Commercially available endoscopy facemasks to prevent aerosolizing spread of droplets during COVID-19 outbreak

Bronchoscopy masks mitigate aerosols during upper gastrointestinal endoscopies

Background and study aims Upper gastrointestinal endoscopies are considered aerosol-generating procedures (AGP) that risk spread of airborne diseases such as SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to investigate where clinically approved bronchoscopy masks applied to patients during esophagogastroduodenoscopies can mitigate spread of aerosols and droplets. Patients and methods This study included patients undergoing routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in a standard endoscopy room and used a particle counter to measure size and number of particles 10 cm from the mouths of 49 patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopies, of whom 12 wore bronchoscopy masks and 37 did not (controls). Particle counts in the aerosol (≤ 5 µm diameter) and droplet (> 5 µm-diameter) size ranges were measured and averaged over the duration of procedures. Results The use of bronchoscopy masks offers a 47% reduction ( P = 0.01) in particle count for particles < 5 μm in diameter over the procedure duration (aerosols). Conclusions Bronchoscopy masks or similar are a simple, low-cost mitigation technique that can be used during outbreaks of respiratory diseases such as COVID-19 to improve safety and reduce fallow times.

Air filtration mitigates aerosol levels both during and after endoscopy procedures

Objectives

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopies are aerosol-generating procedures, increasing the risk of spreading airborne pathogens. We aim to quantify the mitigation of airborne particles via improved ventilation, specifically laminar flow theatres and portable high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters, during and after upper gastrointestinal endoscopies.

Methods

This observational study included patients undergoing routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in a standard endoscopy room with 15-17 air changes per hour, a standard endoscopy room with a portable HEPA filtration unit, and a laminar flow theatre with 300 air changes per hour. A particle counter (diameter range 0.3 μm-25 μm) took measurements 10 cm from the mouth. Three analyses were performed: whole procedure particle counts, event-based counts, and air clearance estimation using post-procedure counts.

Results

Compared to a standard endoscopy room, for whole procedures we observe a 28.5x reduction in particle counts in laminar flow (p < 0.001) but no significant effect of HEPA filtration (p = 0.50). For event analysis, we observe for lateral flow theatres reduction in particles >5 μm for oral extubation (12.2x, p < 0.01), reduction in particles <5 μm for coughing/gagging (6.9x, p < 0.05), and reduction for all sizes in anesthetic throat spray (8.4x, p < 0.01) but no significant effect of HEPA filtration. However, we find that in the fallow period between procedures HEPA filtration reduces particle clearance times by 40%.

Conclusions

Laminar flow theatres are highly effective at dispersing aerosols immediately after production and should be considered for high-risk cases where patients are actively infectious or the supply of personal protective equipment is limited. Portable HEPA filers can safely reduce the fallow time between procedures by 40%.

The use of Endo barrier for prevention of COVID-19 infection enables upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with high patient satisfaction in private clinic

Objectives

In the midst of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection pandemic, practitioners who perform endoscopic examinations need to prevent infections through procedures, along with routine medical care. By using continuous suction, Endo barrier is thought to be effective in preventing the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) droplets and aerosols. The study aimed to evaluate patient discomfort and satisfaction with the use of the Endo barrier during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). The study evaluated the system's effectiveness as well as the system's preparation time and the amount of burden on the medical staff.

Methods

EGD was performed on 788 consecutive cases using the Endo barrier. A questionnaire was used to survey patients after the procedure on four points: discomfort (feeling of pressure, breathlessness) and good points (feeling of relief and satisfaction) using a visual analog scale. In addition, patients were divided into two groups according to sedation status: with sedation (69.7%) and without sedation (30.3%), and their scores were compared. Additionally, the preparation time of the Endo barrier was measured.

Results

Patient discomfort was reported as minimal, resulting in a high level of satisfaction using this system. Although the overall results were better in the sedation group, the overall evaluation of the non-sedated group was also favorable. Furthermore, preparation time (30 s) was less burdensome for medical staff.

Conclusion

The Endo barrier is an easy-to-implement tool to prevent COVID-19 infection in private clinics, and both patients and staff were highly satisfied with the device with or without the use of sedation during EGD.

Commercially available novel device to prevent the diffusion of droplets from subjects undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A pilot study with its prototype

Introduction

Under the current pandemic situation of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), we have newly developed a commercially available device named Endomask to prevent the diffusion of droplets from subjects undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Herein, we evaluate the efficacy and safety of the device, and also evaluate the stress of the device on the operators and the subjects of EGD.

Methods

The efficacy of the device was evaluated using an experimental model that simulated the environment of EGD. The safety of the device was evaluated clinically by means of measuring the oxygen saturation and the expiratory carbonic dioxide partial pressure of subjects with our device during EGD. The stress of the device on the operability of the endoscopists and the respiration of the subjects were evaluated using questionnaires.

Results

In the experiments with Endomask, the percentage of the area with simulated droplets was significantly reduced compared to that without our device (median, 0.24% vs. 6.96%, p = 0.009). The saturation of oxygen and the expiratory carbonic dioxide partial pressure of subjects with the device did not show significant change at any recording times. Neither the operators nor the subjects felt serious stress from examination with the device.

Conclusions

Endomask could remarkably and safely prevent the diffusion of droplets without serious stress. Endomask is expected to contribute to a reduction of the infectious risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 in endoscopy units during COVID‐19 pandemic.