Impact of Chemical, Biological, Radiation, and Nuclear Personal Protective Equipment on the performance of low- and high-dexterity airway and vascular access skills

ETView SL versus Macintosh Direct Laryngoscope for Endotracheal Intubation Amid Simulated COVID-19 Cardiac Arrest: A Randomized Crossover Study

Airway management procedures, such as endotracheal intubation (ETI), pose a significant risk of aerosol generation, requiring robust personal protective equipment (PPE) against aerosol-generating procedures (AGP). This study aimed to assess the impact of PPE-AGP on intubation success rates, time to intubation, and glottic visualization using ETView and a standard Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC). A total of 52 physicians participated in this prospective, observational, randomized crossover study conducted in a medical simulation setting. Participants included COVID-19 patients with cardiac arrest scenarios with and without PPE-AGP who were intubated with ETView and MAC. During intubation without PPE-AGP, ETView showed a similar first-pass success rate (FPS) but had a shorter intubation time and better glottal hydration compared to MAC. In scenario B (with PPE-AGP), ETView outperformed MAC in FPS, initiation time, and glottic visualization. The use of PPE-AGP had little impact on ETView's performance. However, it negatively affected the Macintosh laryngoscope, reducing FPS and glottic visibility. Participants found intubation with ETView easier in both scenarios. In conclusion, as compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope, ETView demonstrated higher performance under the circumstances of the simulation, especially when PPE-AGP was used.

Experimental study on the exposure level of surgical staff to SARS-CoV-2 in operating rooms with mixing ventilation under negative pressure

The purpose of this study was to reveal the exposure level of surgical staff to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from the patient's nose and wound during operations on COVID-19 patients. The tracer gas N₂O is used to simulate SARS-CoV-2 from the patient's nose and wound. In this study, concentration levels of tracer gas were measured in the breathing zones of these surgical staff in the operating room under three pressure difference conditions: -5 pa-15 pa and -25 pa compared to the adjunction room. These influencing factors on exposure level are analyzed in terms of ventilation efficiency and the thermal plume distribution characteristics of the patient. The results show that the assistant surgeon faces 4 to 12 times higher levels of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 than other surgical staff. Increasing the pressure difference between the OR lab and adjunction room can reduce the level of exposure for the main surgeon and assistant surgeon. Turning on the cooling fan of the endoscope imager may result in a higher exposure level for the assistant surgeon. Surgical nurses outside of the surgical microenvironment are exposed to similar contaminant concentration levels in the breathing zone as in the exhaust. However, the ventilation efficiency is not constant near the surgical patient or in the rest of the room and will vary with a change in pressure difference. This may suggest that the air may not be fully mixed in the surgical microenvironment.

Clinical update on COVID-19 for the emergency clinician: Cardiac arrest in the out-of-hospital and in-hospital settings

Introduction

Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in millions of cases worldwide. As the pandemic has progressed, the understanding of this disease has evolved. Its impact on the health and welfare of the human population is significant; its impact on the delivery of healthcare is also considerable.

Objective

This article is another paper in a series addressing COVID-19-related updates to emergency clinicians on the management of COVID-19 patients with cardiac arrest.

Discussion

COVID-19 has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. From a global perspective, as of February 23, 2022, 435 million infections have been noted with 5.9 million deaths (1.4%). Current data suggest an increase in the occurrence of cardiac arrest, both in the outpatient and inpatient settings, with corresponding reductions in most survival metrics. The frequency of out-of-hospital lay provider initial care has decreased while non-shockable initial cardiac arrest rhythms have increased. While many interventions, including chest compressions, are aerosol-generating procedures, the risk of contagion to healthcare personnel is low, assuming appropriate personal protective equipment is used; vaccination with boosting provides further protection against contagion for the healthcare personnel involved in cardiac arrest resuscitation. The burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on the delivery of cardiac arrest care is considerable and, despite multiple efforts, has adversely impacted the chain of survival.

Conclusion

This review provides a focused update of cardiac arrest in the setting of COVID-19 for emergency clinicians.

The use of personal protection equipment does not negatively affect paramedics' attention and dexterity: a prospective triple-cross over randomized controlled non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic led to widespread use of personal protection equipment (PPE), including filtering face piece (FFP) masks, throughout the world. PPE. Previous studies indicate that PPE impairs neurocognitive performance in healthcare workers. Concerns for personnel safety have led to special recommendations regarding basic life support (BLS) in patients with a potential SARS-CoV-2 infection, including the use of PPE. Established instruments are available to assess attention and dexterity in BLS settings, respectively. We aimed to evaluate the influence of PPE with different types of FFP masks on these two neuropsychological components of EMS personnel during BLS.

METHODS

This was a randomized controlled non-inferiority triple-crossover study. Teams of paramedics completed three 12-min long BLS scenarios on a manikin after having climbed three flights of stairs with equipment, each in three experimental conditions: (a) without pandemic PPE, (b) with PPE including a FFP2 mask with an expiration valve and (c) with PPE including an FFP2 mask without an expiration valve. The teams and intervention sequences were randomized. We measured the shift in concentration performance using the d2 test and dexterity using the nine-hole peg test (NHPT). We compared results between the three conditions. For the primary outcome, the non-inferiority margin was set at 20 points.

RESULTS

Forty-eight paramedics participated. Concentration performance was significantly better after each scenario, with no differences noted between groups: d2 shift control versus with valve - 8.3 (95% CI - 19.4 to 2.7) points; control versus without valve - 8.5 (- 19.7 to 2.7) points; with valve versus without valve 0.1 (- 11.1 to 11.3) points. Similar results were found for the NHPT: + 0.3 (- 0.7 to 1.4), - 0.4 (- 1.4 to 0.7), 0.7 (- 0.4 to 1.8) s respectively.

CONCLUSION

Attention increases when performing BLS. Attention and dexterity are not inferior when wearing PPE, including FFP2 masks. PPE should be used on a low-threshold basis.

Direct vs. Video-Laryngoscopy for Intubation by Paramedics of Simulated COVID-19 Patients under Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Randomized Crossover Trial

A safe way of securing the airway with an endotracheal tube is one of the priorities of an advanced cardiovascular life support algorithm for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to compare intubation success rates (ISR) and intubation time (IT) of different laryngoscopes for simulated COVID-19 patients under cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, crossover trial. Fifty four active paramedics performed endotracheal intubation with a Macintosh direct laryngoscope (MAC) and McGrath videolaryngoscope (McGrath) with and without personal protective equipment (PPE). Without PPE, ISRs were 87% and 98% for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p = 0.32). ITs were 22.5 s (IQR: 19–26) and 19.5 s (IQR: 17–21) for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p = 0.005). With PPE, first-pass ISR were 30% and 89% with MAC and McGrath, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall success rates were 83% vs. 100% (p = 0.002). Median ITs were 34.0 s (IQR: 29.5–38.5) and 24.8 s (IQR: 21–29) for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the McGrath videolaryngoscope appears to possess significant advantages over the Macintosh direct laryngoscope when used by paramedics in suspected or confirmed COVID-19 intubation scenarios.

Impact of wearing personal protective equipment on the performance and decision making of surgeons during the COVID-19 pandemic: An observational cross-sectional study

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the mandatory use of personal protective equipment (PPE) has resulted in a significant reduction in the infection rate among health care workers (HCWs). However, there are some ongoing concerns about the negative impact of using PPE for prolonged periods.This study examined the impact of wearing PPE on surgeons' performance and decision making during the COVID-19 pandemic.In this cross-sectional study, an anonymous online questionnaire was created and disseminated to surgeons all over the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire included the demographic data, the local hospital policies, the non-technical skills (e.g., communication, vision, and comfort) and the technical skills, and the process of decision making.From June 2020 to August 2020, 162 surgeons participated in this questionnaire. Of them, 80.2% were aged from 26 to 45 years, 70.4% have received a special training for PPE, and 59.3% of participants have operated on COVID-19 confirmed cases. A negative impact of wearing PPE was reported on their overall comfort, vision, and communication skills (92.6%, 95.1%, and 82.8%, respectively). The technical skills and decision making were not significantly affected (60.5% and 72.8%, respectively). More preference for conservative approach, damage control procedures, and/or open approach was reported.Despite its benefits, PPE is associated with a significant negative impact on the non-technical skills (including vision, communication, and comfort) as well as a non-significant negative impact on technical skills and decision making of surgeons. Extra efforts should be directed to improve PPE, especially during lengthy pandemics.

Orotracheal tube versus supraglottic devices in biological, chemical and radiological disasters: meta-analysis in manikin-based studies

OBJECTIVE

To compare the mean time of orotracheal intubation and insertion of supraglottic airway devices, considering healthcare providers wearing waterproof overall, gloves, boots, eye protection and mask at the Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear context in simulation setting.

METHODS

Six databases were searched. The selected studies were put in a pool of results using a random-effects meta-analysis, with standardized mean differences and calculation of 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Nine observational studies were included. Regarding reducing time to provide ventilatory support, subgroup analyses were made. The emergency setting subgroup: -12.97 [-16.11; -9.83]; I2 = 64%. The surgery setting subgroup: -14.96 [-18.65; -11.27]; I2 = 75%. Another analysis was made by reproductive methodology subgroups. Ophir's subgroup: -15.70 [-17.04; -14.37]; I2 = 0%. All meta-analyses had orotracheal tube as comparator.

CONCLUSION

Moderate level of evidence was in favor of insertion of supraglottic devices because of fast application.

Emergency department impaired adherence to personal protective equipment donning and doffing protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objectives

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly infectious viral pandemic that has claimed the lives of millions. Personal protective equipment (PPE) may reduce the risk of transmission for health care workers (HCWs), especially in the emergency setting. This study aimed to compare the adherence to PPE donning and doffing protocols in the Emergency Department (ED) vs designated COVID-19 wards and score adherence according to the steps in our protocol.

Design

Prior to managing COVID-19 patients, mandatory PPE training was undertaken for all HCWs. HCWs were observed donning or doffing COVID-19 restricted areas.

Setting

Donning and doffing was observed in COVID-19 designated Emergency department and compared to COVID-19 positive wards.

Participants

All HCWs working in the aforementioned wards during the time of observation.

Results

We observed 107 donning and doffing procedures (30 were observed in the ED). 50% HCWs observed donned PPE correctly and 37% doffed correctly. The ED had a significantly lower mean donning score (ED: 78%, Internal: 95% ICU: 96%, p < 0.001); and a significantly lower mean doffing score (ED: 72%, Internal: 85% ICU: 91%, p = 0.02).

Conclusions

As hypothesized, HCWs assigned to the designated ED wing made more protocol deviations compared with HCWs positive COVID-19 wards. Time management, acuity, lack of personnel, stress and known COVID-19 status may explain the lesser adherence to donning and doffing protocols. Further studies to assess the correlation between protocol deviations in use of PPE and morbidity as well as improvement implementations are required. Resources should be invested to ensure PPE is properly used.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13584-021-00477-7.

Does wearing personal protective equipment affect the performance and decision of physicians? A cross-sectional study during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) decreased the probability of viral transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, some drawbacks have been observed with its extensive use, such as headaches, anxiety, and stress among physicians, which could affect decision-making processes, the performance of physicians, and consequently patients’ safety. Few articles have studied the impact of PPE on physicians from different specialties. This study assessed the effect of wearing PPE on the performance and decision-making of physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic and compared the effects of wearing PPE on physicians from different specialties.

Methods

A descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out through an anonymous 39-item online questionnaire. The physicians were divided according to the probability and frequency of performing invasive procedures. Group 1 included emergency medicine and critical care physicians, intensivists, and anesthetists, group 2 included physicians from different surgical subspecialties, and group 3 included physicians from different medical fields.

Results

This study included 272 physicians; group 1 included 54, group 2 included 120, and group 3 included 98 physicians. Approximately, 90.4% of the participants aged between 30 and -40 years, and 72.8% of the participants were specialists. Results indicated that the comfort, vision, and communication were significantly reduced in all groups (81.1%, 88.7%, and 75.5%, respectively). In contrast, the handling of instruments was not significantly affected in the second group only. In addition, the decision-making and the rate of complications were not significantly affected.

Conclusion

There was a negative impact of wearing PPE on the non-technical skills (vision, communication and overall comfort), and the technical skills of the physicians. The decision-making and patients’ safety were not significantly affected. Recommendations include additional improvement of the PPE design due to its crucial effect on both non-technical and technical skills of physicians.

•

The use of PPE decreases the rate of infection of healthcare providers.

•

The use of PPE affected the physicians' performance (comfort, vision, and communication).

•

The decision-making and patients' safety were not affected.

•

Improvement of PPE design is important for better performance.

Comparison of intravascular access methods applied by nurses wearing personal protective equipment in simulated COVID-19 resuscitation: A randomized crossover simulation trial

BACKGROUND

Prehospital emergency care of children is challenging. In the era of the COVID-19 pandemic, when medical personnel should use personal protective equipment against aerosol-generating procedures, the efficiency of medical procedures may decrease. The study objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of different intravascular access methods applied by nurses wearing biosafety Level-2 suits in simulated paediatric COVID-19 resuscitation.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, crossover, single-blinded simulation trial was performed. Nursing staff attending Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support courses accredited by the American Heart Association participated in the study. A total of 65 nurses were recruited and randomly assigned to different study groups. They received standard training on intravascular access methods employing distinct devices. The participants wore biosafety Level-2 suits and performed vascular access with the following intraosseous devices: NIO-P, EZ-IO, and Jamshidi needle; intravenous (IV) access was used as a reference method. Both the order of participants and the access methods were random. Each participant performed intravascular access with each of the four methods tested. The effectiveness of the first attempt to obtain intravascular access and the following time parameters were analysed: the time between grasping the intravascular device out of the original packing until infusion line connection. The ease of the procedure was measured with a visual analogue scale (1 - easy; 10 - difficult).

RESULTS

The first attempt success rate of intravascular access by using NIO-P and EZ-IO equalled 100% and was statistically significantly higher than that with the Jamshidi needle (80.0%; p = 0.02) and with the IV method (69.2%; p = 0.005). The time required to connect the infusion line varied and amounted to 33 ± 4 s for NIO-P compared to 37 ± 6.7 s for EZ-IO (p<0.001), 43 ± 7 s for Jamshidi (p<0.001), and 98.5 ± 10 s for IV access (p<0.001). The procedure was easiest in the case of NIO-P and EZ-IO (2 ± 1 points; p=1.0) compared with Jamshidi (5 ± 3 points; p<0.001) and IV access (7 ± 2 points; p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The study provides evidence that nurses wearing biosafety Level-2 suits were able to obtain intraosseous access faster and more effectively as compared with IV access during simulated COVID-19 paediatric resuscitation. The most effective method of intravascular access was the NIO-P intraosseous device. Further clinical trials are necessary to confirm the results.

COVID-19, Personal Protective Equipment, and Human Performance

Clinicians who care for patients infected with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) must wear a full suite of personal protective equipment, including an N95 mask or powered air purifying respirator, eye protection, a fluid-impermeable gown, and gloves. This combination of personal protective equipment may cause increased work of breathing, reduced field of vision, muffled speech, difficulty hearing, and heat stress. These effects are not caused by individual weakness; they are normal and expected reactions that any person will have when exposed to an unusual environment. The physiologic and psychologic challenges imposed by personal protective equipment may have multiple causes, but immediate countermeasures and long-term mitigation strategies can help to improve a clinician's ability to provide care. Ultimately, a systematic approach to the design and integration of personal protective equipment is needed to improve the safety of patients and clinicians.

Significant physiological impact of wearing PPE inside operation theatre: A challenging scenario in this COVID-19 pandemic

Owing to COVID-19 pandemic, wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) and N95 mask inside an operation theatre has become a common practice. Subjective symptoms of suffocation, headache, dizziness, and lack of concentration while on PPE may at times become significant enough requiring oxygen therapy, removal of mask, or even doffing of PPE, which may increase the risk of being infected and at the same time compromising patient care. The reason behind such subjective symptoms may be multifactorial. We report here a 52-years-old anesthetist with a high body mass index, wearing PPE for a prolonged duration inside an operation theatre during a high-risk surgery encountered a similar episode. Being the lone anesthetist, he decided to oxygenate himself in an innovative way, thus, avoiding doffing and any undesirable event. With pandemic expanding rapidly such scenarios may be encountered often, identifying factors predicting such events and finding methods of oxygenation while wearing PPE may be extremely beneficial.

Impact of personal protective equipment on prehospital endotracheal intubation performance in simulated manikin

Background

Tracheal intubation in COVID-19 patients is a potentially high-risk procedure for healthcare professionals. Personal protective equipment (PPE) is recommended to minimize contact with critical patients with COVID-19 infection. This study aimed to primarily examine the effect of PPE use on intubation time and success rate among prehospital healthcare professionals; additionally, we compared intubation times among prehospital health care professionals using PPE with direct laryngoscopy and video laryngoscopy assistance.

Methods

In this prospective simulation study, we compared the intubation times and success rates among prehospital healthcare professionals who were or were not using PPE. Furthermore, demographic data, previous intubation experience, and previous intubation experience with PPE were recorded.

Results

Overall time to intubation with PPE use was 51.28 ± 3.89 s, which was significantly higher than that without PPE use (33.03 ± 2.65 s; p < 0.001). In addition, the overall success rate with PPE use was 74.4%, which was significantly lower than that without PPE use (93%;p < 0.001). PPE use increased the average intubation time by 19.73 ± 2.59 s with direct laryngoscopy and by 16.81 ± 2.86 s with video laryngoscopy (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

PPE use is associated with increased intubation time and decreased success rate. Video laryngoscopy assistance in cases where PPE use is required facilitates faster endotracheal intubation than does direct laryngoscopy assistance.

COVID-19 cardiac arrest management: A review for emergency clinicians

INTRODUCTION

A great deal of literature has recently discussed the evaluation and management of the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) patient in the emergency department (ED) setting, but there remains a dearth of literature providing guidance on cardiac arrest management in this population.

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review outlines the underlying pathophysiology of patients with COVID-19 and discusses approaches to cardiac arrest management in the ED based on the current literature as well as extrapolations from experience with other pathogens.

DISCUSSION

Patients with COVID-19 may experience cardiovascular manifestations that place them at risk for acute myocardial injury, arrhythmias, and cardiac arrest. The mortality for these critically ill patients is high and increases with age and comorbidities. While providing resuscitative interventions and performing procedures on these patients, healthcare providers must adhere to strict infection control measures and prioritize their own safety through the appropriate use of personal protective equipment. A novel approach must be implemented in combination with national guidelines. The changes in these guidelines emphasize early placement of an advanced airway to limit nosocomial viral transmission and encourage healthcare providers to determine the effectiveness of their efforts prior to placing staff at risk for exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

While treatment priorities and goals are identical to pre-pandemic approaches, the management of COVID-19 patients in cardiac arrest has distinct differences from cardiac arrest patients without COVID-19. We provide a review of the current literature on the changes in cardiac arrest management as well as details outlining team composition.

The effects of personal protective equipment on airway management: An in-situ simulation

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organisation on 11th March and has led to over 41,000 deaths in the UK. Public Health England guidance for aerosol generating procedures (AGP) requires the donning of personal protective equipment (PPE). We evaluated airway management skills using an in-situ emergency simulation. The scenarios were video recorded and scored by two independent assessors using a skill specific checklist. A total of 34 airway management procedures were evaluated. The checklist involved 13 steps with a maximum score of 26. The median (IQR [range]) checklist score was 25 (24-25 [20-26]). Four teams failed to intubate the trachea and proceeded to manage the airway using a supraglottic airway device. The mean (SD) intubation time was 47.9 (16.5) seconds and two anaesthetists (7%) required a second attempt. Our results show that airway management can be carried out successfully whilst donned in PPE. However, additional training in using newly introduced devices such as a McGrath® video laryngoscope is of paramount importance.

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing ventilatory support in chemical, biological and radiological emergencies

Objective:

to compare the mean development time of the techniques of direct laryngoscopy and insertion of supraglottic devices; and to evaluate the success rate in the first attempt of these techniques, considering health professionals wearing specific personal protective equipment (waterproof overalls; gloves; boots; eye protection; mask).

Method:

meta-analysis with studies from LILACS, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science. The keywords were the following: personal protective equipment; airway management; intubation; laryngeal masks.

Results:

in the “reduction of the time of the procedures” outcome, the general analysis of the supraglottic devices in comparison with the orotracheal tube initially presented high heterogeneity of the data (I²= 97%). Subgroup analysis had an impact on reducing heterogeneity among the data. The “laryngeal mask as a guide for orotracheal intubation” subgroup showed moderate heterogeneity (I²= 74%). The “2^ndgeneration supraglottic devices” subgroup showed homogeneity (I²= 0%). All the meta-analyses favored supraglottic devices. In the “success in the first attempt” outcome, moderate homogeneity was found (I²= 52%), showing a higher proportion of correct answers for supraglottic devices.

Conclusion:

in the context of chemical, biological or radiological disaster, the insertion of the supraglottic device proved to be faster and more likely to be successful by health professionals. PROSPERO record (CRD42019136139).

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants) coveralls were more difficult to doff than isolation gowns (very low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). According to three studies that tested more recently introduced full-body PPE ensembles, there may be no difference in contamination. Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants), people with a long gown had less contamination than those with a coverall, and coveralls were more difficult to doff (low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort, and may therefore even lead to more contamination. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Combat Application Tourniquet fares well in a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear dress state

INTRODUCTION

There is a need for a military tourniquet to control catastrophic haemorrhage in a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) threat environment. No published data exist as to the efficacy of tourniquets while wearing British military CBRN individual protective equipment (IPE).

METHODS

12 volunteers from the counter CBRN instructors' course allowed testing on 24 legs. A Combat Application Tourniquet (C-A-T) was applied to all volunteers at the level of the midthigh. 12 legs were tested while wearing CBRN IPE (both operator and simulated casualty), and the control group of 12 legs was tested while wearing conventional combat dress state (both operator and simulated casualty). The order of leg laterality and dress state were sequenced according to a prerandomised system. Efficacy was measured via use of an ultrasound probe at the popliteal artery. Tourniquets were considered effective if arterial flow was completely occluded on ultrasound imaging. Data were collected on time to successful application, failure of tourniquets and pain scores as rated by the visual analogue scale (1-10).

RESULTS

There were no failures of tourniquet application in the CBRN group, and two failures (17%) in the control group. Failures were pain threshold exceeded (n=1) and tourniquet internal strap failure (n=1). The mean application time for the CBRN group was 28.5 s (SD 11.7) and 23.7 s (SD 9.8) for the conventional combat group. There was no statistically significant difference (p=0.27). The median CBRN pain score was 2.0 (IQR 2.0-3.5). The median control pain score was 4.0 (IQR 3-6). This was a statistically significant difference (p=0.002).

CONCLUSION

C-A-Ts applied to simulated casualties in CBRN IPE at the midthigh are at least as efficacious as those applied to the midthigh in a conventional combat dress state. The pain experienced was less in CBRN IPE than when in a conventional combat dress state.

Impact of Clinician Personal Protective Equipment on Medical Device Use During Public Health Emergency: A Review

The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the impact of personal protective equipment (PPE) on medical device use during public health emergency responses. We conducted a systematic literature search of peer-reviewed journals in PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCO databases. Twenty-nine of 92 articles published between 1984 and 2015 met the inclusion criteria for the review. Although many medical device use impacts were reported, they predominantly fell into 3 categories: airway management, drug administration, and diagnostics and monitoring. Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN)-PPE increased completion times for emergency clinical procedures by as much as 130% and first attempt failure rates by 35% (anesthetist) versus 55% (non-anesthetist). Effects of CBRN-PPE use depend on device, CBRN-PPE level, and clinician experience and training. Continuous clinical training of responders in CBRN-PPE and device modifications can improve safety and effectiveness of medical device use during public health emergency response.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Contact precautions by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to remove PPE, and how to make sure HCW use PPE as instructed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate which type of full body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 15 July 2018), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 18 June 2019), Scopus (Scopus 18 June 2019), CINAHL (EBSCOhost 31 July 2018), and OSH-Update (up to 31 December 2018). We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all controlled studies that compared the effects of PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as Ebola or SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that used simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training in PPE use on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We planned to perform meta-analyses but did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies with 1950 participants evaluating 21 interventions. Ten studies are Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), one is a quasi RCT and six have a non-randomised controlled design. Two studies are awaiting assessment.Ten studies compared types of PPE but only six of these reported sufficient data. Six studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated different types of training. Fifteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless viruses. In simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 10% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study HCW were exposed to Ebola and in another to SARS.Evidence for all outcomes is based on single studies and is very low quality.Different types of PPEPPE made of more breathable material may not lead to more contamination spots on the trunk (Mean Difference (MD) 1.60 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.15 to 3.35) than more water repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46; 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5).Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (MD large patches -1.36 95% CI -1.78 to -0.94).The use of a powered air-purifying respirator may protect better than a simple ensemble of PPE without such respirator (Relative Risk (RR) 0.27; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.43).Five different PPE ensembles (such as gown vs. coverall, boots with or without covers, hood vs. cap, length and number of gloves) were evaluated in one study, but there were no event data available for compared groups.Alterations to PPE design may lead to less contamination such as added tabs to grab masks (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31), a sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), or a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55) compared to standard PPE.Different methods of donning and doffing proceduresDouble gloving may lead to less contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78).Following CDC recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (MD small patches -5.44; 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45).Alcohol-based hand rub used during the doffing process may not lead to less contamination than the use of a hypochlorite based solution (MD 4.00; 95% CI 0.47 to 34.24).Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4).Different types of trainingThe use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7).A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70; 95% CI 20.14,41.26) than a traditional lecture.Face to face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.There were no studies on effects of training in the long term or on resource use.The quality of the evidence is very low for all comparisons because of high risk of bias in all studies, indirectness of evidence, and small numbers of participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low quality evidence that more breathable types of PPE may not lead to more contamination, but may have greater user satisfaction. Alterations to PPE, such as tabs to grab may decrease contamination. Double gloving, following CDC doffing guidance, and spoken instructions during doffing may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than video or folder based training. Because data come from single small studies with high risk of bias, we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We still need randomised controlled trials to find out which training works best in the long term. We need better simulation studies conducted with several dozen participants to find out which PPE protects best, and what is the safest way to remove PPE. Consensus on the best way to conduct simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection in the field.

Limiting factors for wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) in a health care environment evaluated in a randomised study

Pandemics and re-emerging diseases put pressure on the health care system to prepare for patient care and sample logistics requiring enhanced personnel protective equipment (PPE) for health care workers. We generated quantifiable data on ergonomics of PPE applicable in a health care setting by defining error rates and physically limiting factors due to PPE-induced restrictions. Nineteen study volunteers tested randomly allocated head- or full body-ventilated PPE suits equipped with powered-air-purifying-respirators and performed four different tasks (two laboratory tutorials, a timed test of selective attention and a test investigating reaction time, mobility, speed and physical exercise) during 6 working hours at 22°C on one day and 4 working hours at 28°C on another day. Error rates and physical parameters (fluid loss, body temperature, heart rate) were determined and ergonomic-related parameters were assessed hourly using assessment sheets. Depending on the PPE system the most restrictive factors, which however had no negative impact on performance (speed and error rate), were: reduced dexterity due to multiple glove layers, impaired visibility by flexible face shields and back pain related to the respirator of the fully ventilated suit. Heat stress and liquid loss were perceived as restrictive at a working temperature of 28°C but not 22°C.

Emergency Airway Management in a Simulation of Highly Contagious Isolated Patients: Both Isolation Strategy and Device Type Matter

OBJECTIVE To compare 6 airway-management devices in 3 isolation scenarios regarding their effect on airway management: portable isolation unit (PIU), personal protective equipment (PPE), and standard protection measures METHODS In total, 30 anesthesiologists working in emergency medical services performed airway management on mannequins in 3 isolation settings using 6 different airway management devices (in random order): (1) standard Macintosh laryngoscope; (2) Airtraq SP-video-laryngoscope; (3) i-gel; (4) LMA-Fastrach; (5) Ambu fiberoptic-aScope; and (6) Melker cricothyrotomy-set. Each was assessed regarding time-to-ventilate (primary outcome) and rating of difficulty handling the device. RESULTS In 86% (standard protection) and 85% (PPE) of attempts, airway management was achieved in <60 seconds, irrespective of the device used. In the PIU setting, only 69% of attempts succeeded within this time frame (P<.05). Median time-to-ventilate was shorter for standard protection (23 seconds) and PPE (25 seconds) compared to the PIU (38 seconds; P<.001). In the PIU setting, the fiberscope took the longest (median, 170 seconds), while i-gel was the quickest (median, 13 seconds). The rating of difficulty (visual analogue scale [VAS], 0-100) differed significantly between the isolation scenarios: Airway management was most difficult with PIU (VAS, 76), followed by PPE (VAS, 35), and standard protection (VAS, 9) (P<.01). CONCLUSION Wearing PPE produced similar times-to-ventilate as standard protection among anesthesiologists, but it was subjectively rated more difficult. The portable isolation unit permitted acceptable times-to-ventilate when excluding fiberscope and cricothyrotomy. Supraglottic airway devices allowed the fastest airway management in all isolation scenarios, thus being highly recommendable if a portable isolation unit is used and emergency airway management becomes necessary. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:145-151.

Emergency Department Response to Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive Events: A Systematic Review

Introduction

A Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and explosive (CBRNe) event is an emergency which can result in injury, illness, or loss of life. The emergency department (ED) as a health system is at the forefront of the CBRNe response with staff acting as first receivers. Emergency departments are under-prepared to respond to CBRNe events - recognizing key factors which underlie the ED CBRNe response is crucial to provide evidence-based knowledge to inform policies and, most importantly, clinical practice.

Problem

Challenges in detection, decontamination, and diagnosis are associated with the ED CBRNe response when faced with self-presenting patients.

Methods

A systematic review was carried out in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). An in-depth search strategy was devised to identify studies which focused on the ED and CBRNe events. The inclusion criteria were stringent in terms of the environment (ED), participants (first receivers), situation (CBRNe response), and actions (detection, decontamination, and diagnosis). Fifteen databases and topic-specific journals were searched. Studies were critically appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Papers were thematically coded and synthesized using NVivo 10 (QSR International Ltd, Melbourne, Australia).

Results

Sixty-seven full-text papers were critically appraised using the MMAT; 70% were included (n = 60) as medium- or high-quality studies. Data were grouped into four themes: preparedness, response, decontamination, and personal protective equipment (PPE) problems.

Discussion

This study has recognized the ED as a system which depends on four key factors - preparedness, response, decontamination, and PPE problems - which highlight challenges, uncertainties, inconsistencies, and obstacles associated with the ED CBRNe response. This review suggests that response planning and preparation should be considered at three levels: organizational (policies and procedures); technological (decontamination, communication, security, clinical care, and treatment); and individual (willingness to respond, PPE, knowledge, and competence). Finally, this study highlighted that there was a void specific to detection and diagnosis of CBRNe exposure on self-presenting patients in the ED.

Conclusion:

The review identified concerns for both knowledge and behaviors which suggests that a systems approach would help understand the ED response to CBRNe events more effectively. The four themes provide an evidence-based summary for the state of science in ED CBRNe response, which can be used to inform future policies and clinical procedures.

RazakS,HignettS,BarnesJ.Emergency department response to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive events: a systematic review.Prehosp Disaster Med.2018;33(5):543–549.

Comparison of intubation devices in level C personal protective equipment: A cadaveric study

BACKGROUND

With the advancement of chemical, biological and nuclear warfare and the reemergence of infectious diseases, the possibility of intubating in personal protective equipment has become increasingly more real to the emergency physician. Human cadaveric models have been found to simulate real world conditions better than mannequins. The aim of the study was to determine the first pass success rate and average time to successful intubation while wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Secondarily, subjects were asked to rank their choice of a primary and back up device, as well as the most common encountered barriers using PPE.

METHODS

Emergency medicine residents and pre-hospital providers were enrolled in a double randomized sequence to either intubation with direct laryngoscopy (DL), video laryngoscopy (VL), or the Supraglottic Airway Laryngopharyngeal Tube (SALT) in a cadaveric model while wearing level C PPE or without PPE.

RESULTS

First pass success rate was 96% without PPE and 58% while wearing PPE when all devices were considered (p≤0.001). Time to intubation while wearing PPE was 35.0s while no PPE was 22.2s (p=0.012). While wearing PPE both DL and VL were found to allow for a faster intubation as compared to the SALT (23.0s and 18.8s; p=0.002 and p=0.006 respectively). No statistical difference was noted in intubations without PPE. Participants indicated the most common barrier to successful intubation included visibility while wearing hoods (73.7%). Furthermore, 52.6% of participants indicated they would choose DL as the primary method to intubate with if wearing PPE while 47.4% would choose VL.

CONCLUSION

There is a statistically significant difference in first pass success and time to successful intubation while wearing and not wearing PPE in human cadaveric models.

Airway Management in Disaster Response: A Manikin Study Comparing Direct and Video Laryngoscopy for Endotracheal Intubation by Prehospital Providers in Level C Personal Protective Equipment

Introduction Airway management is one of many challenges that medical providers face in disaster response operations. The use of personal protective equipment (PPE), in particular, was found to be associated with higher failure rates and a prolonged time to achieve airway control. Hypothesis/Problem The objective of this study was to determine whether video laryngoscopy could facilitate the performance of endotracheal intubation by disaster responders wearing Level C PPE.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, crossover study, a convenience sample of practicing prehospital providers were recruited. Following standardized training in PPE use and specific training in the use of airway devices, subjects in Level C PPE were observed while performing endotracheal intubation on a stock airway in a Laerdal Resusci-Anne manikin system (Laerdal Medical; Stavanger, Norway) using one of three laryngoscopic devices in randomized order: a Macintosh direct laryngoscope (Welch Allyn Inc.; New York USA), a GlideScope Ranger video laryngoscope (Verathon Medical; Bothell, Washington USA), and a King Vision video laryngoscope (King Systems; Noblesville, Indiana USA). The primary outcome was time to intubation (TTI), and the secondary outcome was participant perception of the ease of use for each device.

RESULTS

A total of 20 prehospital providers participated in the study: 18 (90%) paramedics and two (10%) Emergency Medical Technicians-Cardiac. Participants took significantly longer when using the GlideScope Ranger [35.82 seconds (95% CI, 32.24-39.80)] to achieve successful intubation than with the Macintosh laryngoscope [25.69 seconds (95% CI, 22.42-29.42); adj. P<.0001] or the King Vision [29.87 seconds (95% CI, 26.08-34.21); adj. P=.033], which did not significantly differ from each other (adj. P=.1017). Self-reported measures of satisfaction evaluated on a 0% to 100% visual analog scale (VAS) identified marginally greater subject satisfaction with the King Vision [86.7% (SD=76.4-92.9%)] over the GlideScope Ranger [73.0% (SD=61.9-81.8%); P=.04] and the Macintosh laryngoscope [69.9% (SD=57.9-79.7%); P=.05] prior to adjustment for multiplicity. The GlideScope Ranger and the Macintosh laryngoscope did not differ themselves (P=.65), and the differences were not statistically significant after adjustment for multiplicity (adj. P=.12 for both comparisons).

CONCLUSION

Use of video laryngoscopes by prehospital providers in Level C PPE did not result in faster endotracheal intubation than use of a Macintosh laryngoscope. The King Vision video laryngoscope, in particular, performed at least as well as the Macintosh laryngoscope and was reported to be easier to use. Yousif S , Machan JT , Alaska Y , Suner S . Airway management in disaster response: a manikin study comparing direct and video laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation by prehospital providers in Level C personal protective equipment. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(4):352-356.

Using the skin protective lotion IB1 as a substitute for chemical protective gloves

We aimed to evaluate the performance of medical personnel in using the IB1 topical protective lotion on their hands and wrists together with standard disposable medical gloves, compared to standard-issued medical chemical protective gloves. This randomized cross-over study included 144 medical personnel. Primary endpoints were time-to-completion of autoinjection; success rate, number of attempts, and time-to-achieve successful endotracheal intubation; time-to-achieve satisfactory tube fixation; time-to-draw and inject the content of an ampoule; and the total time-to-perform all medical procedures. Secondary endpoints included the subjective assessment of convenience to perform these four procedures with each protective measure. Mean time was significantly shorter using IB1 compared to chemical protective gloves for tube fixation, ampoule drawing, and the total time-to-perform all procedures (58.6±22.7 seconds vs. 71.7±29.7; 31.5±21.8 vs. 38.2±19.4; 137.4±56.1 vs. 162.5±63.6, respectively; P<.001 for all). For all medical procedures, the use of IB1 was reported as significantly more convenient than the use of chemical protective gloves (P<.001 for all comparisons). IB1 with standard medical gloves significantly shorten the time-to-perform medical procedures requiring fine motor dexterities and is subjectively more convenient than chemical protective gloves. IB1 should be considered as an appropriate alternative for medical teams in a chemical event.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or SARS, healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Contact precautions by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to remove PPE, and how to make sure HCWs use PPE as instructed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate which type or component of full-body PPE and which method of donning or removing (doffing) PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCWs, and which training methods most increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 8 January 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 20 January 2016), EMBASE (embase.com up to 8 January 2016), CINAHL (EBSCOhost up to 20 January 2016), and OSH-Update up to 8 January 2016. We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all eligible controlled studies that compared the effect of types or components of PPE in HCWs exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as EVD and SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or removing PPE, and the effects of various types of training in PPE use on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We intended to perform meta-analyses but we did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine studies with 1200 participants evaluating ten interventions. Of these, eight trials simulated the exposure with a fluorescent marker or virus or bacteria containing fluids. Five studies evaluated different types of PPE against each other but two did not report sufficient data. Another two studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated the effect of different types of training.None of the included studies reported a standardised classification of the protective properties against viral penetration of the PPE, and only one reported the brand of PPE used. None of the studies were conducted with HCWs exposed to EVD but in one study participants were exposed to SARS. Different types of PPE versus each otherIn simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 25% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study, PPE made of more breathable material did not lead to a statistically significantly different number of spots with contamination but did have greater user satisfaction (Mean Difference (MD) -0.46 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.84 to -0.08, range 1 to 5, very low quality evidence). In another study, gowns protected better than aprons. In yet another study, the use of a powered air-purifying respirator protected better than a now outdated form of PPE. There were no studies on goggles versus face shields, on long- versus short-sleeved gloves, or on the use of taping PPE parts together. Different methods of donning and doffing procedures versus each otherTwo cross-over simulation studies (one RCT, one CCT) compared different methods for donning and doffing against each other. Double gloving led to less contamination compared to single gloving (Relative Risk (RR) 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78, very low quality evidence) in one simulation study, but not to more noncompliance with guidance (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.67, very low quality evidence). Following CDC recommendations for doffing led to less contamination in another study (very low quality evidence). There were no studies on the use of disinfectants while doffing. Different types of training versus each otherIn one study, the use of additional computer simulation led to less errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7) and in another study additional spoken instruction led to less errors (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4). One retrospective cohort study assessed the effect of active training - defined as face-to-face instruction - versus passive training - defined as folders or videos - on noncompliance with PPE use and on noncompliance with doffing guidance. Active training did not considerably reduce noncompliance in PPE use (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.63; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.30) but reduced noncompliance with doffing procedures (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98, very low quality evidence). There were no studies on how to retain the results of training in the long term or on resource use.The quality of the evidence was very low for all comparisons because of high risk of bias in studies, indirectness of evidence, and small numbers of participants. This means that it is likely that the true effect can be substantially different from the one reported here.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low quality evidence that more breathable types of PPE may not lead to more contamination, but may have greater user satisfaction. We also found very low quality evidence that double gloving and CDC doffing guidance appear to decrease the risk of contamination and that more active training in PPE use may reduce PPE and doffing errors more than passive training. However, the data all come from single studies with high risk of bias and we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We need simulation studies conducted with several dozens of participants, preferably using a non-pathogenic virus, to find out which type and combination of PPE protects best, and what is the best way to remove PPE. We also need randomised controlled studies of the effects of one type of training versus another to find out which training works best in the long term. HCWs exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Chest Compression With Personal Protective Equipment During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Randomized Crossover Simulation Study

Following a chemical, biological, radiation, and nuclear incident, prompt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) procedure is essential for patients who suffer cardiac arrest. But CPR when wearing personal protection equipment (PPE) before decontamination becomes a challenge for healthcare workers (HCW). Although previous studies have assessed the impact of PPE on airway management, there is little research available regarding the quality of chest compression (CC) when wearing PPE.A present randomized cross-over simulation study was designed to evaluate the effect of PPE on CC performance using mannequins.The study was set in one university medical center in the China.Forty anesthesia residents participated in this randomized cross-over study.Each participant performed 2 min of CC on a manikin with and without PPE, respectively. Participants were randomized into 2 groups that either performed CC with PPE first, followed by a trial without PPE after a 180-min rest, or vice versa.CPR recording technology was used to objectively quantify the quality of CC. Additionally, participants' physiological parameters and subjective fatigue score values were recorded.With the use of PPE, a significant decrease of the percentage of effective compressions (41.3 ± 17.1% with PPE vs 67.5 ± 15.6% without PPE, P < 0.001) and the percentage of adequate compressions (67.7 ± 18.9% with PPE vs 80.7 ± 15.5% without PPE, P < 0.001) were observed. Furthermore, the increases in heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and subjective fatigue score values were more obvious with the use of PPE (all P < 0.01).We found significant deterioration of CC performance in HCW with the use of a level-C PPE, which may be a disadvantage for enhancing survival of cardiac arrest.

Comparison of Miller and Airtraq laryngoscopes for orotracheal intubation by physicians wearing CBRN protective equipment during infant resuscitation: a randomized crossover simulation study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of orotracheal intubation with the Miller laryngoscope compared with the Airtraq laryngoscope by emergency and pediatric physicians wearing CBRN-PPE type III on infant manikins with conventional airway. We hypothesized that in this situation, the orotracheal intubation with the Airtraq laryngoscope would be faster and more effective than with the Miller laryngoscope.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, crossover, single-center study who recruited emergency department physicians on a voluntary basis. Each physician performed a total of 20 intubation trials while in CBRN-PPE with the two intubation techniques, Miller and Airtraq. Intubations by each airway device were tested over ten consecutive runs. The order of use of one or the other devices was randomized with a ratio of 1:1. The primary endpoint was overall orotracheal intubation success.

RESULTS

Fifty-five emergency and pediatric physicians were assessed for eligibility. Forty-one physicians were included in this study and 820 orotracheal intubation attempts were performed. The orotracheal intubation success rate with the Airtraq laryngoscope was higher than with the Miller (99% vs. 92%; p-adjusted <.001). The orotracheal intubation and glottis visualization times decreased with the number of attempts (p <.001). The median orotracheal intubation time with the Airtraq laryngoscope was lower than with the Miller laryngoscope (15 s vs. 20 s; p-adjusted <.001). The median glottis visualization time with the Airtraq laryngoscope and with the Miller laryngoscope were not different (6.0 s vs. 7.5 s; p-adjusted =.237). Thirty-four (83 %) physicians preferred the Airtraq laryngoscope versus 6 (15 %) for the Miller (p-adjusted <.001).

DISCUSSION

For tracheal intubation by physicians wearing CBRN-PPE during infant resuscitation simulation, we showed that the orotracheal intubation success rate with the Airtraq laryngoscope was higher than with the Miller laryngoscope and that orotracheal intubation time with the Airtraq laryngoscope was lower than with the Miller laryngoscope.

CONCLUSIONS

It seems useful to train the physicians in emergency departments in the use of pediatric Airtraq and for the management of CBRN risks.

Fluid resuscitation in Ebola Virus Disease: A comparison of peripheral and central venous accesses

INTRODUCTION

Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) causes severe diarrhoea and vomiting, leading to dehydration and electrolyte abnormalities. Treatment remains supportive and often requires intravenous (IV) access. IV catheters are difficult to insert and maintain in this context. Our primary objective was to compare peripheral venous catheters (PVCs) and central venous catheters (CVCs) for volume resuscitation in patients with EVD.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a prospective observational study between January and March 2015 at the Conakry Healthcare Workers Ebola Treatment Unit (ETU). The primary judgement criterion was the ratio of the daily infused volume of fluids to the prescribed volume (DIV/PV).

RESULTS

Fourteen patients were admitted. Twenty-eight PVCs and 8 CVCs were inserted. CVCs had a longer survival time (96 ± 34 hours versus 33.5 ± 21 hours, P<0.001). The mean DIV/PV was higher for the CVCs (0.95±0.08 versus 0.7 ± 0.27, P<0.001), as well as the number of days with full administration of prescribed IV fluids (71.2% versus 34.1%, P=0.002).

DISCUSSION

Inserting CVCs is a safe and reliable way of obtaining IV access in ETUs, provided adequately trained personnel are available. CVCs optimize fluid infusion compared to PVCs. Further studies comparing fluid management strategies in EVD are necessary.

Intubation Efficiency and Perceived Ease of Use of Video Laryngoscopy vs Direct Laryngoscopy While Wearing HazMat PPE: A Preliminary High-fidelity Mannequin Study

INTRODUCTION

Management of contaminated patients in the decontamination corridor requires the use of hazardous material (HazMat) personal protective equipment (PPE). Previous studies have demonstrated that HazMat PPE may increase the difficulty of airway management. This study compared the efficiency of video laryngoscopy (VL) with traditional direct laryngoscopy (DL) during endotracheal intubation (ETI) while wearing HazMat PPE.

METHODS

Post-graduate year (PGY) 1-3 Emergency Medicine residents were randomized to VL or DL while wearing encapsulating PPE. Video laryngoscopy was performed using the GlideScope Cobalt AVL video laryngoscope. The primary outcome measure was time to successful ETI in a high-fidelity simulation mannequin. Three time points were utilized in the analysis: Time 0 (blade at lips), Time 1 (blade removed from lips after endotracheal tube placement), and Time 2 (bag valve mask [BVM] attached to endotracheal tube). Secondary outcome measures were perceived ease of use and feasibility of VL and DL ETI modalities.

RESULTS

Twenty-one of 23 (91.3%) eligible residents participated. Mean time to ETI was 10.0 seconds (SD=5.3 seconds) in the DL group and 7.8 seconds (SD=3.0 seconds) in the VL group (P=.081). Mean times from blade insertion until BVM attachment were 17.4 seconds (SD=6.0 seconds) and 15.6 seconds (SD=4.6 seconds), respectively (P=.30). There were no unsuccessful intubation attempts. Seventeen out of 20 participants (85.0%) perceived VL to be easier to use when performing ETI in PPE. Twelve out of 20 participants (60%) perceived DL to be more feasible in an actual HazMat scenario.

CONCLUSION

The time to successful ETI was not significantly different between VL and DL. Video laryngoscopy had a greater perceived ease of use, but DL was perceived to be more feasible for use in actual HazMat situations. These findings suggest that both DL and VL are reasonable modalities for use in HazMat situations, and the choice of modality could be based on the clinical situation and provider experience.

Comparison of airway intubation devices when using a biohazard suit: a feasibility study

OBJECTIVES

We set out to compare emergency medicine residents' intubating times and success rates for direct laryngoscopy (DL), GlideScope-assisted intubation (GS), and the Supraglottic Airway Laryngopharyngeal Tube (SALT) airway with and without biohazard gear.

METHODS

Each resident passed through 2 sets of 3 testing stations (DL, GS, SALT) in succession, intubating Laerdal mannequin heads with the 3 modalities after randomization to start with or without biohazard gear.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven residents participated, and 27 were male (73%); 14 (37.8%) had prior experience intubating in biohazard suits. There was a statistically significant difference in those who had prior intubation experience between DL (37, 100%), GS (32, 86.5%), and SALT (12, 32.4%) (P < .001) and in median time to intubation (48 seconds, no suit; 57 seconds, with suits) (P = .03). There was no statistically significant difference between the overall times to intubate for the 3 devices. First-pass success was highest for DL (91.2%, no suit; 83.7%, suit) followed by GS (89%, no suit; 78.3%, suit) and SALT (51%, no suit; 67.6%, suit).

CONCLUSION

A minority of participants had prior experience intubating in biohazard suits. Use of biohazard suits extends time to successful intubation. There was no difference in time to intubation for the 3 devices, but first-pass success was highest for DL (with or without biohazard gear).

Airway control in case of a mass toxicological event: superiority of second-generation supraglottic airway devices

INTRODUCTION

Early respiratory support and airway (AW) control with endotracheal intubation (ETI) are crucial in mass toxicology events and must be performed while wearing chemical personal protective equipment (C-PPE).

AIM

The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficiency of AW control by using second-generation supraglottic AW devices (SADs) as compared with ETI and first-generation SAD while wearing C-PPE.

METHODS

This is a randomized crossover trial involving 117 medical practitioners. Four AW management devices were examined: endotracheal tube, the first-generation SAD, laryngeal mask AW unique and 2 second-generation SAD, the laryngeal tube suction disposable, and supreme laryngeal mask AW (SLMA). Primary end point measured were success or failure, number of attempts, and time needed to achieve successful device insertion. Secondary end point was a subjective appraisal of the AW devices by study population.

RESULTS

More attempts were required to achieve AW control with endotracheal tube, with and without C-PPE (P<.001). Time to achieve AW control with ETI was, on average, 88% longer than required with other devices and improved with practice. The mean times to achieve an AW were longer when operators were equipped with C-PPE as compared with standard clothing. Subjectively, difficulty levels were significantly higher for ETI than for all other devices (P<.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with ETI, the use of SADs significantly shortened the time for AW control while wearing C-PPE. Second-generation SAD were superior to laryngeal mask AW unique. These finding suggest that SADs may be used in a mass toxicology event as a bridge, until definite AW control is achieved.

Utility of the Pentax-AWS in performing tracheal intubation while wearing chemical, biological, radiation and nuclear personal protective equipment: a randomised crossover trial using a manikin

INTRODUCTION

Following a chemical, biological, radiation and nuclear (CBRN) incident, prompt establishment of an advanced airway is required for patients with respiratory failure within the warm zone, while wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). Previous studies reported that intubation attempts were prolonged, and incidence of esophageal intubation was increased with conventional Macintosh laryngoscope (McL), while wearing CBRN-PPE. Pentax-AWS (AWS), a recently introduced portable video laryngoscope, was compared with the McL to test its utility for tracheal intubation while wearing CBRN-PPE.

METHODS

31 participants performed unsuited and suited intubations on an advanced life support simulator. The sequence of intubating devices and PPE wearing were randomised. Time to complete tracheal intubation (primary end point), time to see the vocal cords, overall success rate, percentage of glottic opening, dental compression and ease of intubation were measured.

RESULTS

Suited intubations required significantly longer time to complete intubation than unsuited intubations, in both McL and AWS (22.2 vs 26.4 s, 14.2 vs 18.2 s, respectively). However, suited AWS intubations required shorter time to complete tracheal intubation than unsuited McL intubations (18.2 vs 22.2 s). In secondary outcomes, moreover, suited intubations using the AWS compared favourably with unsuited intubations using the McL.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the CBRN-PPE adversely affected time required to complete tracheal intubation with the AWS, suited intubations using the AWS were even superior to unsuited intubations using the McL. The AWS should be a promising device to perform tracheal intubation while wearing the CBRN-PPE.

Insertion of six different supraglottic airway devices whilst wearing chemical, biological, radiation, nuclear-personal protective equipment: a manikin study

Six different supraglottic airway devices: Combitube™, laryngeal mask airway, intubating laryngeal mask airway (Fastrach™), i-gel™, Laryngeal Tube™ and Pro-Seal™ laryngeal mask airway were assessed by 58 paramedic students for speed and ease of insertion in a manikin, whilst wearing either chemical, biological, radiation, nuclear-personal protective equipment (CBRN-PPE) or a standard uniform. All devices took significantly longer to insert when wearing CBRN-PPE compared with standard uniform (p < 0.001). In standard uniform, insertion time was shorter than 45 s in 90% of attempts for all devices except the Combitube, for which 90% of attempts were completed by 53 s. Whilst wearing CBRN-PPE the i-gel was the fastest device to insert with a mean (SD (95% CI)) insertion time of 19 (8 (17-21))s, p < 0.001, with the Combitube the slowest with mean (65 (23 (59-71))s. Wearing of CBRN-PPE has a negative impact on supraglottic airway insertion time.

What is the optimal position of an intubator wearing CBRN-PPE when intubating on the floor: a manikin study

INTRODUCTION

Prompt airway management following a CBRN incident is linked to improved patient survival. However, responding rescuers will have to wear CBRN-PPE and treat patients positioned on the floor which will adversely impact on intubation skill performance.

METHODS

48 final year paramedic students intubated manikin's positions in 4 different positions; on an ambulance trolley (60 cm of the floor), lying prone, kneeling and sitting. Each skill was performed twice once wearing CBRN-PPE and once in normal clothes. Intubating order was randomised.

RESULTS

Intubation performance when wearing standard clothing was similar in all four positions but this was not the case when intubation was performed while wearing CBRN-PPE. CBRN-PPE had a negative impact on intubation performance regardless of the position of the intubator. Intubation on the trolley while wearing CBRN-PPE was completed in 100% of attempts within 60s compared with 79.2% for kneeling, 75% for sitting and 43.8% for laying. After 120 s nearly 20% of intubation attempts using the kneeling and sitting position and nearly 40% of attempts with the intubator lying on the floor were still not completed. Intubation on an ambulance trolley, while wearing CBRN-PPE, was always successful compared with sitting (88.8%), kneeling (81.2%) and laying (62.5%).

CONCLUSION

This manikin-based study serves to reaffirm that CBRN-PPE has an adverse impact on intubation performance as well as identifying the negative impact of patient position on the performance of intubation within a CBRN environment. Elevating the patient off the floor, prior to intubation, could improve intubation success when wearing CBRN-PPE as well as potentially improving safety of the intubator. In the immediate phase of a CBRN incident, intubation attempts should be delayed until optimal intubating conditions are available or at least until the patient is removed from the floor. Use of and intermediate airway devices should be considered as a 'stop gap'.

Does position of the patient adversely affect successful intubation whilst wearing CBRN-PPE?

INTRODUCTION

Following a CBRN incident attending medical personnel will be required to instigate life saving airway interventions whilst wearing CBRN-PPE. CBRN-PPE is known to adversely affect fine motor skill but little is known about whether the position of the patient compounds this problem.

METHODS

Seventy-five clinicians were recruited and performed intubation and insertion of a LMA in to a manikin whilst wearing CBRN-PPE. Both skills were completed twice with the manikin positioned on a bench and once on the floor. Following completion of the study 25 participants (a minimum of 2 participants from each professional group) were interviewed to ascertain their experiences. The recruitment of a non-homogenous group allowed for subgroup analysis with regards the potential impact of professional background on skill performance.

RESULTS

9.33% first attempts at intubation at waist height ended in failure but this reduced to 4% on the second attempt. This improvement was reversed with the manikin on the floor where the failure rate was 26.67%. Intubation on the floor took significantly longer to perform, being 45.9 s slower than the first attempt at intubation in the optimal position [95% CI (30.7 s, 61.1 s); p<0.001] and 62.4 s longer than the second [95% CI (48.4 s, 76.3 s); p<0.001]. LMA insertion was successful at all attempts, regardless of the manikins position. LMA placement on the floor was no slower than the second attempt at waist height (p=0.231) and faster than the first attempt at waist height (by 4.8 s [95% CI (3.4 s, 6.1 s); p<0.001]). Anaesthetists were consistently the fastest at performing all airway skills regardless of the position of the manikin but previous exposure to wearing CBRN-PPE had no statistically significant impact on skill performance. All 25 clinicians interviewed had difficulty in viewing the larynx with the manikin positioned on the floor regardless of being an experienced 'on floor' intubator with the movement of the CBRN-PPE hood being the principle reason. This is in contrast to only three participants noting issues with vision whilst standing-up.

CONCLUSION

the position of the patient is likely to be an independent factor when choosing to either intubate or insert a LMA whilst wearing the current NHS CBRN-PPE.