ObjectivesThis study aimed to estimate and compare the prevalence of the virus-specific antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein antigen (anti-SARS-CoV-2 N) in healthcare workers and an all-comer paediatric and adult patient population.Design, setting and participantsA longitudinal study enrolling healthcare professionals and concurrent serial cross-sectional studies of unselected all-comer patients were conducted at an Austrian academic medical centre. Healthcare workers were tested at enrolment and after 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 months. The cross-sectional studies in patients were conducted at three time periods, which roughly coincided with the times after the first, second and third wave of SARS-CoV-2 in Austria (ie, 24 August–7 September 2020; 8–22 February 2021 and 9–23 November 2021). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 N antibodies were measured using a sandwich electrochemiluminescence assay (Roche).ResultsIn total, 2735 and 9275 samples were measured in 812 healthcare workers (median age: 40 years, 78% female) and 8451 patients (median age: 55 years, 52% female), respectively. Over the entire study period, anti-SARS-CoV-2 N antibodies were detected in 98 of 812 healthcare workers, resulting in a seroprevalence of 12.1% (95% CI 10.0% to 14.5%), which did not differ significantly (p=0.63) from that of the all-comer patient population at the end of the study period (407/3184; 12.8%, 95% CI 11.7% to 14.0%). The seroprevalence between healthcare workers and patients did not differ significantly at any time and was 1.5-fold to 2-fold higher than the number of confirmed cases in Austria throughout the pandemic. In particular, there was no significant difference in the seroprevalence between paediatric and adult patients at any of the tested time periods.ConclusionThroughout the pandemic, healthcare staff and an adult and paediatric all-comer patient population had similar exposure to SARS-CoV-2.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT04407429.

No abstract

Background Recent randomized controlled trials did not show benefit of early/immediate coronary angiography (CAG) over a delayed/selective strategy in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and no ST-segment elevation. However, whether selected subgroups, specifically those with a high pretest probability of coronary artery disease may benefit from early CAG remains unclear. Methods We included all randomized controlled trials that compared a strategy of early/immediate versus delayed/selective CAG in OHCA patients and no ST elevation and had a follow-up of at least 30 days. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause death. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated and pooled across trials. Interaction testing was used to assess for heterogeneity of treatment effects. Results In total, 1512 patients (67 years, 26% female, 23% prior myocardial infarction) were included from 5 randomized controlled trials. Early/immediate versus delayed/selective CAG was not associated with a statistically significant difference in odds of death (OR 1.12, 95%-CI 0.91–1.38), with similar findings for the composite outcome of all-cause death or neurological deficit (OR 1.10, 95%-CI 0.89–1.36). There was no effect modification for death by age, presence of a shockable initial cardiac rhythm, history of coronary artery disease, presence of an ischemic event as the presumed cause of arrest, or time to return of spontaneous circulation (all P-interaction > 0.10). However, early/immediate CAG tended to be associated with higher odds of death in women (OR 1.52, 95%-CI 1.00–2.31, P = 0.050) than in men (OR 1.04, 95%-CI 0.82–1.33, P = 0.74; P-interaction 0.097). Conclusion In OHCA patients without ST-segment elevation, a strategy of early/immediate versus delayed/selective CAG did not reduce all-cause mortality across major subgroups. However, women tended to have higher odds of death with early CAG. Graphical abstract