symptomatic recruitment design. Lessons learnt from this pilot have informed changes for the main study in 2008. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00425893 HKClinicalTrials.com HKCTR-365.

Various mitigation measures have been implemented to fight the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, including widely adopted social distancing and mandated face covering. However, assessing the effectiveness of those intervention practices hinges on the understanding of virus transmission, which remains uncertain. Here we show that airborne transmission is highly virulent and represents the dominant route to spread the disease. By analyzing the trend and mitigation measures in Wuhan, China, Italy, and New York City, from January 23 to May 9, 2020, we illustrate that the impacts of mitigation measures are discernable from the trends of the pandemic. Our analysis reveals that the difference with and without mandated face covering represents the determinant in shaping the pandemic trends in the three epicenters. This protective measure alone significantly reduced the number of infections, that is, by over 78,000 in Italy from April 6 to May 9 and over 66,000 in New York City from April 17 to May 9. Other mitigation measures, such as social distancing implemented in the United States, are insufficient by themselves in protecting the public. We conclude that wearing of face masks in public corresponds to the most effective means to prevent interhuman transmission, and this inexpensive practice, in conjunction with simultaneous social distancing, quarantine, and contact tracing, represents the most likely fighting opportunity to stop the COVID-19 pandemic. Our work also highlights the fact that sound science is essential in decision-making for the current and future public health pandemics.