The COVID-19 pandemic caused the shutdown of entire nations all over the world. In addition to mobility restrictions of people, the World Health Organization and the Governments have prescribed maintaining an inter-personal distance of 1.5 or 2 m (about 6 feet) from each other in order to minimize the risk of contagion through the droplets that we usually disseminate around us from nose and mouth. However, recently published studies support the hypothesis of virus transmission over a distance of 2 m from an infected person. Researchers have proved the higher aerosol and surface stability of SARS-COV-2 as compared with SARS-COV-1 (with the virus remaining viable and infectious in aerosol for hours) and that airborne transmission of SARS-CoV can occur besides close-distance contacts. Indeed, there is reasonable evidence about the possibility of SARS-COV-2 airborne transmission due to its persistence into aerosol droplets in a viable and infectious form. Based on the available knowledge and epidemiological observations, it is plausible that small particles containing the virus may diffuse in indoor environments covering distances up to 10 m from the emission sources, thus representing a kind of aerosol transmission. On-field studies carried out inside Wuhan Hospitals showed the presence of SARS-COV-2 RNA in air samples collected in the hospitals and also in the surroundings, leading to the conclusion that the airborne route has to be considered an important pathway for viral diffusion. Similar findings are reported in analyses concerning air samples collected at the Nebraska University Hospital. On March 16th, we have released a Position Paper emphasizing the airborne route as a possible additional factor for interpreting the anomalous COVID-19 outbreaks in northern Italy, ranked as one of the most polluted areas in Europe and characterized by high particulate matter (PM) concentrations. The available information on the SARS-COV-2 spreading supports the hypothesis of airborne diffusion of infected droplets from person to person at a distance greater than two meters (6 feet). The inter-personal distance of 2 m can be reasonably considered as an effective protection only if everybody wears face masks in daily life activities.

To test the effects of positive expiratory pressure on the leakage of fluid around cuffs of different tracheal tubes, in mechanically ventilated patients and in a benchtop model. Randomized clinical trial and experimental in vitro study. Intensive care unit of a university hospital. Forty patients recovering in the intensive care unit were ventilated in volume-controlled mode. Twenty patients were randomly intubated with Hi-Lo tubes (HL group), whereas the remaining 20 subjects were intubated with SealGuard tubes (SG group). Immediately after intubation and cuff inflation with 30 cm H2O, Evans blue was applied onto the cephalic surface of the tracheal tube cuff. A 5-cm H2O positive expiratory pressure was used during the first 5 hrs of stay, and thereafter it was removed. Bronchoscopy verified whether the dye leaked around the cuff. The experiment lasted 12 hrs. Leakage was also tested in vitro with the same tracheal tubes with incremental level of positive expiratory pressure. At 1 hr, 5 hrs, and thereafter hourly until 12 hrs, bronchoscopy was used to test the presence of dye on the trachea caudal to the cuff. At the fifth hour, two patients of the HL group failed the test. One hour after positive expiratory pressure removal, all subjects in group HL exhibited a dyed lower trachea. On the other hand, one patient in group SG presented a leak at the eighth hour, and at the 12th hour three of them were still sealed. In vitro, the same level of positive expiratory pressure delayed the passage of dye around the cuff; after 30 mins positive expiratory pressure was removed, and in 10 mins all dye leaked only in the Hi-Lo tube. We found that 5 cm H2O positive expiratory pressure was effective in delaying the passage of fluid around the cuffs of tracheal tubes both in vivo and in vitro. The SealGuard tube proved to be more resistant to leakage than Hi-Lo.

Despite promising results obtained in the early diagnosis of several pathologies, breath analysis still remains an unused technique in clinical practice due to the lack of breath sampling standardized procedures able to guarantee a good repeatability and comparability of results. The most diffuse on an international scale breath sampling method uses polymeric bags, but, recently, devices named Mistral and ReCIVA, able to directly concentrate volatile organic compounds (VOCs) onto sorbent tubes, have been developed and launched on the market. In order to explore performances of these new automatic devices with respect to sampling in the polymeric bag and to study the differences in VOCs profile when whole or alveolar breath is collected and when pulmonary wash out with clean air is done, a tailored experimental design was developed. Three different breath sampling approaches were compared: (a) whole breath sampling by means of Tedlar bags, (b) the end-tidal breath collection using the Mistral sampler, and (c) the simultaneous collection of the whole and alveolar breath by using the ReCIVA. The obtained results showed that alveolar fraction of breath was relatively less affected by ambient air (AA) contaminants (p-values equal to 0.04 for Mistral and 0.002 for ReCIVA Low) with respect to whole breath (p-values equal to 0.97 for ReCIVA Whole). Compared to Tedlar bags, coherent results were obtained by using Mistral while lower VOCs levels were detected for samples (both breath and AA) collected by ReCIVA, likely due to uncorrected and fluctuating flow rates applied by this device. Finally, the analysis of all data also including data obtained by explorative analysis of the unique lung cancer (LC) breath sample showed that a clean air supply might determine a further confounding factor in breath analysis considering that lung wash-out is species-dependent.