Barbara Mederski

Detection of Airborne Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Coronavirus and Environmental Contamination in SARS Outbreak Units

Abstract Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is characterized by a risk of nosocomial transmission; however, the risk of airborne transmission of SARS is unknown. During the Toronto outbreaks of SARS, we investigated environmental contamination in SARS units, by employing novel air sampling and conventional surface swabbing. Two polymerase chain reaction (PCR)–positive air samples were obtained from a room occupied by a patient with SARS, indicating the presence of the virus in the air of the room. In addition, several PCR-positive swab samples were recovered from frequently touched surfaces in rooms occupied by patients with SARS (a bed table and a television remote control) and in a nurses’ station used by staff (a medication refrigerator door). These data provide the first experimental confirmation of viral aerosol generation by a patient with SARS, indicating the possibility of airborne droplet transmission, which emphasizes the need for adequate respiratory protection, as well as for strict surface hygiene practices

Possible SARS Coronavirus Transmission during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Infection of healthcare workers with the severe acute respiratory syndrome–associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) is thought to occur primarily by either contact or large respiratory droplet transmission. However, infrequent healthcare worker infections occurred despite the use of contact and droplet precautions, particularly during certain aerosol-generating medical procedures. We investigated a possible cluster of SARS-CoV infections in healthcare workers who used contact and droplet precautions during attempted cardiopulmonary resuscitation of a SARS patient. Unlike previously reported instances of transmission during aerosol-generating procedures, the index case-patient was unresponsive, and the intubation procedure was performed quickly and without difficulty. However, before intubation, the patient was ventilated with a bag-valve-mask that may have contributed to aerosolization of SARS-CoV. On the basis of the results of this investigation and previous reports of SARS transmission during aerosol-generating procedures, a systematic approach to the problem is outlined, including the use of the following: 1) administrative controls, 2) environmental engineering controls, 3) personal protective equipment, and 4) quality control.

Late Recognition of SARS in Nosocomial Outbreak, Toronto

Late recognition of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) was associated with no known SARS contact, hospitalization before the nosocomial outbreak was recognized, symptom onset while hospitalized, wards with SARS clusters, and postoperative status. SARS is difficult to recognize in hospitalized patients with a variety of underlying conditions in the absence of epidemiologic links.

Risk of Ruling out Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome by Ruling in another Diagnosis: Variable Incidence of Atypical Bacteria Coinfection Based on Diagnostic Assays

BACKGROUND Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) caused the first epidemic of the 21st century and continues to threaten the global community. OBJECTIVE To assess the incidence of coinfection in patients confirmed to have SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) infection, and thus, to determine the risk of ruling out SARS by ruling in another diagnosis. METHODS The present report is a retrospective study evaluating the incidence and impact of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV and other pulmonary pathogens in 117 patients. These patients were evaluated in a Toronto, Ontario, community hospital identified as the epicentre for the second SARS outbreak. RESULTS Coinfection with other pulmonary pathogens occurred in patients with SARS. Seventy-three per cent of the patient population evaluated had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV infection. Serology showing acute or recent Chlamydophila pneumoniae or Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection revealed an incidence of 30% and 9%, respectively, in those with SARS. These rates are similar to previously published studies on coinfection in pneumonia. All nucleic acid diagnostic assays were negative for C pneumoniae and M pneumoniae in respiratory samples from patients with SARS having serological evidence for these atypical pathogens. CONCLUSIONS Diagnostic assays for well-recognized pulmonary pathogens have limitations, and ruling out SARS-CoV by ruling in another pulmonary pathogen carries significant risk. Despite positive serology for atypical pathogens, in a setting where clinical suspicion for SARS is high, specific tests for SARS should be performed to confirm or exclude a diagnosis.