scholarly journals Aerosol Retention Characteristics of Barrier Devices

2020 ◽  
Vol 134 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-71
Author(s):  
Richard L. Fidler ◽  
Christopher R. Niedek ◽  
Justin J. Teng ◽  
Mary E. Sturgeon ◽  
Qi Zhang ◽  
...  

Background Disease severity in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be associated with inoculation dose. This has triggered interest in intubation barrier devices to block droplet exposure; however, aerosol protection with these devices is not known. This study hypothesized that barrier devices reduce aerosol outside of the barrier. Methods Aerosol containment in closed, semiclosed, semiopen, and open barrier devices was investigated: (1) “glove box” sealed with gloves and caudal drape, (2) “drape tent” with a drape placed over a frame, (3) “slit box” with armholes and caudal end covered by vinyl slit diaphragms, (4) original “aerosol box,” (5) collapsible “interlocking box,” (6) “simple drape” over the patient, and (7) “no barrier.” Containment was investigated by (1) vapor instillation at manikin’s right arm with video-assisted visual evaluation and (2) submicrometer ammonium sulfate aerosol particles ejected through the manikin’s mouth with ventilation and coughs. Samples were taken from standardized locations inside and around the barriers using a particle counter and a mass spectrometer. Aerosol evacuation from the devices was measured using standard hospital suction, a surgical smoke evacuator, and a Shop-Vac. Results Vapor experiments demonstrated leakage via arm holes and edges. Only closed and semiclosed devices and the aerosol box reduced aerosol particle counts (median [25th, 75th percentile]) at the operator’s mouth compared to no barrier (combined median 29 [−11, 56], n = 5 vs. 157 [151, 166], n = 5). The other barrier devices provided less reduction in particle counts (133 [128, 137], n = 5). Aerosol evacuation to baseline required 15 min with standard suction and the Shop-Vac and 5 min with a smoke evacuator. Conclusions Barrier devices may reduce exposure to droplets and aerosol. With meticulous tucking, the glove box and drape tent can retain aerosol during airway management. Devices that are not fully enclosed may direct aerosol toward the laryngoscopist. Aerosol evacuation reduces aerosol content inside fully enclosed devices. Barrier devices must be used in conjunction with body-worn personal protective equipment. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Author(s):  
Yu-Bin Dong ◽  
Luo-Gang Ding ◽  
Song Wang ◽  
Bingjian Yao ◽  
Wen-Xiu Wu ◽  
...  

As an important personal protective equipment (PPE), facemasks play an important role in self-protection during disastrous COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses pandemic. On the other hand, massive utilization of disposable...


2020 ◽  
Vol 125 (4) ◽  
pp. e360-e361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Massimiliano Sorbello ◽  
Kariem El-Boghdadly ◽  
Jan Schumacher ◽  
Imran Ahmad

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 ◽  
pp. 23-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Umair Ansari ◽  
Cyprian Mendonca ◽  
Ratidzo Danha ◽  
Richard Robley ◽  
Tim Davies

CJEM ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 11 (01) ◽  
pp. 44-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura M. Visentin ◽  
Susan J. Bondy ◽  
Brian Schwartz ◽  
Laurie J. Morrison

ABSTRACTObjective:We sought to assess the knowledge of, use of and barriers to the use of personal protective equipment for airway management among emergency medical technicians (EMTs) during and since the 2003 Canadian outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).Methods:Using a cross-sectional survey, EMTs in Toronto, Ont., were surveyed 1 year after the SARS outbreak during mandatory training on the use of personal protective equipment in airway management during the outbreak and just before taking the survey. Practices that were addressed reflected government directives on the use of this equipment. Main outcome measures included the frequency of personal protective equipment use and, as applicable, why particular items were not always used.Results:The response rate was 67.3% (n= 230). During the SARS outbreak, an N95-type particulate respirator was reported to bealwaysused by 91.5% of respondents. Conversely, 72.9% of the respondents reported that theyneverused the open face hood. Equipment availability and vision impairment were often cited as impediments to personal protective equipment use. In nonoutbreak conditions, only the antimicrobial airway filter was most often reported to bealwaysused (52.0%), while other items were used at an intermediate frequency. The most common reason for notalwaysdonning equipment was that paramedics deemed it unnecessary for the situation.Conclusion:Personal protective equipment is not consistently employed as per medical directives. Reasons given for nonuse included nonavailability, judgment of nonnecessity or technical difficulties. There are important public health implications of noncompliance.


2021 ◽  
pp. 19-21
Author(s):  
Monica Chhikara ◽  
Prashant Kumar ◽  
Priyanka Bansal ◽  
Reena Mahajan ◽  
Preeti Gehlaut ◽  
...  

Background and Objectives: Frontline anaesthesiologist working in Covid 19 Intensive care units are the key to the management and containment of this infectious disease. Hence, their protection is of utmost importance in managing this epidemic. The equipment used for this purpose, pose technical difculties. This study is a survey of these challenges faced by anaesthesiologists. Material and Methods: This is a descriptive, cross sectional questionnaire based study which included 67 Anesthesiologist junior residents, senior residents and consultants. A valid Google form Questionnaire regarding technical difculties due to use of personal protective equipment was prepared and sent online to all participants. The responses were recorded and tabulated. Results: Physical fatigue due to PPE was experienced by 36(53.7%) residents and difculties in airway management by 66(98.5%) residents. Fogging of goggles was the major difculty (52.2%) during airway management. Intubation while using only PPE (71.6%) was a preferred method of intubation rather than using acrylic box (4.5%) or transparent sheet (23.9%). Apart from managing airway, other procedures like central venous cannulation was found to be always difcult (23.9%). Training program for managing pandemic was found to be helpful and 70.1% residents expressed the need for its conduct before every posting. Conclusion: Managing Covid 19 patients in a highly demanding area like intensive care units while using personal protective equipment has unveiled special challenges and concerns for frontline anaesthesiologists. Addressing them appropriately is the need of hour for the wellbeing of healthcare workers and effective patient management.


2021 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-70
Author(s):  
F. Sanfilippo ◽  
S. Tigano ◽  
G.J. Palumbo ◽  
M. Astuto ◽  
P. Murabito

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e000558
Author(s):  
Enrique Murcio-Pérez ◽  
Raúl Antonio Zamarripa-Mottú ◽  
Gustavo Andrade-DePaulo ◽  
Octavio Aguilar-Nájera ◽  
Jorge Asadur Tchekmedyian ◽  
...  

Background and aimsDigestive endoscopy is considered a high-risk procedure for COVID-19. Recommendations have been made for its practice during the pandemic. This study was conducted to determine adherence to recommendations for endoscopy practice during the COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America (LA).MethodsA survey was conducted of endoscopists from LA consisting of 43 questions for the evaluation of four items: general and sociodemographic features, and preprocedure, intraprocedure and postprocedure aspects.ResultsA response was obtained from 338 endoscopists (response rate 34.5%) across 15 countries in LA. In preprocedure aspects (hand washing, use of face masks for patients, respiratory triage area, training for the placement/removal of personal protective equipment (PPE) and availability of specific area for the placement/removal of PPE), there was adherence in <75%. Regarding postprocedure aspects, 77% (261/338) had reused PPE, mainly the N95 respirator or higher, and this was with a standardised decontamination procedure only in 32% (108/338) of the time. Postprocedure room decontamination was carried out by 47% on >75% of occasions. In relationship to intraprocedure aspects (knowledge of risk and type of endoscopic procedures, use of PPE, airway management in patients and infrastructure), there was adherence in >75% for all the parameters and 78% of endoscopists only performed emergencies or time-sensitive procedures.ConclusionsAdherence to the recommendations for endoscopy practice during the COVID-19 pandemic is adequate in the intraprocedure aspect. However, it is deficient in the preprocedure and postprocedure aspects.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document