Coronavirus/COVID-19 resources: Other resources

Link: Gale Health and Wellness database
Password: hwrc

The IARS has convened a Scientific Advisory Board to curate the thousands of emerging peer-reviewed journal articles on COVID-19 and highlight those of greatest value to anesthesiologists, intensivists, related specialists, and investigators. The articles featured here are the result of extensive review and discussion among our panel of experts. Featured articles are openly available on their respective journal websites. Journal CME is available for selected articles.

ASM has also committed to making all of its COVID19 and coronavirus related publications, and the available data supporting them, immediately accessible in PubMed Central (PMC) and other public repositories.

EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT THE COVID-19 CORONAVIRUS

The resources on these pages are designed to help you have conversations about what matters most to your patients and their whānau. They are easily accessed, clear and consistent, and are based on sound principles, evidence and experience.

Intubatecovid.org is now online, and registration can be completed in less than one minute by clicking the “Sign Up” button on the homepage.

This dataset is intended to mobilize researchers to apply recent advances in natural language processing to generate new insights in support of the fight against this infectious disease. The corpus will be updated weekly as new research is published in peer-reviewed publications and archival services like bioRxiv, medRxiv, and others.

SSRN, Elsevier’s world-leading platform devoted to the rapid worldwide dissemination of early-stage research, is committed to making coronavirus-related research available immediately. Research on SSRN is free to download and upload. It is important to note that these papers have not benefited from the pivotal role of peer-review, which validates and improves the quality of final published journal articles.

Abstract
Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation.

Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28-2·40], p<0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65-3·22], p<0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3-5 versus grades 1-2 (2·35 [1·57-3·53], p<0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01-2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06-2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01-2·31], p=0·047).

Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery.

Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.

Abstract
Introduction: The global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused significant worldwide disruption. Although Australia and New Zealand have not been affected as much as some other countries, resuscitation may still pose a risk to health care workers and necessitates a change to our traditional approach. This consensus statement for adult cardiac arrest in the setting of COVID-19 has been produced by the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM) and aligns with national and international recommendations.

Main recommendations: In a setting of low community transmission, most cardiac arrests are not due to COVID-19. Early defibrillation saves lives and is not considered an aerosol generating procedure. Compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation is thought to be a low risk procedure and can be safely initiated with the patient's mouth and nose covered. All other resuscitative procedures are considered aerosol generating and require the use of airborne personal protective equipment (PPE). It is important to balance the appropriateness of resuscitation against the risk of infection. Methods to reduce nosocomial transmission of COVID-19 include a physical barrier such as a towel or mask over the patient's mouth and nose, appropriate use of PPE, minimising the staff involved in resuscitation, and use of mechanical chest compression devices when available. If COVID-19 significantly affects hospital resource availability, the ethics of resource allocation must be considered.

Changes in management: The changes outlined in this document require a significant adaptation for many doctors, nurses and paramedics. It is critically important that all health care workers have regular PPE and advanced life support training, are able to access in situ simulation sessions, and receive extensive debriefing after actual resuscitations. This will ensure safe, timely and effective management of the patients with cardiac arrest in the COVID-19 era.

Summary
The Covid-19 pandemic is a source of anxiety for many clinicians. We studied the factors most related to front-line providers’ anxiety, and thereby developed effective responses, by surveying the clinical members of our department to better understand the effect of providing care during the pandemic on their self-reported levels of anxiety. While the strongest predictor of anxiety during the pandemic is a clinician's general tendency to feel anxious, another strong predictor is the culture of anxiety they observed in their colleagues around them related to the pandemic. Feeling like one’s work during the pandemic is valued by one’s immediate supervisor was associated with lower anxiety. Also, feeling like one has the necessary PPE to maintain safety and that one is in a psychologically safe environment were both related to a lower culture of anxiety, and as such indirectly related to lower state anxiety. In this paper, we provide a number of suggestions for reducing the anxiety felt during this anxiety-inducing crisis, as well as promoting the emotional well-being and effectiveness of our front-line providers in addressing the Covid-19 pandemic. While the study was conducted among anesthesia providers, we believe its results are applicable to any front-line providers working in the high-stress Covid-19 environment.

An information sheet about the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) during hospital care of people with coronavirus (COVID-19).

COVID-19 symptoms can sometimes persist for months. The virus can damage the lungs, heart and brain, which increases the risk of long-term health problems.

Case definition and testing guidance for health practitioners based on expert advice from the Ministry of Health's Technical Advisory Group.

Guidance on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in health and disability care settings.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is undertaking a post-market review of face masks included in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG). This page introduces the review and provides guidance for suppliers and users of face masks. For outcomes of the review, including a list of cancelled ARTG entries and non-compliance notices, see Post-market review of face masks: Cancelled ARTG entries and Non-compliance notices .

Rapid evidence checks are based on a simplified review method and may not be entirely exhaustive, but aim to provide a balanced assessment of what is already known about a specific problem or issue.
This brief has not been peer-reviewed and should not be a substitute for individual clinical judgement, nor is it an endorsed position of NSW Health.

Healthcare associated infection is one of the most common adverse events in health care worldwide. Up to 10 percent of patients admitted to modern hospitals in the developed world acquire one or more infections.

Excerpt
The emergence of a novel human coronavirus in late 2002 alarmed populations across the globe, elicited a massive public health response, gave rise to a multinational research network, gripped the news media, wreaked political havoc in China, and struck a blow to the tourism and travel industries of several countries. By the time this coronavirus, labeled SCoV, apparently receded from human hosts in July 2003, nearly 10 percent of more than 8,000 individuals who fit the probable case definition had died of the disease now known as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) (World Health Organization [WHO], 2003a). Analyses of this epidemic could lead to improvements in the global community’s preparedness for and response to future global outbreaks of infectious disease. For these reasons, the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM’s) Forum on Microbial Threats convened the workshop Learning from SARS: Preparing for the Next Disease Outbreak on September 30 and October 1, 2003. Participants discussed the emergence, detection, spread, and containment of SARS; political responses to the epidemic; its economic consequences; basic research on coronaviruses; preparations for a possible reemergence of SCoV; and lessons learned from the SARS epidemic that could shape responses to future microbial threats.

where there is sustained transmission of COVID-19, taking into account individual risk assessment for this new and emerging pathogen, NHS and independent sector

This is the first edition of guidance on infection prevention and control (IPC) strategies for use when infection with a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) is suspected. It has been adapted from WHO’s Infection prevention and control during health care for probable or confirmed cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection,1 based on current knowledge of the situation in China and other countries where cases were identified and experiences with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV and MERS-CoV. 2

WHO will update these recommendations as new information becomes available.

This guidance is intended for healthcare workers (HCWs), healthcare managers and IPC teams at the facility level but it is also relevant for the national and district/provincial level. Full guidelines are available from WHO.2

------

1 Infection prevention and control during health care for probable or confirmed cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection: interim guidance, updated October 2019. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019 (WHO/MERS/IPC/15.1 Rev. 1; https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/174652, accessed 17 January 2020).

2 Infection prevention and control of epidemic- and pandemic-prone acute respiratory infections in health care: WHO guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014 (hhttp://apps.who.int/iris/10665/112656, accessed 17 January 2020).

Overview
This publication is an update to the World Health Organization (WHO) interim guidelines Infection prevention and control of epidemic- and pandemic-prone acute respiratory diseases in health care (2007). These updated guidelines incorporate the emergency guidance given in the WHO publication Infection prevention and control during health care for confirmed, probable, or suspected cases of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus infection and influenza-like illness (2009). The revision was informed by both evidence that has emerged since the first edition was published and the practical lessons learnt during the influenza pandemic in 2009.

The WHO guidelines Infection prevention and control of epidemic- and pandemic-prone acute respiratory infections in health care provide recommendations, best practices and principles for non-pharmacological aspects of infection prevention and control (IPC) for acute respiratory infections (ARI) in health care, with special emphasis on ARI that can present as epidemics or pandemics. The guidelines are intended to help policy-makers, administrators and health-care workers to prioritize effective IPC measures.

The document also provides guidance on the application of basic IPC precautions, such as Standard Precautions, and on the importance of maintaining appropriate IPC measures in routine circumstances to strengthen a healthcare facility’s capacity to put them into practice during outbreaks. These measures should therefore be part of the hospital’s permanent IPC strategy.

Abstract
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the pathogen responsible for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which has resulted in global healthcare crises and strained health resources. As the population of patients recovering from COVID-19 grows, it is paramount to establish an understanding of the healthcare issues surrounding them. COVID-19 is now recognized as a multi-organ disease with a broad spectrum of manifestations. Similarly to post-acute viral syndromes described in survivors of other virulent coronavirus epidemics, there are increasing reports of persistent and prolonged effects after acute COVID-19. Patient advocacy groups, many members of which identify themselves as long haulers, have helped contribute to the recognition of post-acute COVID-19, a syndrome characterized by persistent symptoms and/or delayed or long-term complications beyond 4 weeks from the onset of symptoms. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of the current literature on post-acute COVID-19, its pathophysiology and its organ-specific sequelae. Finally, we discuss relevant considerations for the multidisciplinary care of COVID-19 survivors and propose a framework for the identification of those at high risk for post-acute COVID-19 and their coordinated management through dedicated COVID-19 clinics.

Abstract
Introduction: Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection have a high mortality rate and frequently require non-invasive respiratory support or invasive ventilation. Optimising and standardising management through evidence-based guidelines may improve quality of care and therefore patient outcomes.

Methods: A task force from the European Respiratory Society and endorsed by the Chinese Thoracic Society identified priority interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for the initial version of this "living guideline" using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) format. The GRADE approach was used for assessing the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Systematic literature reviews were performed, and data pooled by meta-analysis where possible. Evidence tables were presented and evidence to decision frameworks were used to formulate recommendations.

Results: Based on the available evidence at the time of guideline development (February 20th, 2021) the panel makes a strong recommendation in favour of the use of systemic corticosteroids in patients requiring supplementary oxygen or ventilatory support, and for the use of anticoagulation in hospitalised patients. The panel makes a conditional recommendation for IL-6 receptor antagonist monoclonal antibody treatment and high flow nasal oxygen or continuous positive airway pressure in patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure. The panel make strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir. Conditional recommendations are made against the use of azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, colchicine, and remdesivir, in the latter case specifically in patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. No recommendation was made for remdesivir in patients requiring supplemental oxygen. Further recommendations for research are made.

Conclusion: The evidence base for management of COVID-19 now supports strong recommendations in favour and against specific interventions. These guidelines will be regularly updated as further evidence becomes available.

Abstract
To date, COVID-19 has spread to more than 108 million people globally, with a death toll surpassing 2 1/2 million. With the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of two highly effective COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer-BioNtech and Moderna, we now have a novel approach to contain COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality. Chronic pain care has faced unprecedented challenges for patients and providers in this ever-changing climate. With the approval of COVID-19 vaccines, we now face questions relating to the potential effects of pain treatments utilizing steroids on vaccine efficacy. In this analysis, we address these issues and provide guidance for steroid therapies based on available data and expert recommendations.

Abstract
Importance: High-flow nasal oxygen is recommended as initial treatment for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and is widely applied in patients with COVID-19.

Objective: To assess whether helmet noninvasive ventilation can increase the days free of respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone.

Design, setting, and participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial in 4 intensive care units (ICUs) in Italy between October and December 2020, end of follow-up February 11, 2021, including 109 patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ≤200).

Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive continuous treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation (positive end-expiratory pressure, 10-12 cm H2O; pressure support, 10-12 cm H2O) for at least 48 hours eventually followed by high-flow nasal oxygen (n = 54) or high-flow oxygen alone (60 L/min) (n = 55).

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days after enrollment. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who required endotracheal intubation within 28 days from study enrollment, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 28, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 60, in-ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, 60-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay.

Results: Among 110 patients who were randomized, 109 (99%) completed the trial (median age, 65 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 55-70]; 21 women [19%]). The median days free of respiratory support within 28 days after randomization were 20 (IQR, 0-25) in the helmet group and 18 (IQR, 0-22) in the high-flow nasal oxygen group, a difference that was not statistically significant (mean difference, 2 days [95% CI, -2 to 6]; P = .26). Of 9 prespecified secondary outcomes reported, 7 showed no significant difference. The rate of endotracheal intubation was significantly lower in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (30% vs 51%; difference, -21% [95% CI, -38% to -3%]; P = .03). The median number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation within 28 days was significantly higher in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (28 [IQR, 13-28] vs 25 [IQR 4-28]; mean difference, 3 days [95% CI, 0-7]; P = .04). The rate of in-hospital mortality was 24% in the helmet group and 25% in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -17% to 15%]; P > .99).

Conclusions and relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemia, treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation, compared with high-flow nasal oxygen, resulted in no significant difference in the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days. Further research is warranted to determine effects on other outcomes, including the need for endotracheal intubation.

Abstract
The COVID-19 disease, caused by Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, often results in severe hypoxemia requiring airway management. Because SARS CoV-2 virus is spread via respiratory droplets, bag-mask ventilation, intubation, and extubation may place health care workers (HCW) at risk. While existing recommendations address airway management in patients with COVID-19, no guidance exists specifically for difficult airway management. Some strategies normally recommended for difficult airway management may not be ideal in the setting of COVID-19 infection. To address this issue the Society for Airway Management (SAM) created a task force to review existing literature and current Practice Guidelines for management of the difficult airway by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. SAM task force created recommendations for management of known or suspected difficult airway in the setting of known or suspected COVID-19 infection. The goal of the task force was to optimize successful airway management while minimizing exposure risk. Each member conducted a literature review on specific clinical practice section utilizing standard search engines (PubMed, Ovid, Google Scholar). Existing recommendations and evidence for difficult airway management in COVID-19 context were developed. Each specific recommendation was discussed among task force members and modified until unanimously approved by all task force members. Elements of AGREE Reporting Checklist for dissemination of clinical practice guidelines were utilized to develop this statement. Airway management in the COVID-19 patient increases HCW exposure risk. and difficult airway management often takes longer, may involve multiple procedures with aerosolization potential, strict adherence to personal protective equipment (PPE) protocols is mandatory to reduce risk to providers. When patient's airway risk assessment suggests awake tracheal intubation is an appropriate choice of technique, procedures that may cause increased aerosolization of secretions should be avoided. Optimal preoxygenation before induction with tight seal facemask may be performed to reduce risk of hypoxemia. Unless the patient is experiencing oxygen desaturation, positive pressure bag-mask ventilation after induction may be avoided to reduce aerosolization. For optimal intubating conditions, patients should be anesthetized with full muscle relaxation. Videolaryngoscopy is recommended as first-line strategy for airway management. If emergent invasive airway access is indicated, we recommend a surgical technique such as scalpel-bougie-tube, rather than an aerosolizing generating procedure, such as transtracheal jet ventilation. This statement represents recommendations by SAM task force for the difficult airway management of adults with COVID-19 with the goal to optimize successful airway management while minimizing the risk of clinician exposure.

Abstract
Objectives: This study retrospectively compares the effectiveness of methylprednisolone to dexamethasone in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19) requiring intensive care.

Design: This is an institutional review board approved cohort study in patients with COVID-19 requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Patients admitted and requiring oxygen supplementation were treated with no steroids, methylprednisolone, or dexamethasone.

Setting: This study takes place in the ICU's at a large, tertiary, public teaching hospital serving a primarily low-income community in urban Los Angeles.

Patients: All eligible patients admitted to the ICU for COVID-19 respiratory failure from March 1 to July 31, 2020 were included in this study.

Interventions: A total of 262 patients were grouped as receiving usual care (n = 75), methylprednisolone dosed at least at 1mg/kg/day for ≥ 3 days (n = 104), or dexamethasone dosed at least at 6 mg for ≥7 days (n = 83).

Measurements and main results: All-cause mortality within 50 days of initial corticosteroid treatment as compared to usual care was calculated. The mortality effect was then stratified based on levels of respiratory support received by the patient. In this cohort of 262 patients with severe COVID-19, all-cause mortalities in the usual care, methylprednisolone, and dexamethasone groups were 41.3%, 16.4% and 26.5% at 50 days (P < 0.01) respectively. In patients requiring mechanical ventilation, mortality was 42% lower in the methylprednisolone group than in the dexamethasone group (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% CI: 0.235-0.956, P = 0.0385).

Conclusions: In COVID-19 patients requiring mechanical ventilation, sufficiently dosed methylprednisolone can lead to a further decreased mortality as compared to dexamethasone.

Abstract
SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is responsible for the largest pandemic facing humanity since the Spanish flu pandemic in the early twentieth century. Since there is no specific antiviral treatment, optimized support is the most relevant factor in the patient's prognosis. In the hospital setting, the identification of high-risk patients for clinical deterioration is essential to ensure access to intensive treatment of severe conditions in a timely manner. The initial management of hypoxemia includes conventional oxygen therapy, high-flow nasal canula oxygen, and non-invasive ventilation. For patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, lung-protective ventilation with low tidal volumes and plateau pressure is recommended. Cardiovascular complications are frequent and include myocardial injury, thrombotic events, myocarditis, and cardiogenic shock. Acute renal failure is a common complication and is a marker of poor prognosis, with significant impact in costs and resources allocation. Regarding promising therapies for COVID-19, the most promising drugs until now are remdesivir and corticosteroids although further studies may be needed to confirm their effectiveness. Other therapies such as, tocilizumab, anakinra, other anti-cytokine drugs, and heparin are being tested in clinical trials. Thousands of physicians are living a scenario that none of us have ever seen: demand for hospital exceed capacity in most countries. Until now, the certainty we have is that we should try to decrease the number of infected patients and that an optimized critical care support is the best strategy to improve patient's survival.

Abstract
Importance: Several jurisdictions in the United States have secured hotels to temporarily house people experiencing homelessness who require isolation or quarantine for confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To our knowledge, little is known about how these programs serve this vulnerable population outside the hospital setting.

Objective: To assess the safety of a hotel-based isolation and quarantine (I/Q) care system and its association with inpatient hospital capacity.

Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective cohort study of a hotel-based I/Q care system for homeless and unstably housed individuals in San Francisco, California, was conducted from March 19 to May 31, 2020. Individuals unable to safely isolate or quarantine at home with mild to moderate COVID-19, persons under investigation, or close contacts were referred from hospitals, outpatient settings, and public health surveillance to 5 I/Q hotels. Of 1009 I/Q hotel guests, 346 were transferred from a large county public hospital serving patients experiencing homelessness.

Exposure: A physician-supervised team of nurses and health workers provided around-the-clock support, including symptom monitoring, wellness checks, meals, harm-reduction services, and medications for opioid use disorder.

Main outcomes and measures: Characteristics of I/Q hotel guests, program retention, county hospital readmissions, and mean length of stay.

Results: Overall, the 1009 I/Q hotel guests had a median age of 44 years (interquartile range, 33-55 years), 756 (75%) were men, 454 (45%) were Latinx, and 501 (50%) were persons experiencing sheltered (n = 295) or unsheltered (n = 206) homelessness. Overall, 463 (46%) received a diagnosis of COVID-19; 303 of 907 (33%) had comorbid medical disorders, 225 of 907 (25%) had comorbid mental health disorders, and 236 of 907 (26%) had comorbid substance use disorders. A total of 776 of 955 guests (81%) completed their I/Q hotel stay; factors most strongly associated with premature discontinuation were unsheltered homelessness (adjusted odds ratio, 4.5; 95% CI, 2.3-8.6; P < .001) and quarantine status (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.6; P = .001). In total, 346 of 549 patients (63%) were transferred from the county hospital; of 113 ineligible referrals, 48 patients (42%) had behavioral health needs exceeding I/Q hotel capabilities. Thirteen of the 346 patients transferred from the county hospital (4%) were readmitted for worsening COVID-19. Overall, direct transfers to I/Q hotels from emergency and outpatient departments were associated with averting many hospital admissions. There was a nonsignificant decrease in the mean hospital length of stay for inpatients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 from 5.5 to 2.7 days from March to May 2020 (P = .11).

Conclusions and relevance: To support persons experiencing homelessness during the COVID-19 pandemic, San Francisco rapidly and safely scaled a hotel-based model of I/Q that was associated with reduced strain on inpatient capacity. Strategies to improve guest retention and address behavioral health needs not met in hotel settings are intervention priorities.

Abstract
Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU.

Methods: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility.

Results: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning.

Conclusion: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Based on a living guideline model the recommendations will be updated as new evidence becomes available.

Abstract
The current COVID-19 pandemic has had a global impact on vaccination rates. Delays in routine healthcare and immunization have led to a rise in concerns about resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases around the world. With the release and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, plans to improve immunization rates need to be explored and implemented across disciplines. One approach would be the consideration of perioperative vaccinations; however, the effects of anesthesia and surgery on the immune response and complications associated with vaccination during the perioperative period are still poorly understood, and opinions are divided. To ascertain the value of a perioperative vaccination program, it is important to understand the basics of immunization and common vaccinations; the potential vaccine complications in the pediatric cohort; the implications of anesthesia and surgery on the immune response; and current recommendations. In addition, we believe it is important to discuss the logistics and feasibility of coordinating perioperative immunization should this become a regular opportunity.

Abstract
On Mar 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), a pandemic. Because COVID-19 has a pre-symptomatic period of up to 2 weeks, SARS-CoV-2 infection has continued to spread. Some individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection have a severe clinical course, while most individuals have mild or moderate symptoms. Because SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted via droplets and secretions, anesthesiologists have higher risks of infection, especially during airway management. Therefore, general anesthesia requiring airway management can be a challenging procedure for anesthesiologists. During the pandemic, many elective surgeries have been postponed or cancelled in most affected countries. Recently, the number of elective surgeries is gradually recovering from the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, and hence, safe clinical practice and protocols to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission to medical staff should be established. This mini-review focuses on the preoperative assessment and decision with regard to scheduling surgery in elective and emergency cases during the COVID-19 pandemic. A standardized questionnaire and algorithm regarding COVID-19 should be used to assess surgical patients preoperatively as it increases the reproducibility and accuracy of the decision whether to proceed with surgery.

Abstract
Purpose: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has placed a great burden on critical care services worldwide. Data regarding critically ill COVID-19 patients and their demand of critical care services outside of initial COVID-19 epicenters are lacking. This study described clinical characteristics and outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients and the capacity of a COVID-19-dedicated intensive care unit (ICU) in Kobe, Japan.

Methods: This retrospective observational study included critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to a 14-bed COVID-19-dedicated ICU in Kobe between March 3, 2020 and June 21, 2020. Clinical and daily ICU occupancy data were obtained from electrical medical records. The last follow-up day was June 28, 2020.

Results: Of 32 patients included, the median hospital follow-up period was 27 (interquartile range 19-50) days. The median age was 68 (57-76) years; 23 (72%) were men and 25 (78%) had at least one comorbidity. Nineteen (59%) patients received invasive mechanical ventilation for a median duration of 14 (8-27) days. Until all patients were discharged from the ICU on June 5, 2020, the median daily ICU occupancy was 50% (36-71%). As of June 28, 2020, six (19%) died during hospitalization. Of 26 (81%) survivors, 23 (72%) were discharged from the hospital and three (9%) remained in the hospital.

Conclusion: During the first months of the outbreak in Kobe, most critically ill patients were men aged ≥ 60 years with at least one comorbidity and on mechanical ventilation; the ICU capacity was not strained, and the case-fatality rate was 19%.

Abstract
Bacterial and fungal co-infection has been reported in patients with COVID-19, but there is limited experience on these infections in critically ill patients. The objective of this study was to assess the characteristics and ouctome of ICU-acquired infections in COVID-19 patients. We conducted a retrospective single-centre, case-control study including 140 patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the ICU between March and May 2020. We evaluated the epidemiological, clinical, and microbiological features, and outcome of ICU-acquired infections. Fifty-seven patients (40.7%) developed a bacterial or fungal nosocomial infection during ICU stay. Infection occurred after a median of 9 days (IQR 5-11) of admission and was significantly associated with the APACHE II score (p = 0.02). There were 91 episodes of infection: primary (31%) and catheter-related (25%) bloodstream infections were the most frequent, followed by pneumonia (23%), tracheobronchitis (10%), and urinary tract infection (8%) that were produced by a wide spectrum of Gram-positive (55%) and Gram-negative bacteria (30%) as well as fungi (15%). In 60% of cases, infection was associated with septic shock and a significant increase in SOFA score. Overall ICU mortality was 36% (51/140). Infection was significantly associated with death (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2-5.9, p = 0.015) and a longer ICU stay (p < 0.001). Bacterial and fungal nosocomial infection is a common complication of ICU admission in patients with COVID-19. It usually presents as a severe form of infection, and it is associated with a high mortality and longer course of ICU stay.

Abstract
Rationale: Treatment with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in COVID-19 is frequent. Shortage of Intensive care unit (ICU) beds led clinicians to deliver NIV also outside intensive care units (ICUs). Data about the use of NIV in COVID-19 is limited.

Objective: To describe the prevalence and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 treated with NIV outside the ICUs. To investigate the factors associated with NIV failure (need for intubation or death).

Methods: In this prospective single day observational study, we enrolled adult COVID-19 patients, treated with NIV outside the ICU from thirty-one hospitals in Lombardy, Italy.

Results: We collected data on demographic, clinical characteristics, ventilatory management and patients' outcome. Of 8753 COVID-19 patients present in the hospitals on the study day, 909 (10%) were receiving NIV outside the ICU. 778/909 (85%) patients were treated with Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP), delivered by helmet in 617 (68%). NIV failed in 300 patients (37.6%), while 498 (62.4%) were discharged alive without intubation. Overall mortality was 25%. NIV failure occurred in 152/284 (53%) patients with a PaO2/FiO2 ratio < 150 mmHg. Higher C-reactive protein, lower PaO2/FiO2, and platelet counts were independently associated with increased risk of NIV failure.

Conclusions: The use of NIV outside the ICUs, in COVID-19 was common, with a predominant use of helmet CPAP, with a rate of success greater than 60% and close to 75% in full treatment patients. C-reactive protein, PaO2/FiO2, platelet counts were independently associated with increased risk of NIV failure. Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04382235).

Abstract
Background: Critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients present with a hypercoagulable state with high rates of macrovascular and microvascular thrombosis, for which hypofibrinolysis might be an important contributing factor.

Methods: We retrospectively analysed 20 critically ill COVID-19 patients at Innsbruck Medical University Hospital whose coagulation function was tested with ClotPro® and compared with that of 60 healthy individuals at Augsburg University Clinic. ClotPro is a viscoelastic whole blood coagulation testing device. It includes the TPA test, which uses tissue factor (TF)-activated whole blood with added recombinant tissue-derived plasminogen activator (r-tPA) to induce fibrinolysis. For this purpose, the lysis time (LT) is measured as the time from when maximum clot firmness (MCF) is reached until MCF falls by 50%. We compared COVID-19 patients with prolonged LT in the TPA test and those with normal LT.

Results: Critically ill COVID-19 patients showed hypercoagulability in ClotPro assays. MCF was higher in the EX test (TF-activated assay), IN test (ellagic acid-activated assay), and FIB test (functional fibrinogen assay) with decreased maximum lysis (ML) in the EX test (hypofibrinolysis) and highly prolonged TPA test LT (decreased fibrinolytic response), as compared with healthy persons. COVID-19 patients with decreased fibrinolytic response showed higher fibrinogen levels, higher thrombocyte count, higher C-reactive protein levels, and decreased ML in the EX test and IN test.

Conclusion: Critically ill COVID-19 patients have impaired fibrinolysis. This hypofibrinolytic state could be at least partially dependent on a decreased fibrinolytic response.

Abstract
Infection with SARS-CoV-2 has become pandemic and the duration of protective immunity to the virus is unknown. Cases of persons reinfected with the virus are being reported with increasing frequency. At present it is unclear how common reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 is and how long serum antibodies and virus-specific T cells persist after infection. For many other respiratory virus infections, including influenza and the seasonal coronaviruses that cause colds, serum antibodies persist for only months to a few years and reinfections are very common. Here we review what is known about the duration of immunity and reinfection with coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2, and well as the duration of immunity to other viruses and virus vaccines. These findings have implications for the need of continued protective measures and for vaccines for persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Abstract
Background: The hemostatic balance in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) seems to be shifted toward a hypercoagulable state. The aim of the current study was to assess the associated coagulation alterations by point-of-care-diagnostics, focusing on details of clot formation and lysis in these severely affected patients.

Methods: The authors' prospective monocentric observational study included critically ill patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Demographics and biochemical data were recorded. To assess the comprehensive hemostatic profile of this patient population, aggregometric (Multiplate) and viscoelastometric (CloPro) measures were performed in the intensive care unit of a university hospital at a single occasion. Coagulation analysis and assessment of coagulation factors were performed. Data were compared to healthy controls.

Results: In total, 27 patients (21 male; mean age, 60 yr) were included. Impedance aggregometry displayed no greater platelet aggregability in COVID-19 in comparison with healthy controls (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve [AUC] in adenosine diphosphate test, 68 ± 37 U vs. 91 ± 29 U [Hodges-Lehmann 95% CI, -27 (-48 to -1); P = 0.043]; AUC in arachidonic acid test, 102 ± 54 U vs. 115 ± 26 U [Hodges-Lehmann 95% CI, -21 (-51 to 21); P = 0.374]; AUC in thrombin receptor activating peptide 6 test, 114 ± 61 U vs. 144 ± 31 U [Hodges-Lehmann 95% CI, -31 (-69 to -7); P = 0.113]). Comparing the thromboelastometric results of COVID-19 patients to healthy controls, the authors observed significant differences in maximum clot firmness in fibrin contribution to maximum clot firmness assay (37 ± 11 mm vs. 15 ± 4 mm [Hodges-Lehmann 95% CI, 21 (17 to 26); P < 0.001]) and lysis time in extrinsic activation and activation of fibrinolysis by tissue plasminogen activator assay (530 ± 327 s vs. 211 ± 80 s [Hodges-Lehmann 95% CI, 238 (160 to 326); P < 0.001]).

Conclusions: Thromboelastometry in COVID-19 patients revealed greater fibrinolysis resistance. The authors did not find a greater platelet aggregability based on impedance aggregometric tests. These findings may contribute to our understanding of the hypercoagulable state of critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Many patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) will develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Prone positioning is an important non-pharmacologic strategy that should be considered for all invasively ventilated patients with moderate to severe ARDS (including those with COVID-19). Prone positioning offers several physiologic and clinical benefits, including improving hypoxemia, matching ventilation with perfusion, reducing regional hyperinflation, and improving survival. To safely offer prone positioning, appropriate training, simulation, and health system planning should be undertaken. In this review, we offer ten tips, based on the Alberta provincial prone positioning strategy during COVID-19, to safely implement and improve the appropriate use of prone positioning. We provide special considerations for its use during the COVID-19 pandemic or future respiratory pandemics.

Abstract
Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is highly contagious. To protect healthcare workers from infection during airway management, some expert recommendations and guidelines recommended wearing P2/N95 masks, goggles or glasses, glove, face-shields, and gowns as standard personal protective equipment (PPE). Nevertheless, several simulation studies have suggested that the standard PPE may not fully protect healthcare workers. Dr. Hsien Yung Lai introduced an acrylic box ("aerosol box") as a part of PPE during airway management. Since then, several companies and healthcare workers have made their own modified devices ("aerosol containment device"), and the use of such a device has spread worldwide, without being formally assessed for its effectiveness, efficacy and safety. Several simulation studies have indicated that "aerosol containment device" would make tracheal intubation more difficult. In addition, the device would prevent the spread of droplets from a patient, but may increase the risk of healthcare workers being exposed to a higher concentration of viral aerosols. Therefore, the current state of knowledge indicates that an "aerosol containment device" without vacuum mechanism has only limited efficacy in protecting healthcare workers from viral transmission.

Abstract
The last two decades have seen an increasing frequency of zoonotic origin viral diseases including Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2. Respiratory component of the infectious disease program against SARS-CoV-2 incorporates use of protective airborne respiratory equipment. In this narrative review, we explore the features of Powered Air Purifying Respirators (PAPR) as well as logistical and evidence based advantages and disadvantages. Simulation study findings support increased heat tolerance and wearer comfort with a PAPR. Although PAPRs have been recommended for high risk procedures on suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients, this recommendation remains controversial due to lack of evidence. International regulatory bodies do not mandate the use of PAPR for high risk aerosol generating procedures in patients with SARS-CoV-2. Current reports of the choice of protective respiratory technology during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic are disparate. Patterns of use appear to be related to geographical locations. Field observational studies do not indicate a difference in healthcare worker infection utilizing PAPR devices versus other compliant respiratory equipment in healthcare workers performing AGPs. Whether a higher PAPR filtration factor translates to decreased infection rates of HCWs remains to be elucidated. Utilization of PAPR with high filtration efficiency may represent an example of "precautionary principle". Action taken to reduce risk may be guided by logistical advantages of the PAPR system, rather than high level evidence.

Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has altered approaches to anesthesiology education by shifting educational paradigms. This vision paper discusses pre-COVID-19 educational methodologies and best evidence, adaptations required under COVID-19 and evidence for these modifications and suggests future directions for anesthesiology education.Learning management systems provide structure to online learning. They have been increasingly utilized to improve access to didactic materials asynchronously. Despite some historic reservations, the pandemic has necessitated a rapid uptake across programs. Commercially available systems offer a wide range of peer-reviewed curricular options.The flipped classroom promotes learning foundational knowledge prior to teaching sessions with a focus on application during structured didactics. There is growing evidence that this approach is preferred by learners and may increase knowledge gain. The flipped classroom works well with learning management systems to disseminate focused pre-class work. Care must be taken to keep virtual sessions interactive.Simulation, already used in anesthesiology, has been critical in preparation for the care of COVID-19 patients. Multidisciplinary, in-situ simulations allow for rapid dissemination of new team workflows. Physical distancing and reduced availability of providers have required more sessions. Early pandemic decreases in operating volumes have allowed for this; future planning will have to incorporate smaller groups, sanitizing of equipment, and attention to use of personal protective equipment.Effective technical skills training requires instruction to mastery levels, use of deliberate practice, and high-quality feedback. Reduced sizes of skills training workshops and approaches for feedback that are not in-person will be required.Mock oral and OSCE examinations allow for training and assessment of competencies often not addressed otherwise. They provide formative and summative data and objective measurements of ACGME Milestones. They also allow for preparation for the ABA APPLIED examination. Adaptations to teleconferencing or videoconferencing can allow for continued use.Benefits of teaching in this new era include enhanced availability of asynchronous learning and opportunities to apply universal, expert-driven curricula. Burdens include decreased social interactions and potential need for an increased amount of smaller, live sessions.Acquiring learning management systems and holding more frequent simulation and skills sessions with fewer learners may increase cost. With the increasing dependency on multimedia and technology support for teaching and learning, one important focus of educational research is on the development and evaluation of strategies that reduce extraneous processing and manage essential and generative processing in virtual learning environments. Collaboration to identify and implement best practices has the potential to improve education for all learners.

Abstract
Since December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected over four million people worldwide. There are multiple reports of prolonged viral shedding in people infected with SARS-CoV-2 but the presence of viral RNA on a test does not necessarily correlate with infectivity. The duration of quarantine required after clinical recovery to definitively prevent transmission is therefore uncertain. In addition, asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission may occur, and infectivity may be highest early after onset of symptoms, meaning that contact tracing, isolation of exposed individuals and social distancing are essential public health measures to prevent further spread. This review aimed to summarise the evidence around viral shedding vs infectivity of SARS-CoV-2.

Abstract
Background: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has become a major global public health issue. SARS-CoV-2 infection is confirmed by the detection of viral RNA using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Prolonged viral shedding has been reported in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the presence of viral RNA does not always correlate with infectivity. Therefore, the present study aimed to confirm the presence of viable virus in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients in the later phase of the disease, more than two weeks after diagnosis.

Method: Asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic COVID-19 patients who had been diagnosed with the disease at least two weeks previously and admitted to a community treatment center (CTC) from 15 March to 10 April 2020 were enrolled in this study. Nasopharyngeal and salivary swab specimens were collected from each patient. Using these specimens, RT-PCR assay and viral culture were performed.

Result: In total, 48 patients were enrolled in this study. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic patient groups. RT-PCR assay and viral culture of SARS-CoV-2 were performed using nasopharyngeal and salivary swabs. The results of RT-PCR performed using salivary swab specimens, in terms of cycle threshold (Ct) values, were similar to those of RT-PCR using nasopharyngeal swab specimens. In addition, no viable virus could be cultured from swab specimens collected from the late-phase COVID-19 patients with prolonged viral RNA shedding.

Conclusions: In conclusion, our study suggests that even if viral shedding is sustained in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients with later phase of COVID-19, it can be expected that the transmission risk of the virus is low. In addition, saliva can be used as a reliable specimen for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Abstract
With the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), medical providers should take care to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitals including super-spreading. Understanding super-spreading would be useful to reduce future transmission. Some publications have shown clusters of SARS-CoV-2 such as at choir practice and in hospitals. Aerosol can be considered as a primary transmission route. As SARS-CoV-2 stability in aerosol is similar to SARS-CoV-1 with the higher reproductive number of SARS-CoV-2 than SARS-CoV-1, another factor causes rapidly spread-out, e.g. a higher discharge ratio from infected people or a higher viral intake ratio to human body. A basic research suggests higher infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 in the nose than the peripheral lung. Universal masking would be important to prevent the exposure of SARS-CoV-2 droplet to uninfected people. To detect SARS-CoV-2 infection, laboratory tests such as reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays are applied. Although sensitivity and specificity are provided for the ability of the test, positive or negative prediction values are useful to indicate the possiblity of infection or non-infection in clinical practice. We have to realize that the positive and negative prediction values depend on the sensitivity, specificity, and infection probability of the patient.

Abstract
Background: The role of repeated prone positioning in intubated subjects with acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19 remains unclear.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of critically ill intubated patients with COVID-19 who were placed in the prone position between March 18, 2020 and March 31, 2020. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, reintubation, and previous prone positioning at a referring hospital. Patients were followed up until hospital discharge. The primary outcome was oxygenation assessed by partial pressure of oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (Pao2/Fio2) ratio. A positive response to proning was defined as an increase in Pao2/Fio2 ratio ≥20%. Treatment failure of prone positioning was defined as death or requirement for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Results: Forty-two subjects (29 males; age: 59 [52-69] yr) were eligible for analysis. Nine subjects were placed in the prone position only once, with 25 requiring prone positioning on three or more occasions. A total of 31/42 (74%) subjects survived to discharge, with five requiring ECMO; 11/42 (26%) subjects died. After the first prone positioning session, Pao2/Fio2 (mean (standard deviation)) ratio increased from 17.9 kPa (7.2) to 28.2 kPa (12.2) (P<0.01). After the initial prone positioning session, subjects who were discharged from hospital were more likely to have an improvement in Pao2/Fio2 ratio ≥20%, compared with those requiring ECMO or who died.

Conclusion: Patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome frequently responded to initial prone positioning with improved oxygenation. Subsequent prone positioning in subjects discharged from hospital was associated with greater improvements in oxygenation.

Abstract
Background: In face of the Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19 pandemic, best practice for mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is intensely debated. Specifically, the rationale for high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and prone positioning in early COVID-19 ARDS has been questioned.

Methods: The first 23 consecutive patients with COVID-19 associated respiratory failure transferred to a single ICU were assessed. Eight were excluded: five were not invasively ventilated and three received veno-venous ECMO support. The remaining 15 were assessed over the first 15 days of mechanical ventilation. Best PEEP was defined by maximal oxygenation and was determined by structured decremental PEEP trials comprising the monitoring of oxygenation, airway pressures and trans-pulmonary pressures. In nine patients the impact of prone positioning on oxygenation was investigated. Additionally, the effects of high PEEP and prone positioning on pulmonary opacities in serial chest x-rays were determined by applying a semiquantitative scoring-system. This investigation is part of the prospective observational PA-COVID-19 study.

Findings: Patients responded to initiation of invasive high PEEP ventilation with markedly improved oxygenation, which was accompanied by reduced pulmonary opacities within 6 h of mechanical ventilation. Decremental PEEP trials confirmed the need for high PEEP (17.9 (SD ± 3.9) mbar) for optimal oxygenation, while driving pressures remained low. Prone positioning substantially increased oxygenation (p<0.01).

Interpretation: In early COVID-19 ARDS, substantial PEEP values were required for optimizing oxygenation. Pulmonary opacities resolved during mechanical ventilation with high PEEP suggesting recruitment of lung volume.

Funding: German Research Foundation, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Abstract
Background: Mortality rates in COVID-19 patients in need of mechanical ventilation are high, with wide variations between countries. Most studies were retrospective, and results may not be generalizable due to differences in demographics, healthcare organization and surge capacity. We present a cohort of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients from a resource-rich, publicly financed healthcare system.

Methods: Prospective study from a tertiary hospital. Consecutive SARS-CoV-2 positive adult patients admitted to the ICU for mechanical ventilation 10.03.20-04.05.20 were included. Triage and treatment were protocolized. High-dose dalteparin was adjusted by D-dimer. Demographics, treatments, and high-resolution physiological variables were collected. Outcomes were 30-day and hospital mortality. Data are medians(quartiles).

Results: Of the 1484 persons in the hospital catchment area testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, 201 (13.5%) were hospitalized. Thirty-eight (19%) patients were mechanically ventilated, of whom five (13%) died. Of 163 patients treated with supplemental oxygen, eight (5%) died. In ventilated patients (75% males, age 61 (53-70) years), severe, moderate, and mild ARDS was present in 25%, 70%, and 5%. Tidal volume ≤8 mL/kg ideal bodyweight was achieved in 34 (94%) of patients. Proning and neuromuscular blockers were used in 19 (54%) and 20 (61%). Duration of ventilation was 12 days (8-23). D-dimer peaked 3.8 mg/L (2.1-5.3), maximum dalteparin dose was 15,000 IU/24h (10,000-15,000). Despite organizational changes a high degree of adherence to treatment protocols was achieved.

Conclusion: In a prospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients treated in a resource-rich, publicly financed healthcare system, mortality was considerably lower than previously reported in retrospective studies.

Abstract
Background:
Covid-19 emerged as a public health crisis that disrupted normal patterns of health care in the New York City metropolitan area. In preparation for a large influx of critically ill patients, operating rooms (ORs) at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center (NYP-Columbia) were converted into a novel intensive care unit area, the ORICU.

Methods:
23 ORs were converted into an 82-bed ORICU. Adaptations to the OR environment permitted the delivery of standard critical care therapies. Non-intensive-care-trained staff were educated on the basics of critical care and deployed in a hybrid staffing model. Anesthesia machines were repurposed as critical care ventilators, with accommodations to ensure reliable function and patient safety. To compare ORICU survivorship to outcomes in more traditional environments, we performed Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of all patients cared for in the ORICU, censoring data at the time of ORICU closure. We hypothesized that age, gender, and obesity may have influenced the risk of death. Thus, we estimated hazard ratios for death using Cox proportional hazard regression models with age, gender, and body mass index (BMI) as covariables and, separately, using older age (65 years and older) adjusted for gender and BMI.

Results:
The ORICU cared for 133 patients from March 24 – May 14, 2020. Patients were transferred to the ORICU from other ICUs, inpatient wards, the Emergency Department, and other institutions. Patients remained in the ORICU until either transfer to another unit or death. As the hospital patient load decreased, patients were transferred out of the ORICU. This process was completed on May 14, 2020. At time of data censoring, 55 (41.4%) of patients had died. The estimated probability of survival 30 days after admission was 0.61 (95% CI 0.52 – 0.69). Age was significantly associated with increased risk of mortality (HR = 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 – 1.08, p < 0.001 for a 1 year increase in age). Patients who were 65 years or older were an estimated 3.17 times more likely to die than younger patients (95% CI 1.78 – 5.63, p < 0.001) when adjusting for gender and BMI.

Conclusions:
A large number of critically ill Covid-19 patients were cared for in the ORICU, which substantially increased ICU capacity at NYP-Columbia. The estimated ORICU survival rate at 30 days was comparable to other reported rates, suggesting this was an effective approach to manage the influx of critically ill Covid-19 patients during a time of crisis.

Abstract
Defining the duration of infectivity of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has major implications for public health and infection control practice in healthcare facilities. Early in the pandemic, most hospitals required 2 negative RT-PCR tests before discontinuing isolation in patients with Covid-19. Many patients, however, have persistently positive RT-PCR tests for weeks to months following clinical recovery, and multiple studies now indicate that these generally do not reflect replication-competent virus. SARS-CoV-2 appears to be most contagious around the time of symptom onset, and infectivity rapidly decreases thereafter to near-zero after about 10 days in mild-moderately ill patients and 15 days in severely-critically ill and immunocompromised patients. The longest interval associated with replication-competent virus thus far is 20 days from symptom onset. This review summarizes evidence-to-date on the duration of infectivity of SARS-CoV-2, and how this has informed evolving public health recommendations on when it is safe to discontinue isolation precautions.

Abstract
Background: Current guidelines for perioperative management of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) are mainly based on extrapolated evidence or expert opinion. We aimed to systematically investigate how COVID-19 affects perioperative management and clinical outcomes, to develop evidence-based guidelines.

Methods: First, we conducted a rapid literature review in EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (January 1 to July 1, 2020), using a predefined protocol. Second, we performed a retrospective cohort analysis of 166 women undergoing Caesarean section at Tongji Hospital, Wuhan during the COVID-19 pandemic. Demographic, imaging, laboratory, and clinical data were obtained from electronic medical records.

Results: The review identified 26 studies, mainly case reports/series. One large cohort reported greater mortality in elective surgery patients diagnosed after, rather than before surgery. Higher 30 day mortality was associated with emergency surgery, major surgery, poorer preoperative condition and surgery for malignancy. Regional anaesthesia was favoured in most studies and personal protective equipment (PPE) was generally used by healthcare workers (HCWs), but its use was poorly described for patients. In the retrospective cohort study, duration of surgery, oxygen therapy and hospital stay were longer in suspected or confirmed patients than negative patients, but there were no differences in neonatal outcomes. None of the 262 participating HCWs was infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) when using level 3 PPE perioperatively.

Conclusions: When COVID-19 is suspected, testing should be considered before non-urgent surgery. Until further evidence is available, HCWs should use level 3 PPE perioperatively for suspected or confirmed patients, but research is needed on its timing and specifications. Further research must examine longer-term outcomes.

Clinical trial registration: CRD42020182891 (PROSPERO).

Abstract
Background: Disease severity in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be associated with inoculation dose. This has triggered interest in intubation barrier devices to block droplet exposure; however, aerosol protection with these devices is not known. This study hypothesized that barrier devices reduce aerosol outside of the barrier.

Methods: Aerosol containment in closed, semiclosed, semiopen, and open barrier devices was investigated: (1) "glove box" sealed with gloves and caudal drape, (2) "drape tent" with a drape placed over a frame, (3) "slit box" with armholes and caudal end covered by vinyl slit diaphragms, (4) original "aerosol box," (5) collapsible "interlocking box," (6) "simple drape" over the patient, and (7) "no barrier." Containment was investigated by (1) vapor instillation at manikin's right arm with video-assisted visual evaluation and (2) submicrometer ammonium sulfate aerosol particles ejected through the manikin's mouth with ventilation and coughs. Samples were taken from standardized locations inside and around the barriers using a particle counter and a mass spectrometer. Aerosol evacuation from the devices was measured using standard hospital suction, a surgical smoke evacuator, and a Shop-Vac.

Results: Vapor experiments demonstrated leakage via arm holes and edges. Only closed and semiclosed devices and the aerosol box reduced aerosol particle counts (median [25th, 75th percentile]) at the operator's mouth compared to no barrier (combined median 29 [-11, 56], n = 5 vs. 157 [151, 166], n = 5). The other barrier devices provided less reduction in particle counts (133 [128, 137], n = 5). Aerosol evacuation to baseline required 15 min with standard suction and the Shop-Vac and 5 min with a smoke evacuator.

Conclusions: Barrier devices may reduce exposure to droplets and aerosol. With meticulous tucking, the glove box and drape tent can retain aerosol during airway management. Devices that are not fully enclosed may direct aerosol toward the laryngoscopist. Aerosol evacuation reduces aerosol content inside fully enclosed devices. Barrier devices must be used in conjunction with body-worn personal protective equipment.

Abstract
The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has infected millions of individuals and posed unprecedented challenges to health care systems. Acute care hospitals have been forced to expand hospital and intensive care capacity and deal with shortages in personal protective equipment. This guide will review two areas where the anesthesiologists will be caring for COVID-19 patients: the operating room and on airway teams. General principles for COVID-19 preparation and hospital procedures will be reviewed to serve as a resource for anesthesia departments to manage COVID-19 or future pandemics.

Abstract
In March 2020, the New York City metropolitan area became the epicenter of the United States' SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the surge of new cases threatened to overwhelm the area's hospital systems. This article describes how an anesthesiology department at a large urban academic hospital rapidly adapted and deployed to meet the threat head-on. Topics included are preparatory efforts, development of a team-based staffing model, and a new strategy for resource management. While still maintaining a fully functioning operating theater, discrete teams were deployed to both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 intensive care units, rapid response/airway management team, the difficult airway response team, and labor and delivery. Additional topics include the creation of a temporary 'pop-up' anesthesiology-run COVID-19 intensive care unit utilizing anesthesia machines for monitoring and ventilatory support as well as the development of a simulation and innovation team that was instrumental in the rapid prototyping of a controlled split-ventilation system and conversion of readily available BIPAP units into emergency ventilators. As the course of the disease is uncertain, the goal of this article is to assist others in preparation for what may come next with COVID-19 as well as potential future pandemics.

Abstract
Background: The pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) might be curtailed by vaccination. We assessed the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of a viral vectored coronavirus vaccine that expresses the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2.

Methods: We did a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in five trial sites in the UK of a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared with a meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) as control. Healthy adults aged 18-55 years with no history of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or of COVID-19-like symptoms were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 at a dose of 5 × 1010 viral particles or MenACWY as a single intramuscular injection. A protocol amendment in two of the five sites allowed prophylactic paracetamol to be administered before vaccination. Ten participants assigned to a non-randomised, unblinded ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group received a two-dose schedule, with the booster vaccine administered 28 days after the first dose. Humoral responses at baseline and following vaccination were assessed using a standardised total IgG ELISA against trimeric SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, a muliplexed immunoassay, three live SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assays (a 50% plaque reduction neutralisation assay [PRNT50]; a microneutralisation assay [MNA50, MNA80, and MNA90]; and Marburg VN), and a pseudovirus neutralisation assay. Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The co-primary outcomes are to assess efficacy, as measured by cases of symptomatic virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were done by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Safety was assessed over 28 days after vaccination. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. The study is ongoing, and was registered at ISRCTN, 15281137, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606.

Findings: Between April 23 and May 21, 2020, 1077 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n=543) or MenACWY (n=534), ten of whom were enrolled in the non-randomised ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group. Local and systemic reactions were more common in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and many were reduced by use of prophylactic paracetamol, including pain, feeling feverish, chills, muscle ache, headache, and malaise (all p<0·05). There were no serious adverse events related to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. In the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, spike-specific T-cell responses peaked on day 14 (median 856 spot-forming cells per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells, IQR 493-1802; n=43). Anti-spike IgG responses rose by day 28 (median 157 ELISA units [EU], 96-317; n=127), and were boosted following a second dose (639 EU, 360-792; n=10). Neutralising antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 32 (91%) of 35 participants after a single dose when measured in MNA80 and in 35 (100%) participants when measured in PRNT50. After a booster dose, all participants had neutralising activity (nine of nine in MNA80 at day 42 and ten of ten in Marburg VN on day 56). Neutralising antibody responses correlated strongly with antibody levels measured by ELISA (R2=0·67 by Marburg VN; p<0·001).

Interpretation: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed an acceptable safety profile, and homologous boosting increased antibody responses. These results, together with the induction of both humoral and cellular immune responses, support large-scale evaluation of this candidate vaccine in an ongoing phase 3 programme.

Funding: UK Research and Innovation, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and the German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner site Gießen-Marburg-Langen.

Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in a significant surge of critically ill patients and an unprecedented demand on intensive care services. The rapidly evolving understanding of pathogenesis, limited disease specific evidence, and demand-resource imbalances have posed significant challenges for intensive care clinicians. COVID-19 is a complex multisystem inflammatory vasculopathy with a significant mortality implication for those admitted to intensive care. Institutional strategic preparation and meticulous intensive care support are essential to maximising outcomes during the pandemic. The significant mortality variation observed between institutions and internationally, despite a single aetiology and uniform presentation, highlights the potential influence of management strategies on outcome. Given that optimal organ support and adjunctive therapies for COVID-19 have not yet been well defined by trial-based outcomes, strategies are predicated on existing literature and experiential learning. This review outlines the relevant pathophysiology and management strategies for critically ill patients with COVID-19, and shares some of the collective learning accumulated in a high volume severe respiratory failure centre in London.

Abstract
Background: The role of tracheostomy in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear, with several consensus guidelines advising against this practice. We developed both a dedicated airway team and coordinated education programme to facilitate ward management of tracheostomised COVID-19 patients. Here, we report outcomes in the first 100 COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy at our institution.

Methods: This was a prospective observational cohort study of patients confirmed to have COVID-19 who required mechanical ventilation at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK. The primary outcome measure was 30-day survival, accounting for severe organ dysfunction (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health [APACHE]-II score>17). Secondary outcomes included duration of ventilation, ICU stay, and healthcare workers directly involved in tracheostomy care acquiring COVID-19.

Results: A total of 164 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to the ICU between March 9, 2020 and April 21, 2020. A total of 100 patients (mean [standard deviation] age: 55 [12] yr; 29% female) underwent tracheostomy; 64 (age: 57 [14] yr; 25% female) did not undergo tracheostomy. Despite similar APACHE-II scores, 30-day survival was higher in 85/100 (85%) patients after tracheostomy, compared with 27/64 (42%) non-tracheostomised patients {relative risk: 3.9 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 2.3-6.4); P<0.0001}. In patients with APACHE-II scores ≥17, 68/100 (68%) tracheotomised patients survived, compared with 12/64 (19%) non-tracheotomised patients (P<0.001). Tracheostomy within 14 days of intubation was associated with shorter duration of ventilation (mean difference: 6.0 days [95% CI: 3.1-9.0]; P<0.0001) and ICU stay (mean difference: 6.7 days [95% CI: 3.7-9.6]; P<0.0001). No healthcare workers developed COVID-19.

Conclusion: Independent of the severity of critical illness from COVID-19, 30-day survival was higher and ICU stay shorter in patients receiving tracheostomy. Early tracheostomy appears to be safe in COVID-19.

Abstract
Background: Numerous barrier devices have recently been developed and rapidly deployed worldwide in an effort to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) from exposure to COVID-19 during high-risk procedures. However, only a few studies have examined their impact on the dispersion of droplets and aerosols, which are both thought to be significant contributors to the spread of COVID-19.

Methods: Two commonly used barrier devices, an intubation box and a clear plastic intubation sheet, were evaluated using a physiologically accurate cough simulator. Aerosols were modeled using a commercially available fog machine and droplets were modeled with fluorescein dye. Both particles were propelled by the cough simulator in a simulated intubation environment. Data was captured by high-speed flash photography and aerosol and droplet dispersion were assessed qualitatively with and without a barrier in place.

Results: Droplet contamination after a simulated cough was seemingly contained by both barrier devices. Simulated aerosol escaped the barriers and flowed towards the head of the bed. During barrier removal, simulated aerosol trapped underneath was released and propelled towards the HCW at the head of the bed. Usage of the intubation sheet concentrated droplets onto a smaller area. If no barrier was used, positioning the patient in slight reverse Trendelenburg directed aerosols away from the healthcare worker located at the head of the bed.

Conclusion: Our observations imply that intubation boxes and sheets may reduce HCW exposure to droplets, but they both may merely redirect aerosolized particles, potentially resulting in increased exposure to aerosols in certain circumstances. Aerosols may remain within the barrier device after a cough and manipulation of the box may release them. Patients should be positioned to facilitate intubation, but slight reverse Trendelenburg may direct infectious aerosols away from the HCW. Novel barrier devices should be used with caution and further validation studies are necessary.

Abstract
The rapid spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to a global pandemic. The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) presents with a spectrum of symptoms ranging from mild to critical illness requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Acute respiratory distress syndrome is a major complication in patients with severe COVID-19 disease. Currently, there are no recognized pharmacological therapies for COVID-19. However, a large number of COVID-19 patients require respiratory support, with a high percentage requiring invasive ventilation. The rapid spread of the infection has led to a surge in the rate of hospitalizations and ICU admissions, which created a challenge to public health, research, and medical communities. The high demand for several therapies, including sedatives, analgesics, and paralytics, that are often utilized in the care of COVID-19 patients requiring mechanical ventilation, has created pressure on the supply chain resulting in shortages in these critical medications. This has led clinicians to develop conservation strategies and explore alternative therapies for sedation, analgesia, and paralysis in COVID-19 patients. Several of these alternative approaches have demonstrated acceptable levels of sedation, analgesia, and paralysis in different settings but they are not commonly used in the ICU. Additionally, they have unique pharmaceutical properties, limitations, and adverse effects. This narrative review summarizes the literature on alternative drug therapies for the management of sedation, analgesia, and paralysis in COVID-19 patients. Also, this document serves as a resource for clinicians in current and future respiratory illness pandemics in the setting of drug shortages.

Abstract
The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has brought critical challenges to anesthesiologists and perioperative practice. Whereas anesthesiologists may be primarily concerned with airway and respiratory management, the COVID-19 data accumulated to date indicate that primary and/or secondary cardiovascular complications are common. Previous studies have demonstrated that the mortality rate is significantly higher in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) than in patients without CVD. Dysregulation of immune function in patients with CVD may be involved in the prognosis of COVID-19 patients. Anesthesia and surgical procedures can modulate the immune system, and some patients undergoing surgery, particularly those undergoing cardiovascular procedures, have CVD. In perioperative management for patients with suspected or diagnosed COVID-19 and those who have recovered from COVID-19, it is important for anesthesiologists to be concerned not only with airway and respiratory management, but also with cardiovascular complications and perioperative circulatory management to control the progression of the disease in patients with COVID-19.

Abstract
A substantial proportion of patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) develop severe respiratory failure. Although the exact pathophysiology of severe COVID-19 pneumonia remains unknown and the characteristics of these patients are heterogeneous, the acute respiratory failure often fulfills criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and the clinical characteristics are also consistent with what is previously known about ARDS. Cohort studies also report distinctively high association between perioperative COVID-19 and postoperative mortality. In this special article, we review several publications on the pathophysiology of COVID-19, and discuss intraoperative ventilatory management for patients with COVID-19 based on the respiratory characteristics of COVID-19 pneumonia in light of the ongoing controversy of clinical phenotypes.

Abstract
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) disease [coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection] first appeared in December 2019 in China and is now spreading worldwide. Because SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted via aerosols and surface contaminations of the environment, appropriate use of anesthesia machines and appropriate behavior in the operation room (OR) are required specifically in relation to this disease. The use of high-performance hydrophobic filters with a high rate of virus rejection is recommended as the type of viral filter, and surgical team behaviors that result in aerosol splashes should be avoided. Appropriate hand hygiene by the anesthesiologist is crucial to prevent unexpected environmental contamination. When the anesthesia machine is used instead of an intensive care unit ventilator, it is important to keep the fresh gas flow at least equal to the minute ventilation to prevent excessive humidity in the circuit and to monitor condensation in the circuit and inspiratory carbon dioxide pressure. In addition, both the surgical smoke inherent in thermal tissue destruction and the surgical team's shoe soles may be factors for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the operating room. Ensuring social distancing-even with a mask in the OR-may be beneficial because healthcare providers may be asymptomatic carriers. After the acute crisis period of COVID-19, the number of cases of essential but nonurgent surgeries for waiting patients is likely to increase; therefore, optimization of OR scheduling will be an important topic. Anesthesiologists will benefit from new standard practices focusing on the prevention of COVID-19 infection.

Abstract
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected anesthetic care worldwide, including the provision of anesthesia for pediatric patients. Hospitals have balanced the risks associated with the potential surges of resource-intensive COVID-19 patients against the probable morbidity of delaying elective surgical procedures. These decisions are complicated by the unclear influence that COVID-19 has on the perioperative risk for disease-positive pediatric patients. We conducted a comprehensive literature search on MEDLINE for publications involving pediatric patients with COVID-19 who underwent general anesthesia. A total of eight publications met inclusion criteria, and together described 20 patients. Nine patients had documented preoperative COVID-19 symptoms and one perioperative death was reported. Overall, further studies are needed to increase patient numbers and properly assess the perioperative risk. As we continue to provide care without clear guiding data, we present a discussion of modified anesthetic techniques for pediatric patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

Abstract
The collapse of global cooperation and a failure of international solidarity have led to many low-income and middle-income countries being denied access to molecular diagnostics in the COVID-19 pandemic response. Yet the scarcity of knowledge on the dynamics of the immune response to infection has led to hesitation on recommending the use of rapid immunodiagnostic tests, even though rapid serology tests are commercially available and scalable. On the basis of our knowledge and understanding of viral infectivity and host response, we urge countries without the capacity to do molecular testing at scale to research the use of serology tests to triage symptomatic patients in community settings, to test contacts of confirmed cases, and in situational analysis and surveillance. The WHO R&D Blue Print expert group identified eight priorities for research and development, of which the highest is to mobilise research on rapid point-of-care diagnostics for use at the community level. This research should inform control programmes of the required performance and utility of rapid serology tests, which, when applied specifically for appropriate public health measures to then be put in place, can make a huge difference.

Abstract
The Covid 19 pandemic will be remembered for the rapidity with which it spread, the morbidity and mortality associated with it and the paucity of evidence-based management guidelines. One of the major concerns of hospitals was to limit spread of infection to health care workers. Since the virus is spread mainly by respiratory droplets and aerosolized particles, procedures which may potentially disperse viral particles, the so called "aerosol-generating procedures" or AGPs were avoided whenever possible. Included in this category were non-invasive ventilation (NIV), high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and awake (non-intubated) proning. Accordingly, at many health care facilities, patients who had increasing oxygen requirements were emergently intubated and mechanically ventilated to avoid exposure to AGPs. With experience, clinicians realized that mortality of invasively ventilated patients was high and it was not easy to extubate many of these patients. This raised the concern that HFNC and NIV were being underutilized to avoid intubation and to facilitate extubation. In this article, we attempt to separate fact from fiction and perception from reality pertaining to the aerosol dispersion with NIV, HFNC and AP. We describe precautions that hospitals and health care providers must take to mitigate risks with these devices. Finally, we take a practical approach in describing how we use the three techniques, including the common indications, contraindications and practical aspects of application.

Abstract:
Purpose: Under times of supply chain stress, the availability of some medical equipment and supplies may become limited. The current pandemic involving severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has highlighted limitations to the ordinary provision of personal protective equipment (PPE). For perioperative healthcare workers, N95 masks provide a stark example of PPE in short supply necessitating the creation of scientifically valid protocols for their decontamination and reuse.

Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify peer-reviewed articles related to N95 mask decontamination and subsequent testing for the integrity of mask filtration and facial seal. To expand this search, we additionally surveyed the official statements from key health agencies, organizations, and societies for relevant citations.

Results: Our initial database search resulted in five articles that met inclusion criteria, with 26 articles added from the expanded search. Our search did not reveal any relevant randomized clinical trials or cohort studies. We found that moist mask heating (65-80°C at 50-85% relative humidity for 20-30 min) and vaporous hydrogen peroxide treatment were supported by the literature to provide consistent viral decontamination without compromising mask seal and filtration efficiency. Other investigated decontamination methods lacked comprehensive scientific evidence for all three of these key criteria.

Conclusions: N95 mask reprocessing using either moist heat or vaporous hydrogen peroxide is recommended to ensure healthcare worker safety.

Background: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been used to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, evidence on the safety and efficacy of these therapies is limited.

Methods: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-group, controlled trial involving hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 who were receiving either no supplemental oxygen or a maximum of 4 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive standard care, standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus azithromycin at a dose of 500 mg once daily for 7 days. The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days as assessed with the use of a seven-level ordinal scale (with levels ranging from one to seven and higher scores indicating a worse condition) in the modified intention-to-treat population (patients with a confirmed diagnosis of Covid-19). Safety was also assessed.

Results: A total of 667 patients underwent randomization; 504 patients had confirmed Covid-19 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. As compared with standard care, the proportional odds of having a higher score on the seven-point ordinal scale at 15 days was not affected by either hydroxychloroquine alone (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 2.11; P = 1.00) or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.73; P = 1.00). Prolongation of the corrected QT interval and elevation of liver-enzyme levels were more frequent in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, than in those who were not receiving either agent.

Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care. (Funded by the Coalition Covid-19 Brazil and EMS Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04322123.).

dL). In IPTW-adjusted models, tocilizumab was associated with a 45% reduction in hazard of death [hazard ratio 0.55 (95% CI 0.33, 0.90)] and improved status on the ordinal outcome scale [odds ratio per 1-level increase_ 0.58 (0.36, 0.94)]. Though tocilizumab was associated with an increased proportion of patients with superinfections (54% vs. 26%

Abstract
The treatment of surgical patients who are confirmed or suspected of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a challenge for all anesthesiologists. The safety of both patients and healthcare workers should be taken into consideration when performing anesthesia management for patients with COVID-19. General anesthesia requiring airway intervention may exacerbate COVID-19 pneumonia, and aerosol generation during airway intervention risks COVID-19 transmission to medical staff. However, regional anesthesia is not an aerosol-generating procedure. The neuraxial anesthesia may have little adverse influence on clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 after reviewing previous case reports. Regional anesthesia may have some advantages over general anesthesia for this group of patients, but unplanned conversion to general anesthesia during surgery is not preferred. Thus, careful consideration should be given to ensure that the surgery is performed entirely under regional anesthesia. The use of ultrasound guidance and the performance by an experienced physician may reduce the incidence of failed block and complications. The use of long-acting local anesthetic prolongs the anesthetic effect of regional anesthesia. Besides, a safe and sufficient dose of local anesthetic should be used.

Abstract
Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and thereby reduce progression to respiratory failure and death.

Methods: In this controlled, open-label trial comparing a range of possible treatments in patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned patients to receive oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days or to receive usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Here, we report the preliminary results of this comparison.

Results: A total of 2104 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4321 to receive usual care. Overall, 482 patients (22.9%) in the dexamethasone group and 1110 patients (25.7%) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomization (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to the level of respiratory support that the patients were receiving at the time of randomization. In the dexamethasone group, the incidence of death was lower than that in the usual care group among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.3% vs. 41.4%; rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.81) and among those receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (23.3% vs. 26.2%; rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94) but not among those who were receiving no respiratory support at randomization (17.8% vs. 14.0%; rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.55).

Conclusions: In patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936; ISRCTN number, 50189673.).

Abstract
COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading global threat that has been declared as a pandemic by the WHO. COVID-19 is transmitted via droplets or direct contact and infects the respiratory tract resulting in pneumonia in most of the cases and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in about 15 % of the cases. Mortality in COVID-19 patients has been linked to the presence of the so-called "cytokine storm" induced by the virus. Excessive production of proinflammatory cytokines leads to ARDS aggravation and widespread tissue damage resulting in multi-organ failure and death. Targeting cytokines during the management of COVID-19 patients could improve survival rates and reduce mortality.

Abstract
Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in late 2019 and spread globally, prompting an international effort to accelerate development of a vaccine. The candidate vaccine mRNA-1273 encodes the stabilized prefusion SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

Methods: We conducted a phase 1, dose-escalation, open-label trial including 45 healthy adults, 18 to 55 years of age, who received two vaccinations, 28 days apart, with mRNA-1273 in a dose of 25 μg, 100 μg, or 250 μg. There were 15 participants in each dose group.

Results: After the first vaccination, antibody responses were higher with higher dose (day 29 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay anti-S-2P antibody geometric mean titer [GMT], 40,227 in the 25-μg group, 109,209 in the 100-μg group, and 213,526 in the 250-μg group). After the second vaccination, the titers increased (day 57 GMT, 299,751, 782,719, and 1,192,154, respectively). After the second vaccination, serum-neutralizing activity was detected by two methods in all participants evaluated, with values generally similar to those in the upper half of the distribution of a panel of control convalescent serum specimens. Solicited adverse events that occurred in more than half the participants included fatigue, chills, headache, myalgia, and pain at the injection site. Systemic adverse events were more common after the second vaccination, particularly with the highest dose, and three participants (21%) in the 250-μg dose group reported one or more severe adverse events.

Conclusions: The mRNA-1273 vaccine induced anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune responses in all participants, and no trial-limiting safety concerns were identified. These findings support further development of this vaccine. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; mRNA-1273 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04283461).

Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.

Abstract
During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in 2020, departments of anesthesiology worldwide have encountered new and unique challenges. In this short communication, we present and assess our recommendations for orotracheal intubation, a frequent high-risk procedure. We will point out that interdisciplinary cooperation with "non-patient care" departments like the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene tremendously helped us in creating this and other new, clear standards for anesthesiological procedures. Moreover, to reliably implement our newly created measures, we distributed incisive posters and organized comprehensive training sessions. Eventually, we summarize and analyze the occurring problems of our suggestions for intubation during their realization.

Abstract
Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, due to the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has caused a worldwide sudden and substantial increase in hospitalizations for pneumonia with multiorgan disease. This review discusses current evidence regarding the pathophysiology, transmission, diagnosis, and management of COVID-19.

Observations: SARS-CoV-2 is spread primarily via respiratory droplets during close face-to-face contact. Infection can be spread by asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic carriers. The average time from exposure to symptom onset is 5 days, and 97.5% of people who develop symptoms do so within 11.5 days. The most common symptoms are fever, dry cough, and shortness of breath. Radiographic and laboratory abnormalities, such as lymphopenia and elevated lactate dehydrogenase, are common, but nonspecific. Diagnosis is made by detection of SARS-CoV-2 via reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing, although false-negative test results may occur in up to 20% to 67% of patients; however, this is dependent on the quality and timing of testing. Manifestations of COVID-19 include asymptomatic carriers and fulminant disease characterized by sepsis and acute respiratory failure. Approximately 5% of patients with COVID-19, and 20% of those hospitalized, experience severe symptoms necessitating intensive care. More than 75% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 require supplemental oxygen. Treatment for individuals with COVID-19 includes best practices for supportive management of acute hypoxic respiratory failure. Emerging data indicate that dexamethasone therapy reduces 28-day mortality in patients requiring supplemental oxygen compared with usual care (21.6% vs 24.6%; age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.74-0.92]) and that remdesivir improves time to recovery (hospital discharge or no supplemental oxygen requirement) from 15 to 11 days. In a randomized trial of 103 patients with COVID-19, convalescent plasma did not shorten time to recovery. Ongoing trials are testing antiviral therapies, immune modulators, and anticoagulants. The case-fatality rate for COVID-19 varies markedly by age, ranging from 0.3 deaths per 1000 cases among patients aged 5 to 17 years to 304.9 deaths per 1000 cases among patients aged 85 years or older in the US. Among patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit, the case fatality is up to 40%. At least 120 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are under development. Until an effective vaccine is available, the primary methods to reduce spread are face masks, social distancing, and contact tracing. Monoclonal antibodies and hyperimmune globulin may provide additional preventive strategies.

Conclusions and relevance: As of July 1, 2020, more than 10 million people worldwide had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Many aspects of transmission, infection, and treatment remain unclear. Advances in prevention and effective management of COVID-19 will require basic and clinical investigation and public health and clinical interventions.

Abstract
Recently published case reports relating to anesthesia in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) were reviewed. The diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed by positive results of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Numerous reports handled emergency cesarean delivery. Primary symptoms and laboratory data of pregnant women with COVID-19 were similar to those of non-pregnant patients. Although the mortality rate is reported to be high after surgery in patients with COVID-19, cesarean delivery was successfully performed under regional anesthesia in most cases and postoperative course was favorable both in the parents and newborns. There is no direct evidence of vertical mother-to-child transmission of SARS-CoV-2; however, a diagnosis of COVID-19 was made in a newborn two hours after delivery from a pregnant woman with COVID-19, based on the increased immunoglobulin levels and deranged liver function, suggesting that its possibility cannot be completely eliminated. Emergency cerebral shunt reconstruction was performed repeatedly in an eight-month-old boy with COVID-19. The tracheal tube was removed in the operating room after surgery and postoperative course was uneventful. All the procedures should be performed in isolated operating rooms with medical staff with level-3 personal protection to ensure the safety of patients and health care providers.

Methods: A single ventilator in pressure control mode was used with flow control valves to simultaneously ventilate two patients with different lung compliances. The system was first evaluated using high-fidelity human patient simulator mannequins and then tested for 1 h in two pairs of COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure. Patients were matched on positive end-expiratory pressure, fractional inspired oxygen tension, and respiratory rate. Tidal volume and peak airway pressure (PMAX) were recorded from each patient using separate independent spirometers and arterial blood gas samples drawn at 0, 30, and 60 min. The authors assessed acid-base status, oxygenation, tidal volume, and PMAX for each patient. Stability was assessed by calculating the coefficient of variation.

Results: The valves performed as expected in simulation, providing a stable tidal volume of 400 ml each to two mannequins with compliance ratios varying from 20:20 to 20:90 ml/cm H2O. The system was then tested in two pairs of patients. Pair 1 was a 49-yr-old woman, ideal body weight 46 kg, and a 55-yr-old man, ideal body weight 64 kg, with lung compliance 27 ml/cm H2O versus 35 ml/cm H2O. The coefficient of variation for tidal volume was 0.2 to 0.6%, and for PMAX 0 to 1.1%. Pair 2 was a 32-yr-old man, ideal body weight 62 kg, and a 56-yr-old woman, ideal body weight 46 kg, with lung compliance 12 ml/cm H2O versus 21 ml/cm H2O. The coefficient of variation for tidal volume was 1.4 to 7.7%, and for PMAX 0 to 2.1%.

Conclusions: Differential ventilation using a single ventilator is feasible. Flow control valves enable delivery of stable tidal volume and PMAX similar to those provided by individual ventilators. : WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: In previous mass casualty situations where intensive care unit or emergency room surge conditions have resulted, the use of ventilator splitting to ventilate two or more patients has been proposed.The concept has received renewed attention with the global COVID-19 pandemic.The impaired respiratory mechanics similar to the acute respiratory distress syndrome seen in COVID-19 patients pose significant engineering challenges to optimally ventilate one patient while preventing damage to a paired patient.

What this article tells us that is new: Custom designed three-dimensional printed inspiratory flow control valves designed to allow individualized setting of tidal volume and airway pressure were evaluated using high-fidelity simulator mannequins with similar or different lung compliance and were found to perform as expected with stable tidal volumes delivered to each mannequin.Testing for 60 min in two pairs of volunteer COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure, matched on positive end-expiratory pressure level, fractional inspired oxygen tension level, and respiratory rate, demonstrated stable system performance. Continuous assessment of tidal volume and peak airway pressure in each patient during the study allowed for dynamic alteration of tidal volume in response to respiratory acidosis.This study suggests that custom designed flow control valves may facilitate the use of split ventilation techniques in a surge setting.

Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is caused by a coronavirus that is transmitted primarily via aerosol, droplets or direct contact. This may place anesthetists at higher risk of infection due to their frequent involvement in aerosol-generating airway interventions. Many anesthethetic COVID-19 guidelines have emerged, whose underlying management principles include minimizing aerosol contamination and protecting healthcare workers. These guidelines originate from Australia and New Zealand, Canada, China, India, Italy, Korea, Singapore, the United States and the United Kingdom. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients may require airway interventions, and difficult tracheal intubation secondary to laryngeal edema has been reported. Pre-pandemic difficult airway guidelines include those from Canada, France, Germany, India, Japan, Scandinavia, the United States and the United Kingdom. These difficult airway guidelines require modifications in order to align with the principles of the anesthetic COVID-19 guidelines. In turn, most of the anesthetic COVID-19 guidelines do not, or only briefly, discuss an airway strategy after failed tracheal intubation. Our article identifies and compares pre-pandemic difficult airway guidelines with the recent anesthetic COVID-19 guidelines. We combine the principles from both sets of guidelines and explain the necessary modifications to the airway guidelines, to form a failed tracheal intubation airway strategy in the COVID-19 patient. Valuing, and a greater understanding of, these differences and modifications may lead to greater adherence to the new COVID-19 guidelines.

Abstract
Current evidence suggests that Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread occurs via respiratory droplets (particles >5 µm), and possibly through aerosol. The rate of transmission remains high during airway management. This was evident during the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic where those who were involved in tracheal intubation had a higher risk of infection than those who were not involved (odds ratio 6.6). We describe specific airway management principles for patients with known or suspected COVID-19 disease for an array of critical care and procedural settings. We conducted a thorough search of the available literature of airway management of COVID-19 across a variety of international settings. In addition, we have analyzed various medical professional body recommendations for common procedural practices such as interventional cardiology, gastroenterology and pulmonology. A systematic process that aims to protect the operators involved via appropriate personal protective equipment, avoidance of unnecessary patient contact and minimalization of periprocedural aerosol generation are key components to successful airway management. For operating room cases requiring general anesthesia or complex interventional procedures, tracheal intubation should be the preferred option. For interventional procedures when tracheal intubation is not indicated, cautious conscious sedation appears to be a reasonable approach. Awake intubation should be avoided unless it is absolutely necessary. Extubation is a high-risk procedure for aerosol and droplet spread and needs thorough planning and preparation. As updates and modifications in the management of COVID-19 are still evolving, local guidelines, appraised at regular intervals, are vital in optimizing clinical management.

Abstract
Background: It is nearly impossible to overestimate the burden of chronic pain, which is associated with enormous personal and socioeconomic costs. Chronic pain is the leading cause of disability in the world, is associated with multiple psychiatric comorbidities, and has been causally linked to the opioid crisis. Access to pain treatment has been called a fundamental human right by numerous organizations. The current COVID-19 pandemic has strained medical resources, creating a dilemma for physicians charged with the responsibility to limit spread of the contagion and to treat the patients they are entrusted to care for.

Methods: To address these issues, an expert panel was convened that included pain management experts from the military, Veterans Health Administration, and academia. Endorsement from stakeholder societies was sought upon completion of the document within a one-week period.

Results: In these guidelines, we provide a framework for pain practitioners and institutions to balance the often-conflicting goals of risk mitigation for health care providers, risk mitigation for patients, conservation of resources, and access to pain management services. Specific issues discussed include general and intervention-specific risk mitigation, patient flow issues and staffing plans, telemedicine options, triaging recommendations, strategies to reduce psychological sequelae in health care providers, and resource utilization.

Conclusions: The COVID-19 public health crisis has strained health care systems, creating a conundrum for patients, pain medicine practitioners, hospital leaders, and regulatory officials. Although this document provides a framework for pain management services, systems-wide and individual decisions must take into account clinical considerations, regional health conditions, government and hospital directives, resource availability, and the welfare of health care providers.

Abstract
Chronic pain causes significant suffering, limitation of daily activities and reduced quality of life. Infection from COVID-19 is responsible for an ongoing pandemic that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome, leading to systemic complications and death. Led by the World Health Organization, healthcare systems across the world are engaged in limiting the spread of infection. As a result, all elective surgical procedures, outpatient procedures and patient visits, including pain management services, have been postponed or cancelled. This has affected the care of chronic pain patients. Most are elderly with multiple comorbidities, which puts them at risk of COVID-19 infection. Important considerations that need to be recognised during this pandemic for chronic pain patients include: ensuring continuity of care and pain medications, especially opioids; use of telemedicine; maintaining biopsychosocial management; use of anti-inflammatory drugs; use of steroids; and prioritising necessary procedural visits. There are no guidelines to inform physicians and healthcare providers engaged in caring for patients with pain during this period of crisis. We assembled an expert panel of pain physicians, psychologists and researchers from North America and Europe to formulate recommendations to guide practice. As the COVID-19 situation continues to evolve rapidly, these recommendations are based on the best available evidence and expert opinion at this present time and may need adapting to local workplace policies.

Abstract.
Purpose: To assess the management and safety of epidural or general anesthesia for Cesarean delivery in parturients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and their newborns, and to evaluate the standardized procedures for protecting medical staff.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the cases of parturients diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection disease (COVID-19). Their epidemiologic history, chest computed tomography scans, laboratory measurements, and SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid positivity were evaluated. We also recorded the patients' demographic and clinical characteristics, anesthesia and surgery-related data, maternal and neonatal complications, as well as the health status of the involved medical staff.

Results: The clinical characteristics of 17 pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 were similar to those previously reported in non-pregnant adult patients. All of the 17 patients underwent Cesarean delivery with anesthesia performed according to standardized anesthesia/surgery procedures. Fourteen of the patients underwent continuous epidural anesthesia with 12 experiencing significant intraoperative hypotension. Three patients received general anesthesia with tracheal intubation because emergency surgery was needed. Three of the parturients are still recovering from their Cesarean delivery and are receiving in-hospital treatment for COVID-19. Three neonates were born prematurely. There were no deaths or serious neonatal asphyxia events. All neonatal SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid tests were negative. No medical staff were infected throughout the patient care period.

Conclusions: Both epidural and general anesthesia were safely used for Cesarean delivery in the parturients with COVID-19. Nevertheless, the incidence of hypotension during epidural anesthesia appeared excessive. Proper patient transfer, medical staff access procedures, and effective biosafety precautions are important to protect medical staff from COVID-19.

Across the world, pain treatment centres have closed their doors. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare providers are abruptly changing their care delivery to protect patients and staff from infection and to reallocate resource towards the greatest acute needs.
Elective, routine, and nonemergency casework has stopped in secondary and tertiary centres, while in primary care, patients are requested to stay away or “socially distance,” and in residential care facilities and hospices, strict isolation and separation protocols have been introduced.

By January 7, 2020, Chinese scientists confirmed that the outbreak was caused by a novel coronavirus, initially referred to as the 2019-nCoV,2 and recently renamed as severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and the disease is now termed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by the WHO. As of February 20, 2020, more than 75,748 confirmed cases of COVID-19 have been reported in 28 countries (including China) and international conveyance (cruise ship in the Japanese territorial waters), with approximately 99% of cases occurring in mainland China.

Abstract.
A global health emergency has been declared by the World Health Organization as the 2019-nCoV outbreak spreads across the world, with confirmed patients in Canada. Patients infected with 2019-nCoV are at risk for developing respiratory failure and requiring admission to critical care units. While providing optimal treatment for these patients, careful execution of infection control measures is necessary to prevent nosocomial transmission to other patients and to healthcare workers providing care. Although the exact mechanisms of transmission are currently unclear, human-to-human transmission can occur, and the risk of airborne spread during aerosol-generating medical procedures remains a concern in specific circumstances. This paper summarizes important considerations regarding patient screening, environmental controls, personal protective equipment, resuscitation measures (including intubation), and critical care unit operations planning as we prepare for the possibility of new imported cases or local outbreaks of 2019-nCoV. Although understanding of the 2019-nCoV virus is evolving, lessons learned from prior infectious disease challenges such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome will hopefully improve our state of readiness regardless of the number of cases we eventually manage in Canada.

Abstract.
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has been designated a public health emergency of international concern. To prepare for a pandemic, hospitals need a strategy to manage their space, staff, and supplies so that optimum care is provided to patients. In addition, infection prevention measures need to be implemented to reduce in-hospital transmission. In the operating room, these preparations involve multiple stakeholders and can present a significant challenge. Here, we describe the outbreak response measures of the anesthetic department staffing the largest (1,700-bed) academic tertiary level acute care hospital in Singapore (Singapore General Hospital) and a smaller regional hospital (Sengkang General Hospital). These include engineering controls such as identification and preparation of an isolation operating room, administrative measures such as modification of workflow and processes, introduction of personal protective equipment for staff, and formulation of clinical guidelines for anesthetic management. Simulation was valuable in evaluating the feasibility of new operating room set-ups or workflow. We also discuss how the hierarchy of controls can be used as a framework to plan the necessary measures during each phase of a pandemic, and review the evidence for the measures taken. These containment measures are necessary to optimize the quality of care provided to COVID-19 patients and to reduce the risk of viral transmission to other patients or healthcare workers.

Editor—Wuhan, the core city of central China, has reported an outbreak of atypical pneumonia caused by a 2019 novel coronavirus in late 2019. This coronavirus is officially named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).1,2 There are many pregnant women presenting with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which undoubtedly threatens the lives of both mother and baby. Currently, there are no statistics regarding pregnant women infected with COVID-19. A retrospective review has indicated the clinical characteristics of nine pregnant women with COVID-19.3 However, how anaesthesia was undertaken during delivery is unknown. Here, we report a case of successful spinal anaesthesia in a woman with confirmed COVID-19 who required emergency Caesarean section. Of note, there were 35 cases with confirmed COVID-19 undergoing emergency Caesarean delivery in Wuhan Union Hospital from 23 January, 2020 to 20 February, 2020, with further clinical investigation in progress.