key: cord-0798603-elwk147y
authors: Kamel, Toufik; Guillaume, Clémence; Muller, Grégoire; Baala, Lekbir; Boulain, Thierry; Lesne, Fabien; Perche, Olivier; Guinard, Jérôme; Bret, Laurent; Nay, Mai-Anh; Mathonnet, Armelle; Skarzynski, Marie; Bretagnol, Anne; Desgrouas, Maxime; Runge, Isabelle; Jacquier, Sophie; Barbier, François; Bercault, Nicolas; Benzekri, Dalila
title: Sensitivity and specificity of heat and moisture exchange filters sampling for SARS-CoV-2 detection in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients.
date: 2022-04-14
journal: J Microbiol Immunol Infect
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmii.2022.04.002
sha: 82864f01f919cf2d76b60295d43d23fc891bed82
doc_id: 798603
cord_uid: elwk147y

We assessed the sensitivity and specificity of SARS-CoV-2 detection by polymerase chain reaction in heat and moisture exchange filters (HMEF) in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. We showed that testing HMEF might obviate the need for a tracheal sample to affirm that a patient is not ready to end isolation.

The decision to discontinue isolation in critically ill mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, cannot be based on the resolution of the patients' symptoms. Consequently, respiratory samples, usually tracheal aspirates obtained by tracheal suction or bronchoalveolar liquid obtained by bronchoscopy, are frequently taken in COVID-19 patients treated by mechanical ventilation (MV) to monitor the progression of infection. Real time RT-PCR is used to measure SARS-CoV2 viral load and to detect the time at which the patient can be removed from isolation. However, open tracheal suction or bronchoscopy necessary for tracheobronchial secretions sampling are aerosol-generating procedures that expose care providers to contamination. 1, 2 The use of heat and moisture exchange filters (HMEF) is recommended for mechanically ventilated patients, unless the small dead space added to the ventilator circuit is seen detrimental. 3 In our intensive care unit, we test mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR twice a week. When HMEFs are used, they are changed at least at 72-hr intervals according to the manufacturer's instructions. It was therefore easy to make the HMEF changes and the tracheal suctions coincide without changing our routine practice and we took this opportunity to obtain simultaneous HMEF-tracheal sample pairs to conduct this study. HMEF fluid analysis has previously been shown to provide valuable insight of the distal lung airspace fluid composition. 4 Additionally, the value of testing HMEF by RT-PCR has previously been shown for the diagnosis of bacterial lung infection in ventilated patients. 5 We investigated whether sampling HMEFs for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-PCR could replace tracheal aspirates.

J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f METHODS According to the French law 6 our study did not change routine practice nor imposed new treatments, procedures, or additional biological samplings. The study protocol was approved by the ethic committee of the French intensive care society (#CE SRLF20-91) before the beginning of the study. Oral consent for the utilization of the data collected was obtained from all included patients or their family.

Consecutive patients were prospectively included at any time during their ICU stay provided they were on invasive MV and had a HMEF (Humid-Vent™ Filter Compact, Teleflex® Medical Europe Ltd, Westmeath, Ireland [dead space of 38 mL]) inserted within their ventilator circuit.

HMEFs were changed at around 72-hr intervals according to the manufacturer's instructions.

At each HMEF change, an endotracheal aspirate was collected concomitantly by tracheal suctioning, according to local standardized operating procedure. A 10 Fr suction catheter was used, and 2 ml of sterile saline were instilled into the trachea before suctioning in all cases. The used HMEF and the tracheal secretion sample were sent to the hospital laboratory for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR.

The sampling of both the tracheal secretions and HMEF ended when a HMEF was no longer used, when the patient was extubated or when the patient died.

At the hospital laboratory, the patient's side of the HMEF was rubbed with a swab according to a standardized procedure described in eFigure 1. The swab was then placed in viral transport medium until analysis.

We used the TaqPath™ COVID-19 CE-IVD RT-PCR Kit (AppliedBiosystems,Thermo Fisher) and the QuantStudio™ thermocycler (AppliedBiosystems, Thermo Fisher). Three SARS-CoV-2 genes are targeted:

Open reading frame 1ab (ORF1ab), Spike protein (S) and Nucleocapside protein (N). A cycle threshold (Ct) ≤37 is considered positive for the detection of viral targets. 7 The laboratory declares the test positive when a Ct ≤37 is found for at least one target.

For the purpose of the study, indeterminate Ct were assigned the value of 40.

For this "proof-of-concept" study we opted for the inclusion of a convenience sample of at least 20 patients and 100 HMEF-tracheal pairs.

Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of a positive HMEF RT-PCR test to predict the positivity of the tracheal RT-PCR test were calculated as the mean of the variable of interest in 2000 nonstratified bootstrap replicates of the study population. Lower and upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were defined as the 2.5% and 97.5% percentile of each variable. Sensitivity and specificity of a HMEF sample Ct ≤37 for detecting a tracheal sample Ct ≤37 for each gene were calculated on raw data (i.e., without bootstrapping) and given with their 95%CI.

The limits of agreement between the Ct values obtained with the HMEF and the corresponding tracheal samples, the mean bias (HMEF Ct minus tracheal Ct) and its standard deviation(SD) were calculated by linear mixed-effect modelling for each gene, assuming that the serial measurements made in each patient had an autoregressive correlation structure and that patients had random intercept. 8 for the N gene (Figure 1) . Similar agreement intervals were found for the other genes (eFigures 2, 3 and 4).

The mean (SD) tracheal/HMEF ratio of N-gene expression was 1.9 (SD: 2.1) log.

The search for factors that best explained the tracheal/HMEF ratio of gene expression provided no useful information (see eTable 3 and eFigure 5).

J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f DISCUSSION Ct values obtained from HMEF and tracheal aspirates are not interchangeable as tracheal aspirates contain much more viral material. A recent report in 4 COVID-19 ventilated patients who underwent a paired HMEF/tracheal sampling, showed that only 1 patient had a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 on the HMEF. 10 This suggested that sampling of the HMEF had a very low sensitivity. However, we found a higher sensitivity of 62.8% and a specificity >93% (Table 1) , which may be due to different pre-processing of the HMEF material (which could be further explored).

This study has several limitations. First, it was a small-sized, single-center pilot study. Second, despite standardization of the procedure of tracheal suctioning, the volume of tracheal secretions collected could vary. Some samples may have been more diluted than others. This may have induced some false negative tracheal RT-PCR tests and slightly biased the sensitivities and specificities we calculated.

Based on the high specificity we observed, a HMEF RT-PCR positive result, which occurred in 43.8% of instances, might obviate the need for a tracheal aspirate to affirm that a patient is not ready to end 

As the study did not change routine practice nor imposed new treatments, procedures, or additional biological samplings, it was considered not to involve the human person, in the meaning of the French law [8, 9] , but only health data. Hence, submission of the protocol to the national competent authorities and registration in a trial registry were not required. The study protocol was approved by the ethic committee of the French intensive care society (#CE SRLF20-91) before the beginning of the study. Written and oral information was given to patients and their family. Oral consent for the utilization of the data collected was obtained from all included patients or their family.

Financial support was provided only by the Centre Hospitalier Régional d'Orléans, France. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. 

Closed tracheal suctioning systems in the era of COVID-19: is it time to consider them as a gold standard?

Aerosol generating procedures and risk of transmission of acute respiratory infections to healthcare workers: a systematic review

Heat and moisture exchangers and heated humidifiers in acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. Effects on respiratory mechanics and gas exchange

Standardization of methods for sampling the distal airspace in mechanically ventilated patients using heat moisture exchange filter fluid

Non-invasive detection of pulmonary pathogens in ventilator-circuit filters by PCR

-300 du 5 mars 2012 relative aux recherches impliquant la personne humaine

Application of Mixed Effects Limits of Agreement in the Presence of Multiple Sources of Variability: Exemplar from the Comparison of Several Devices to Measure Respiratory Rate in COPD Patients

Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2 −ΔΔCt method