Near-field airborne particle concentrations in young children undergoing high-flow nasal cannula therapy: a pilot study

Generation of Aerosols by Noninvasive Respiratory Support Modalities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Infection control guidelines have historically classified high-flow nasal oxygen and noninvasive ventilation as aerosol-generating procedures that require specialized infection prevention and control measures.

Objective

To evaluate the current evidence that high-flow nasal oxygen and noninvasive ventilation are associated with pathogen-laden aerosols and aerosol generation.

Data Sources

A systematic search of EMBASE and PubMed/MEDLINE up to March 15, 2023, and CINAHL and ClinicalTrials.gov up to August 1, 2023, was performed.

Study Selection

Observational and (quasi-)experimental studies of patients or healthy volunteers supported with high-flow nasal oxygen or noninvasive ventilation were selected.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Three reviewers were involved in independent study screening, assessment of risk of bias, and data extraction. Data from observational studies were pooled using a random-effects model at both sample and patient levels. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the influence of model choice.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were the detection of pathogens in air samples and the quantity of aerosol particles.

Results

Twenty-four studies were included, of which 12 involved measurements in patients and 15 in healthy volunteers. Five observational studies on SARS-CoV-2 detection in a total of 212 air samples during high-flow nasal oxygen in 152 patients with COVID-19 were pooled for meta-analysis. There was no association between high-flow nasal oxygen and pathogen-laden aerosols (odds ratios for positive samples, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.15-3.55] at the sample level and 0.80 [95% CI, 0.14-4.59] at the patient level). Two studies assessed SARS-CoV-2 detection during noninvasive ventilation (84 air samples from 72 patients). There was no association between noninvasive ventilation and pathogen-laden aerosols (odds ratios for positive samples, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.03-4.63] at the sample level and 0.43 [95% CI, 0.01-27.12] at the patient level). None of the studies in healthy volunteers reported clinically relevant increases in aerosol particle production by high-flow nasal oxygen or noninvasive ventilation.

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis found no association between high-flow nasal oxygen or noninvasive ventilation and increased airborne pathogen detection or aerosol generation. These findings argue against classifying high-flow nasal oxygen or noninvasive ventilation as aerosol-generating procedures or differentiating infection prevention and control practices for patients receiving these modalities.

A novel VOC breath tracer method to evaluate indoor respiratory exposures in the near- and far-fields; implications for the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Several studies suggest that far-field transmission (>6 ft) explains a significant number of COVID-19 superspreading outbreaks.

OBJECTIVE

Therefore, quantifying the ratio of near- and far-field exposure to emissions from a source is key to better understanding human-to-human airborne infectious disease transmission and associated risks.

METHODS

In this study, we used an environmentally-controlled chamber to measure volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released from a healthy participant who consumed breath mints, which contained unique tracer compounds. Tracer measurements were made at 0.76 m (2.5 ft), 1.52 m (5 ft), 2.28 m (7.5 ft) from the participant, as well as in the exhaust plenum of the chamber.

RESULTS

We observed that 0.76 m (2.5 ft) trials had ~36-44% higher concentrations than other distances during the first 20 minutes of experiments, highlighting the importance of the near-field exposure relative to the far-field before virus-laden respiratory aerosol plumes are continuously mixed into the far-field. However, for the conditions studied, the concentrations of human-sourced tracers after 20 minutes and approaching the end of the 60-minute trials at 0.76 m, 1.52 m, and 2.28 m were only ~18%, ~11%, and ~7.5% higher than volume-averaged concentrations, respectively.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study suggests that for rooms with similar airflow parameters disease transmission risk is dominated by near-field exposures for shorter event durations (e.g., initial 20-25-minutes of event) whereas far-field exposures are critical throughout the entire event and are increasingly more important for longer event durations.

IMPACT STATEMENT

We offer a novel methodology for studying the fate and transport of airborne bioaerosols in indoor spaces using VOCs as unique proxies for bioaerosols. We provide evidence that real-time measurement of VOCs can be applied in settings with human subjects to estimate the concentration of bioaerosol at different distances from the emitter. We also improve upon the conventional assumption that a well-mixed room exhibits instantaneous and perfect mixing by addressing spatial distances and mixing over time. We quantitatively assessed the exposure levels to breath tracers at alternate distances and provided more insights into the changes on "near-field to far-field" ratios over time. This method can be used in future to estimate the benefits of alternate environmental conditions and occupant behaviors.

Aerosol Generation During Nasal Airway Instrumentation

OBJECTIVE

Airborne aerosol transmission, an established mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 spread, has been successfully mitigated in the health care setting through the adoption of universal masking. Upper airway endoscopy, however, requires direct access to the face, thereby potentially exposing the clinic environment to infectious particles. This study quantifies aerosol production during rigid nasal endoscopy (RNE) and RNE with debridement (RNED) as compared with intubation, a posited gold standard aerosol-generating procedure.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Subspecialty single-center clinic and surgical study.

METHOD

Three aerosol detectors (NANOSCAN-3910, OPS-3330, and APS-3321) with a particle size sensitivity of 10 to 20,000 nm were utilized to detect particulate production during the clinical care of 209 patients undergoing RNE/RNED and 25 patients undergoing intubation.

RESULTS

RNE and RNED produced statistically significant particles over baseline in 29.3% and 51.0% of subjects (P = .003-.049 and .002-.047, respectively). Intubation produced statistically significant particles in 31.2% (P = .001-.015). The mean ± SD particle diameter in all tests was 69.9 ± 10.5 nm with 99.7% <300 nm. There were no statistical differences in particle production among RNE, RNED, and intubation. The presence of concomitant cough, sneeze, or prolonged speech similarly did not significantly affect particle production during any procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Instrumentation of nasal airway produces airborne aerosols to a similar degree of those seen during intubation, independent of reactive patient behaviors such as cough or sneeze. These data suggest that an improved understanding is necessary of both the definition of an aerosol-generating procedure and the functional consequences of procedural aerosol generation in clinical settings.