M de la Matta1, J M Delgado-Sánchez2, G M Gutiérrez3, J L López Romero1, M Del Mar Martínez Gómez1, A Domínguez Blanco1. 1. Servicio de Anestesiología y Reanimación, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Sevilla, España. 2. Departamento de Matemática Aplicada I, Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, España. 3. Unidad de Enfermedades Infecciosas, Microbiología y Medicina Preventiva, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Sevilla, España.
Abstract
Introduction: Due to its high transmissibility, measures aimed at reducing the spread of SARS CoV2 have become mandatory. Different organizations have recommended performing polymerase chain reaction tests (PCR) as part of the preoperative screening of surgical patients. We aimed to determine the performance of PCR testing to detect asymptomatic carriers. Methods: Observational study carried out at a tertiary care center. We compared the results of preoperative real-time reverse-transcription-PCR test (RT-PCR) performed on a cohort of patients pending surgery with the results we would have expected assuming the epidemiological data released by government offices. Results: We registered no positives in the 2,722 preoperative RT-PCR tests performed in our health care area between epidemiological Weeks 18 to 21, meaning a cumulative incidence trending to zero. Assuming public epidemiological data, the probabilistic projection of potential asymptomatic individuals ranged from 0.27*10e -4 (according to official data of new cases diagnosed by PCR) to 4.69*10e -4 if we assumed cases confirmed by IgG test in our province. Assuming a RT-PCR sensitivity of 95%, to obtain a positive result we should perform 38,461 and 2,028 tests respectively. Conclusions: In scenarios of very low prevalence and despite high sensitivity scores, indiscriminate preoperative RT-PCR screening is of a questionable effectiveness for detecting asymptomatic carriers. Our findings evidence the difficulty of establishing reliable predictive models for the episodic and rapidly evolving incidence of infections such as has characterized the SARS CoV2 pandemic.
Introduction: Due to its high transmissibility, measures aimed at reducing the spread of SARS CoV2 have become mandatory. Different organizations have recommended performing polymerase chain reaction tests (PCR) as part of the preoperative screening of surgical patients. We aimed to determine the performance of PCR testing to detect asymptomatic carriers. Methods: Observational study carried out at a tertiary care center. We compared the results of preoperative real-time reverse-transcription-PCR test (RT-PCR) performed on a cohort of patients pending surgery with the results we would have expected assuming the epidemiological data released by government offices. Results: We registered no positives in the 2,722 preoperative RT-PCR tests performed in our health care area between epidemiological Weeks 18 to 21, meaning a cumulative incidence trending to zero. Assuming public epidemiological data, the probabilistic projection of potential asymptomatic individuals ranged from 0.27*10e -4 (according to official data of new cases diagnosed by PCR) to 4.69*10e -4 if we assumed cases confirmed by IgG test in our province. Assuming a RT-PCR sensitivity of 95%, to obtain a positive result we should perform 38,461 and 2,028 tests respectively. Conclusions: In scenarios of very low prevalence and despite high sensitivity scores, indiscriminate preoperative RT-PCR screening is of a questionable effectiveness for detecting asymptomatic carriers. Our findings evidence the difficulty of establishing reliable predictive models for the episodic and rapidly evolving incidence of infections such as has characterized the SARS CoV2 pandemic.
Authors: Roman Wölfel; Victor M Corman; Wolfgang Guggemos; Michael Seilmaier; Sabine Zange; Marcel A Müller; Daniela Niemeyer; Terry C Jones; Patrick Vollmar; Camilla Rothe; Michael Hoelscher; Tobias Bleicker; Sebastian Brünink; Julia Schneider; Rosina Ehmann; Katrin Zwirglmaier; Christian Drosten; Clemens Wendtner Journal: Nature Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Qun Li; Xuhua Guan; Peng Wu; Xiaoye Wang; Lei Zhou; Yeqing Tong; Ruiqi Ren; Kathy S M Leung; Eric H Y Lau; Jessica Y Wong; Xuesen Xing; Nijuan Xiang; Yang Wu; Chao Li; Qi Chen; Dan Li; Tian Liu; Jing Zhao; Man Liu; Wenxiao Tu; Chuding Chen; Lianmei Jin; Rui Yang; Qi Wang; Suhua Zhou; Rui Wang; Hui Liu; Yinbo Luo; Yuan Liu; Ge Shao; Huan Li; Zhongfa Tao; Yang Yang; Zhiqiang Deng; Boxi Liu; Zhitao Ma; Yanping Zhang; Guoqing Shi; Tommy T Y Lam; Joseph T Wu; George F Gao; Benjamin J Cowling; Bo Yang; Gabriel M Leung; Zijian Feng Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Waleed Alhazzani; Morten Hylander Møller; Yaseen M Arabi; Mark Loeb; Michelle Ng Gong; Eddy Fan; Simon Oczkowski; Mitchell M Levy; Lennie Derde; Amy Dzierba; Bin Du; Michael Aboodi; Hannah Wunsch; Maurizio Cecconi; Younsuck Koh; Daniel S Chertow; Kathryn Maitland; Fayez Alshamsi; Emilie Belley-Cote; Massimiliano Greco; Matthew Laundy; Jill S Morgan; Jozef Kesecioglu; Allison McGeer; Leonard Mermel; Manoj J Mammen; Paul E Alexander; Amy Arrington; John E Centofanti; Giuseppe Citerio; Bandar Baw; Ziad A Memish; Naomi Hammond; Frederick G Hayden; Laura Evans; Andrew Rhodes Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-03-28 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Robin Patel; Esther Babady; Elitza S Theel; Gregory A Storch; Benjamin A Pinsky; Kirsten St George; Tara C Smith; Stefano Bertuzzi Journal: mBio Date: 2020-03-26 Impact factor: 7.867