The effect of respiratory activity, non-invasive respiratory support and facemasks on aerosol generation and its relevance to COVID-19

Portable UV-C Device to Treat High Flow of Infectious Aerosols Generated during Clinical Respiratory Care

Respiratory interventions including noninvasive ventilation, continuous positive airway pressure and high-flow nasal oxygen generated infectious aerosols may increase risk of airborne disease (SARS-CoV-2, influenza virus) transmission to healthcare workers. We developed/tested a prototype portable UV-C254 device to sterilize high flows of viral-contaminated air from a simulated patient source at airflow rates of up to 100 l/m. Our device consisted of a central quartz tube surrounded 6 high-output UV-C254 lamps, within a larger cylinder allowing recirculation past the UV-C254 lamps a second time before exiting the device. Testing was with nebulized A/PR/8/34 (H1N1) influenza virus. RNA extraction and qRT-PCR showed virus transited through the prototype. Turning on varying numbers of lamps controlled the dose of UVC. Viability experiments at low, medium and high (100 l/min) flows of contaminated gas were conducted with 6, 4, 2 and 1 lamp activated (single-pass and recirculation were tested). Our data show 5-log reduction in particle forming units from a single lamp (single- pass and recirculated conditions) at high and low flows. UVC dose at 100 l/m was calculated at 11.6 mJ/cm2 single pass and 104 mJ/cm2 recirculated. The protype device shows high efficacy in killing nebulized influenza virus in a high flow of contaminated air.

Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated Events, and Nosocomial Respiratory Viral Infections on the Leeside of the Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on population health and hospital operations. Over 7 million patients have been hospitalized for COVID-19 thus far in the United States alone. Mortality rates for hospitalized patients during the first wave of the pandemic were > 30%, but as we enter the fifth year of the pandemic hospitalizations have fallen and mortality rates for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 have plummeted to 5% or less. These gains reflect lessons learned about how to optimize respiratory support for different kinds of patients, targeted use of therapeutics for patients with different manifestations of COVID-19 including immunosuppressants and antivirals as appropriate, and high levels of population immunity acquired through vaccines and natural infections. At the same time, the pandemic has helped highlight some longstanding sources of harm for hospitalized patients including hospital-acquired pneumonia, ventilator-associated events (VAEs), and hospital-acquired respiratory viral infections. We are, thankfully, on the leeside of the pandemic at present; but the large increases in ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), VAEs, bacterial superinfections, and nosocomial respiratory viral infections associated with the pandemic beg the question of how best to prevent these complications moving forward. This paper reviews the burden of hospitalization for COVID-19, the intersection between COVID-19 and both VAP and VAEs, the frequency and impact of hospital-acquired respiratory viral infections, new recommendations on how best to prevent VAP and VAEs, and current insights into effective strategies to prevent nosocomial spread of respiratory viruses.

Masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review

SUMMARYThis narrative review and meta-analysis summarizes a broad evidence base on the benefits-and also the practicalities, disbenefits, harms and personal, sociocultural and environmental impacts-of masks and masking. Our synthesis of evidence from over 100 published reviews and selected primary studies, including re-analyzing contested meta-analyses of key clinical trials, produced seven key findings. First, there is strong and consistent evidence for airborne transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and other respiratory pathogens. Second, masks are, if correctly and consistently worn, effective in reducing transmission of respiratory diseases and show a dose-response effect. Third, respirators are significantly more effective than medical or cloth masks. Fourth, mask mandates are, overall, effective in reducing community transmission of respiratory pathogens. Fifth, masks are important sociocultural symbols; non-adherence to masking is sometimes linked to political and ideological beliefs and to widely circulated mis- or disinformation. Sixth, while there is much evidence that masks are not generally harmful to the general population, masking may be relatively contraindicated in individuals with certain medical conditions, who may require exemption. Furthermore, certain groups (notably D/deaf people) are disadvantaged when others are masked. Finally, there are risks to the environment from single-use masks and respirators. We propose an agenda for future research, including improved characterization of the situations in which masking should be recommended or mandated; attention to comfort and acceptability; generalized and disability-focused communication support in settings where masks are worn; and development and testing of novel materials and designs for improved filtration, breathability, and environmental impact.

The multi-dimensional challenges of controlling respiratory virus transmission in indoor spaces: Insights from the linkage of a microscopic pedestrian simulation and SARS-CoV-2 transmission model

SARS-CoV-2 transmission in indoor spaces, where most infection events occur, depends on the types and duration of human interactions, among others. Understanding how these human behaviours interface with virus characteristics to drive pathogen transmission and dictate the outcomes of non-pharmaceutical interventions is important for the informed and safe use of indoor spaces. To better understand these complex interactions, we developed the Pedestrian Dynamics-Virus Spread model (PeDViS), an individual-based model that combines pedestrian behaviour models with virus spread models incorporating direct and indirect transmission routes. We explored the relationships between virus exposure and the duration, distance, respiratory behaviour, and environment in which interactions between infected and uninfected individuals took place and compared this to benchmark 'at risk' interactions (1.5 metres for 15 minutes). When considering aerosol transmission, individuals adhering to distancing measures may be at risk due to the buildup of airborne virus in the environment when infected individuals spend prolonged time indoors. In our restaurant case, guests seated at tables near infected individuals were at limited risk of infection but could, particularly in poorly ventilated places, experience risks that surpass that of benchmark interactions. Combining interventions that target different transmission routes can aid in accumulating impact, for instance by combining ventilation with face masks. The impact of such combined interventions depends on the relative importance of transmission routes, which is hard to disentangle and highly context dependent. This uncertainty should be considered when assessing transmission risks upon different types of human interactions in indoor spaces. We illustrated the multi-dimensionality of indoor SARS-CoV-2 transmission that emerges from the interplay of human behaviour and the spread of respiratory viruses. A modelling strategy that incorporates this in risk assessments can help inform policy makers and citizens on the safe use of indoor spaces with varying inter-human interactions.

Quantifying hospital environmental ventilation using carbon dioxide monitoring - a multicentre study

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of environmental ventilation in reducing airborne pathogen transmission. Carbon dioxide monitoring is recommended in the community to ensure adequate ventilation. Dynamic measurements of ventilation quantifying human exhaled waste gas accumulation are not conducted routinely in hospitals. Instead, environmental ventilation is allocated using static hourly air change rates. These vary according to the degree of perceived hazard, with the highest change rates reserved for locations where aerosol-generating procedures are performed, where medical/anaesthetic gases are used and where a small number of high-risk infective or immunocompromised patients may be isolated to reduce cross-infection. We aimed to quantify the quality and distribution of ventilation in hospital by measuring carbon dioxide levels in a two-phased prospective observational study. First, under controlled conditions, we validated our method and the relationship between human occupancy, ventilation and carbon dioxide levels using non-dispersive infrared carbon dioxide monitors. We then assessed ventilation quality in patient-occupied (clinical) and staff break and office (non-clinical) areas across two hospitals in Scotland. We selected acute medical and respiratory wards in which patients with COVID-19 are cared for routinely, as well as ICUs and operating theatres where aerosol-generating procedures  are performed routinely. Between November and December 2022, 127,680 carbon dioxide measurements were obtained across 32 areas over 8 weeks. Carbon dioxide levels breached the 800 ppm threshold for 14% of the time in non-clinical areas vs. 7% in clinical areas (p < 0.001). In non-clinical areas, carbon dioxide levels were > 800 ppm for 20% of the time in both ICUs and wards, vs. 1% in operating theatres (p < 0.001). In clinical areas, carbon dioxide was > 800 ppm for 16% of the time in wards, vs. 0% in ICUs and operating theatres (p < 0.001). We conclude that staff break, office and clinical areas on acute medical and respiratory wards frequently had inadequate ventilation, potentially increasing the risks of airborne pathogen transmission to staff and patients. Conversely, ventilation was consistently high in the ICU and operating theatre clinical environments. Carbon dioxide monitoring could be used to measure and guide improvements in hospital ventilation.

The Use of High-Flow Nasal Cannula and Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation in the Management of COVID-19 Patients: A Prospective Study

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and ventilator-delivered non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) were used to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19 pneumonia, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), due to lack of ventilators and manpower resources despite the paucity of data regarding their efficacy. This prospective study aimed to analyse the efficacy of HFNC versus NIV in the management of COVID-19 ARDS. A total of 88 RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients with moderate ARDS were recruited. Linear regression and generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used for trends in vital parameters over time. A total of 37 patients were on HFNC, and 51 were on NIV. Patients in the HFNC group stayed slightly but not significantly longer in the ICU as compared to their NIV counterparts (HFNC vs. NIV: 8.00 (4.0-12.0) days vs. 7.00 (2.0-12.0) days; p = 0.055). Intubation rates, complications, and mortality were similar in both groups. The switch to HFNC from NIV was 5.8%, while 37.8% required a switch to NIV from HFNC. The resolution of respiratory alkalosis was better with NIV. We conclude that in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia with moderate ARDS, the duration of treatment in the ICU, intubation rate, and mortality did not differ significantly with the use of HFNC or NIV for respiratory support.

Revisiting the personal protective equipment components of transmission-based precautions for the prevention of COVID-19 and other respiratory virus infections in healthcare

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted some potential limitations of transmission-based precautions. The distinction between transmission through large droplets vs aerosols, which have been fundamental concepts guiding infection control measures, has been questioned, leading to considerable variation in expert recommendations on transmission-based precautions for COVID-19. Furthermore, the application of elements of contact precautions, such as the use of gloves and gowns, is based on low-quality and inconclusive evidence and may have unintended consequences, such as increased incidence of healthcare-associated infections and spread of multidrug-resistant organisms. These observations indicate a need for high-quality studies to address the knowledge gaps and a need to revisit the theoretical background regarding various modes of transmission and the definitions of terms related to transmission. Further, we should examine the implications these definitions have on the following components of transmission-based precautions: (i) respiratory protection, (ii) use of gloves and gowns for the prevention of respiratory virus infections, (iii) aerosol-generating procedures and (iv) universal masking in healthcare settings as a control measure especially during seasonal epidemics. Such a review would ensure that transmission-based precautions are consistent and rationally based on available evidence, which would facilitate decision-making, guidance development and training, as well as their application in practice.

Quantifying Simulated Contamination Deposition on Healthcare Providers Using Image Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Simulation-based research has played an important role in improving care for communicable diseases. Unfortunately, few studies have attempted to quantify the level of contamination in these simulation activities. We aim to assess the feasibility and provide validity evidence for using integrated density values and area of contamination (AOC) to differentiate various levels of simulated contamination.

METHODS

An increasing number of simulated contamination spots using fluorescent marker were applied on a manikin chest to simulate a contaminated healthcare provider. An ultraviolet light was used to illuminate the manikin to highlight the simulated contamination. Images of increasing contamination levels were captured using a camera with different exposure settings. Image processing software was used to measure 2 outcomes: (1) natural logarithm of integrated density; and (2) AOC. Mixed-effects linear regression models were used to assess the effect of contamination levels and exposure settings on both outcome measures. A standardized "proof-of-concept" exercise was set up to calibrate and formalize the process for human subjects.

RESULTS

A total of 140 images were included in the analyses. Dose-response relationships were observed between contamination levels and both outcome measures. For each increment in the number of contaminated simulation spots (ie, simulated contaminated area increased by 38.5 mm 2 ), on average, log-integrated density increased by 0.009 (95% confidence interval, 0.006-0.012; P < 0.001) and measured AOC increased by 37.8 mm 2 (95% confidence interval, 36.7-38.8 mm 2 ; P < 0.001), which is very close to actual value (38.5 mm 2 ). The "proof-of-concept" demonstration further verified results.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrated density and AOC measured by image processing can differentiate various levels of simulated, fluorescent contamination. The AOC measured highly agrees with the actual value. This method should be optimized and used in the future research to detect simulated contamination deposited on healthcare providers.

The Complex Association between COPD and COVID-19

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. There is mounting evidence suggesting that COPD patients are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes; however, it remains unclear whether they are more susceptible to acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this comprehensive review, we aim to provide an up-to-date perspective of the intricate relationship between COPD and COVID-19. We conducted a thorough review of the literature to examine the evidence regarding the susceptibility of COPD patients to COVID-19 infection and the severity of their disease outcomes. While most studies have found that pre-existing COPD is associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes, some have yielded conflicting results. We also discuss confounding factors such as cigarette smoking, inhaled corticosteroids, and socioeconomic and genetic factors that may influence this association. Furthermore, we review acute COVID-19 management, treatment, rehabilitation, and recovery in COPD patients and how public health measures impact their care. In conclusion, while the association between COPD and COVID-19 is complex and requires further investigation, this review highlights the need for careful management of COPD patients during the pandemic to minimize the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes.

A novel negative pressure isolation device reduces aerosol exposure: A randomized controlled trial

Background and aim

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a proliferation of intubation barriers designed to protect healthcare workers from infection. We developed the Suction-Assisted Local Aerosol Containment Chamber (SLACC) and tested it in the operating room. The primary objectives were to determine the ease and safety of airway management with SLACC, and to measure its efficacy of aerosol containment to determine if it significantly reduces exposure to health care workers.

Methods

In this randomized clinical trial, adult patients scheduled to undergo elective surgery with general endotracheal anesthesia were screened and informed consent obtained from those willing to participate. Patients were randomized to airway management either with or without the SLACC device. Patients inhaled nebulized saline before and during anesthesia induction to simulate the size and concentration of particles seen with severe symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Results

79 patients were enrolled and randomized. Particle number concentration (PNC) at the patients' and healthcare workers' locations were measured and compared between the SLACC vs. control groups during airway management. Ease and success of tracheal intubation were recorded for each patient. All intubations were successful and time to intubation was similar between the two groups. Healthcare workers were exposed to significantly lower particle number concentrations (#/cm3) during airway management when SLACC was utilized vs. control. The particle count outside SLACC was reduced by 97% compared to that inside the device.

Conclusions

The SLACC device does not interfere with airway management and significantly reduces healthcare worker exposure to aerosolized particles during airway management.

Size distribution and relationship of airborne SARS-CoV-2 RNA to indoor aerosol in hospital ward environments

Aerosol particles proved to play a key role in airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 viruses. Therefore, their size-fractionated collection and analysis is invaluable. However, aerosol sampling in COVID departments is not straightforward, especially in the sub-500-nm size range. In this study, particle number concentrations were measured with high temporal resolution using an optical particle counter, and several 8 h daytime sample sets were collected simultaneously on gelatin filters with cascade impactors in two different hospital wards during both alpha and delta variants of concern periods. Due to the large number (152) of size-fractionated samples, SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies could be statistically analyzed over a wide range of aerosol particle diameters (70-10 µm). Our results revealed that SARS-CoV-2 RNA is most likely to exist in particles with 0.5-4 µm aerodynamic diameter, but also in ultrafine particles. Correlation analysis of particulate matter (PM) and RNA copies highlighted the importance of indoor medical activity. It was found that the daily maximum increment of PM mass concentration correlated the most with the number concentration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the corresponding size fractions. Our results suggest that particle resuspension from surrounding surfaces is an important source of SARS-CoV-2 RNA present in the air of hospital rooms.

Evaluation of steam heat as a decontamination approach for SARS-CoV-2 when applied to common transit-related materials

AIMS

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of steam heat for inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 when applied to materials common in mass transit installations.

METHODS AND RESULTS

SARS CoV-2 (USA-WA1/2020) was resuspended in either cell culture media or synthetic saliva, inoculated (∼1 × 106 TCID50) onto porous and nonporous materials and subjected to steam inactivation efficacy tests as either wet or dried droplets. The inoculated test materials were exposed to steam heat ranging from 70°C to 90°C. The amount of infectious SARS-CoV-2 remaining after various exposure durations ranging from 1 to 60 s was assessed. Higher steam heat application resulted in higher inactivation rates at short contact times. Steam applied at 1-inch distance (∼90°C at the surface) resulted in complete inactivation for dry inoculum within 2 s of exposure (excluding two outliers of 19 test samples at the 5-s duration) and within 2-30 s of exposure for wet droplets. Increasing the distance to 2 inches (∼70°C) also increased the exposure time required to achieve complete inactivation to 15 or 30 s for materials inoculated with saliva or cell culture media, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Steam heat can provide high levels of decontamination (>3 log reduction) for transit-related materials contaminated with SARS-CoV-2 using a commercially available steam generator with a manageable exposure time of 2-5 s.

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019: Indications, Findings, and Safety

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed the practice of gastroenterology and how we perform endoscopy. As with any new or emerging pathogen, early in the pandemic, there was limited evidence and understanding of disease transmission, limited testing capability, and resource constraints, especially availability of personal protective equipment (PPE). As the COVID-19 pandemic progressed, enhanced protocols with particular emphasis on assessing the risk status of patients and proper use of PPE have been incorporated into routine patient care. The COVID-19 pandemic has taught us important lessons for the future of gastroenterology and endoscopy.

Respiratory aerosol particle emission and simulated infection risk is greater during indoor endurance than resistance exercise

Pathogens such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2), influenza, and rhinoviruses are transmitted by airborne aerosol respiratory particles that are exhaled by infectious subjects. We have previously reported that the emission of aerosol particles increases on average 132-fold from rest to maximal endurance exercise. The aims of this study are to first measure aerosol particle emission during an isokinetic resistance exercise at 80% of the maximal voluntary contraction until exhaustion, second to compare aerosol particle emission during a typical spinning class session versus a three-set resistance training session. Finally, we then used this data to calculate the risk of infection during endurance and resistance exercise sessions with different mitigation strategies. During a set of isokinetic resistance exercise, aerosol particle emission increased 10-fold from 5,400 ± 1,200 particles/min at rest to 59,000 ± 69,900 particles/min during a set of resistance exercise. We found that aerosol particle emission per minute is on average 4.9-times lower during a resistance training session than during a spinning class. Using this data, we determined that the simulated infection risk increase during an endurance exercise session was sixfold higher than during a resistance exercise session when assuming one infected participant in the class. Collectively, this data helps to select mitigation measures for indoor resistance and endurance exercise classes at times where the risk of aerosol-transmitted infectious disease with severe outcomes is high.

Healthcare workers' infection risk perceptions of aerosol-generating procedures and affective response

Objective

To understand healthcare worker (HCW) perceptions of infection risk associated with aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) and their affective response to performing AGPs.

Design

Systematic review.

Methods

Systematic searches of PubMed, CINHAL Plus, and Scopus were conducted using combinations of selected keywords and synonyms. To reduce bias, titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility by 2 independent reviewers. Also, 2 independent reviewers extracted data from each eligible record. Discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached.

Results

In total, 16 reports from across the globe were included in this review. Findings suggest that AGPs are generally perceived to place HCWs at high risk of becoming infected with respiratory pathogens and that this perception stimulates a negative affective response and hesitancy to participate in the procedures.

Conclusions

AGP risk perception are complex and context dependent but have important influences on HCW infection control practices, decision to participate in AGPs, emotional welfare, and workplace satisfaction. New and unfamiliar hazards paired with uncertainty lead to fear and anxiety about personal and others' safety. These fears may create a psychological burden conducive to burnout. Empirical research is needed to thoroughly understand the interplay between HCW risk perceptions of distinct AGPs, their affective responses to conducting these procedures under various conditions, and their resulting decision to participate in these procedures. Results from such studies are essential for advancing clinical practice; they point to methods for mitigating provider distress and better recommendations for when and how to conduct AGPs.

The Spread of Exhaled Air and Aerosols during Physical Exercise

Physical exercise demonstrates a special case of aerosol emission due to its associated elevated breathing rate. This can lead to a faster spread of airborne viruses and respiratory diseases. Therefore, this study investigates cross-infection risk during training. Twelve human subjects exercised on a cycle ergometer under three mask scenarios: no mask, surgical mask, and FFP2 mask. The emitted aerosols were measured in a grey room with a measurement setup equipped with an optical particle sensor. The spread of expired air was qualitatively and quantitatively assessed using schlieren imaging. Moreover, user satisfaction surveys were conducted to evaluate the comfort of wearing face masks during training. The results indicated that both surgical and FFP2 masks significantly reduced particles emission with a reduction efficiency of 87.1% and 91.3% of all particle sizes, respectively. However, compared to surgical masks, FFP2 masks provided a nearly tenfold greater reduction of the particle size range with long residence time in the air (0.3-0.5 μm). Furthermore, the investigated masks reduced exhalation spreading distances to less than 0.15 m and 0.1 m in the case of the surgical mask and FFP2 mask, respectively. User satisfaction solely differed with respect to perceived dyspnea between no mask and FFP2 mask conditions.

Risk of Bacterial Exposure to the Anesthesiologist's Face During Intubation and Extubation

Introduction

Anesthesiologists are exposed to the risk of infection from various secretions or droplets from the respiratory tract of patients. We aimed to determine bacterial exposure to anesthesiologists' faces during endotracheal intubation and extubation.

Methods

Six resident anesthesiologists performed 66 intubation and 66 extubation procedures in patients undergoing elective otorhinolaryngology surgeries. Sampling was performed by swabbing the face shields twice in an overlapping slalom pattern, before and after each procedure. Samples for pre-intubation and pre-extubation were collected immediately after wearing the face shield at the time of anesthesia induction and at the end of the surgery, respectively. Post-intubation samples were collected after the injection of anesthetic drugs, positive pressure mask ventilation, endotracheal intubation, and confirmation of intubation success. Post-extubation samples were collected after endotracheal tube suction, oral suction, extubation, and confirmation of spontaneous breathing and stable vital signs. All swabs were cultured for 48 h, and bacterial growth was confirmed by colony forming unit (CFU) count.

Results

There was no bacterial growth in either pre- or post-intubation bacterial cultures. In contrast, while there was no bacterial growth in pre-extubation samples, 15.2% of post-extubation samples were CFU+ (0/66 [0%] vs 10/66 [15.2%], p=0.001). All the CFU+ samples belonged to 47 patients with post-extubation coughing, and the CFU count was correlated with the number of coughing episodes during the process of extubation (P < 0.01, correlation coefficient= 0.403).

Conclusion

The current study shows the actual chance of bacterial exposure to the anesthesiologist's face during the patient awakening process after general anesthesia. Given the correlation between the CFU count and the number of coughing episodes, we recommend anesthesiologists to use appropriate facial protection equipment during this procedure.

In vitro model for investigating aerosol dispersion in a simulated COVID-19 patient during high-flow nasal cannula treatment

The use of high-flow nasal cannula in the treatment of COVID-19 infected patients has proven to be a valuable treatment option to improve oxygenation. Early in the pandemic, there were concerns for the degree of risk of disease transmission to health care workers utilizing these treatments that are considered aerosol generating procedures. This study developed an in vitro model to examine the release of simulated patient-derived bioaerosol with and without high-flow nasal cannula at gas flow rates of 30 and 50 L/min. Aerosol dispersion was evaluated at 30 and 90 cm distances. Reduction of transmission risk was assessed using a surgical facemask on the manikin. Results indicated that the use of a facemask facilitated a 94-95% reduction in exhaled aerosol concentration at 30 cm and 22-60% reduction for 90 cm distance across both gas flow rates. This bench study confirms that this in vitro model can be used as a tool to assess the risk of disease transmission during aerosol generating procedures in a simulated patient and to test factors to mitigate the risk.

Comparison of Dose-Response Relationships for Two Isolates of SARS-CoV-2 in a Nonhuman Primate Model of Inhalational COVID-19

Background: As the COVID-19 pandemic has progressed, numerous variants of SARS-CoV-2 have arisen, with several displaying increased transmissibility. Methods: The present study compared dose-response relationships and disease presentation in nonhuman primates infected with aerosols containing an isolate of the Gamma variant of SARS-CoV-2 to the results of our previous study with the earlier WA-1 isolate of SARS-CoV-2. Results: Disease in Gamma-infected animals was mild, characterized by dose-dependent fever and oronasal shedding of virus. Differences were observed in shedding in the upper respiratory tract between Gamma- and WA-1-infected animals that have the potential to influence disease transmission. Specifically, the estimated median doses for shedding of viral RNA or infectious virus in nasal swabs were approximately 10-fold lower for the Gamma variant than the WA-1 isolate. Given that the median doses for fever were similar, this suggests that there is a greater difference between the median doses for viral shedding and fever for Gamma than for WA-1 and potentially an increased range of doses for Gamma over which asymptomatic shedding and disease transmission are possible. Conclusions: These results complement those of previous studies, which suggested that differences in exposure dose may help to explain the range of clinical disease presentations observed in individuals with COVID-19, highlighting the importance of public health measures designed to limit exposure dose, such as masking and social distancing. The dose-response data provided by this study are important to inform disease transmission and hazard modeling, as well as to inform dose selection in future studies examining the efficacy of therapeutics and vaccines in animal models of inhalational COVID-19.

Nosocomial outbreak of COVID-19 in an internal medicine ward: Probable airborne transmission

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Despite the increasing evidence supporting the importance of airborne transmission in SARS-CoV-2 infection, it has not been considered relevant in the vast majority of reported nosocomial outbreaks of COVID-19. The aim of this study is to describe a nosocomial outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 infection whose features suggest that aerosol transmission had an important role.

METHODS

This is a descriptive analysis of a nosocomial outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 infection in an internal medicine ward that occurred in December 2020. All cases were confirmed by a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2.

RESULTS

From December 5 to December 17, 21 patients and 44 healthcare workers (HCWs) developed a nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection. Fifty-one of the 65 cases (78.5%) were diagnosed between December 6 and 9. The attack rate in patients was 80.8%. Among HCWs, the attack rate was higher in those who had worked at least one full working day in the ward (56.3%) than in those who had occasionally been in the ward (25.8%; p = 0.005). Three days before the first positive case was detected, two extractor fans were found to be defective, affecting the ventilation of three rooms. Sixteen cases were asymptomatic, 48 cases had non-severe symptoms, and 2 cases required admission to the intensive care unit. All patients eventually recovered.

CONCLUSION

The high attack rate, the explosive nature of the outbreak, and the coincidence in time with the breakdown in air extractors in some rooms of the ward suggest that airborne transmission played a key role in the development of the outbreak.

Re-evaluating our language when reducing risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to healthcare workers: Time to rethink the term, “aerosol-generating procedures”

The term, "aerosol-generating procedures” (AGPs), was proposed during the prior SARS-CoV-1 epidemic in order to maximise healthcare worker and patient protection. The concept of AGPs has since expanded to include routine therapeutic processes such as various modes of oxygen delivery and non-invasive ventilation modalities. Evidence gained during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has brought into question the concept of AGPs with regard to intubation, airway management, non-invasive ventilation and high flow nasal oxygen delivery. Although encounters where these procedures occur may still be associated with increased risk of infectious transmission, this is a function of the clinical context and not because the procedure itself is aerosol-generating.

SARS-CoV-2 in the Air Surrounding Patients during Nebulizer Therapy

Nebulizer therapy is commonly used for patients with obstructive pulmonary disease or acute pulmonary infections with signs of obstruction. It is considered a "potential aerosol-generating procedure," and the risk of disease transmission to health care workers is uncertain. The aim of this pilot study was to assess whether nebulizer therapy in hospitalized COVID-19 patients is associated with increased dispersion of SARS-CoV-2. Air samples collected prior to and during nebulizer therapy were analyzed by RT-PCR and cell culture. Total aerosol particle concentrations were also quantified. Of 13 patients, seven had quantifiable virus in oropharynx samples, and only two had RT-PCR positive air samples. For both these patients, air samples collected during nebulizer therapy had higher SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations compared to control air samples. Also, for particle sizes 0.3-5 µm, particle concentrations were significantly higher during nebulizer therapy than in controls. We were unable to cultivate virus from any of the RT-PCR positive air samples, and it is therefore unknown if the detected virus were replication-competent; however, the significant increase in smaller particles, which can remain airborne for extended periods of time, and increased viral RNA concentrations during treatment may indicate that nebulizer therapy is associated with increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Efficiency and sensitivity optimization of a protocol to quantify indoor airborne SARS-CoV-2 levels

Background

Development of methodologies to quantify airborne micro-organisms is needed for the prevention and control of infections. It is difficult to conclude which is the most efficient and sensitive strategy to assess airborne SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels due to the disparity of results reported in clinical settings.

Aim

To improve our previously reported protocol of measuring SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels, which was based on bioaerosol collection with a liquid impinger and RNA quantification with droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR).

Methods

Air samples were collected in COVID-19 patient rooms to assess efficiency and/or sensitivity of different air samplers, liquid collection media, and reverse transcriptases (RT).

Findings

Mineral oil retains airborne RNA better than does hydrophilic media without impairing integrity. SARS-CoV-2 ORF1ab target was detected in 80% of the air samples using BioSampler with mineral oil. No significant differences in effectiveness were obtained with MD8 sampler equipped with gelatine membrane filters, but the SARS-CoV-2 copies/m³ air obtained with the latter were lower (28.4 ± 6.1 vs 9 ± 1.7). SuperScript II RT allows the detection of a single SARS-CoV-2 genome RNA molecule by ddPCR with high efficiency. This was the only RT that allowed the detection of SARS-CoV-2 N1 target in air samples.

Conclusion

The collection efficiency and detection sensivity of a protocol to quantify SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels in indoor air has been improved in the present study. Such optimization is important to improve our understanding of the microbiological safety of indoor air.

Anaesthetists' current practice and perceptions of aerosol-generating procedures: a mixed-methods study

The evidence base surrounding the transmission risk of 'aerosol-generating procedures' has evolved primarily through quantification of aerosol concentrations during clinical practice. Consequently, infection prevention and control guidelines are undergoing continual reassessment. This mixed-methods study aimed to explore the perceptions of practicing anaesthetists regarding aerosol-generating procedures. An online survey was distributed to the Membership Engagement Group of the Royal College of Anaesthetists during November 2021. The survey included five clinical scenarios to identify the personal approach of respondents to precautions, their hospital's policies and the associated impact on healthcare provision. A purposive sample was selected for interviews to explore the reasoning behind their perceptions and behaviours in greater depth. A total of 333 survey responses were analysed quantitatively. Transcripts from 18 interviews were coded and analysed thematically. The sample was broadly representative of the UK anaesthetic workforce. Most respondents and their hospitals were aware of, supported and adhered to UK guidance. However, there were examples of substantial divergence from these guidelines at both individual and hospital level. For example, 40 (12%) requested respiratory protective equipment and 63 (20%) worked in hospitals that required it to be worn whilst performing tracheal intubation in SARS-CoV-2 negative patients. Additionally, 173 (52%) wore respiratory protective equipment whilst inserting supraglottic airway devices. Regarding the use of respiratory protective equipment and fallow times in the operating theatre: 305 (92%) perceived reduced efficiency; 376 (83%) perceived a negative impact on teamworking; 201 (64%) were worried about environmental impact; and 255 (77%) reported significant problems with communication. However, 269 (63%) felt the negative impacts of respiratory protection equipment were appropriately balanced against the risks of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Attitudes were polarised about the prospect of moving away from using respiratory protective equipment. Participants' perceived risk from COVID-19 correlated with concern regarding stepdown (Spearman's test, R = 0.36, p < 0.001). Attitudes towards aerosol-generating procedures and the need for respiratory protective equipment are evolving and this information can be used to inform strategies to facilitate successful adoption of revised guidelines.

Pulmonary function testing during SARS-CoV-2: An ANZSRS/TSANZ position statement

The Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand (TSANZ) and the Australian and New Zealand Society of Respiratory Science (ANZSRS) commissioned a joint position paper on pulmonary function testing during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in July 2021. A working group was formed via an expression of interest to members of both organizations and commenced work in September 2021. A rapid review of the literature was undertaken, with a 'best evidence synthesis' approach taken to answer the research questions formed. This allowed the working group to accept findings of prior relevant reviews or societal document where appropriate. The advice provided is for providers of pulmonary function tests across all settings. The advice is intended to supplement local infection prevention and state, territory or national directives. The working group's key messages reflect a precautionary approach to protect the safety of both healthcare workers (HCWs) and patients in a rapidly changing environment. The decision on strategies employed may vary depending on local transmission and practice environment. The advice is likely to require review as evidence grows and the COVID-19 pandemic evolves. While this position statement was contextualized specifically to the COVID-19 pandemic, the working group strongly advocates that any changes to clinical/laboratory practice, made in the interest of optimizing the safety and well-being of HCWs and patients involved in pulmonary function testing, are carefully considered in light of their potential for ongoing use to reduce transmission of other droplet and/or aerosol borne diseases.

Airborne Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Hospitals: Effects of Aerosol-Generating Procedures, HEPA-Filtration Units, Patient Viral Load, and Physical Distance

BACKGROUND

Transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can occur through inhalation of fine droplets or aerosols containing infectious virus. The objective of this study was to identify situations, patient characteristics, environmental parameters, and aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) associated with airborne severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus.

METHODS

Air samples were collected near hospitalized COVID-19 patients and analyzed by RT-qPCR. Results were related to distance to the patient, most recent patient diagnostic PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, room ventilation, and ongoing potential AGPs.

RESULTS

In total, 310 air samples were collected; of these, 26 (8%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Of the 231 samples from patient rooms, 22 (10%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Positive air samples were associated with a low patient Ct value (OR, 5.0 for Ct <25 vs >25; P = .01; 95% CI: 1.18-29.5) and a shorter physical distance to the patient (OR, 2.0 for every meter closer to the patient; P = .05; 95% CI: 1.0-3.8). A mobile HEPA-filtration unit in the room decreased the proportion of positive samples (OR, .3; P = .02; 95% CI: .12-.98). No association was observed between SARS-CoV-2-positive air samples and mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, nebulizer treatment, or noninvasive ventilation. An association was found with positive expiratory pressure training (P < .01) and a trend towards an association for airway manipulation, including bronchoscopies and in- and extubations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that major risk factors for airborne SARS-CoV-2 include short physical distance, high patient viral load, and poor room ventilation. AGPs, as traditionally defined, seem to be of secondary importance.

The Removal of Airborne Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and Other Microbial Bioaerosols by Air Filtration on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Surge Units

Airborne severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was detected in a coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) ward before activation of HEPA-air filtration but not during filter operation; SARS-CoV-2 was again detected following filter deactivation. Airborne SARS-CoV-2 was infrequently detected in a COVID-19 intensive care unit. Bioaerosol was also effectively filtered.

What were the historical reasons for the resistance to recognizing airborne transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic?

The question of whether SARS-CoV-2 is mainly transmitted by droplets or aerosols has been highly controversial. We sought to explain this controversy through a historical analysis of transmission research in other diseases. For most of human history, the dominant paradigm was that many diseases were carried by the air, often over long distances and in a phantasmagorical way. This miasmatic paradigm was challenged in the mid to late 19th century with the rise of germ theory, and as diseases such as cholera, puerperal fever, and malaria were found to actually transmit in other ways. Motivated by his views on the importance of contact/droplet infection, and the resistance he encountered from the remaining influence of miasma theory, prominent public health official Charles Chapin in 1910 helped initiate a successful paradigm shift, deeming airborne transmission most unlikely. This new paradigm became dominant. However, the lack of understanding of aerosols led to systematic errors in the interpretation of research evidence on transmission pathways. For the next five decades, airborne transmission was considered of negligible or minor importance for all major respiratory diseases, until a demonstration of airborne transmission of tuberculosis (which had been mistakenly thought to be transmitted by droplets) in 1962. The contact/droplet paradigm remained dominant, and only a few diseases were widely accepted as airborne before COVID-19: those that were clearly transmitted to people not in the same room. The acceleration of interdisciplinary research inspired by the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that airborne transmission is a major mode of transmission for this disease, and is likely to be significant for many respiratory infectious diseases.

Aerosol-Generating Procedures and Virus Transmission

During the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, many respiratory therapies were classified as aerosol-generating procedures. This categorization resulted in a broad range of clinical concerns and a shortage of essential medical resources for some patients. In the past 2 years, many studies have assessed the transmission risk posed by various respiratory care procedures. These studies are discussed in this narrative review, with recommendations for mitigating transmission risk based on the current evidence.

Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 and respiratory viral infections in healthcare settings: current and emerging concepts

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

COVID-19 has catalyzed a wealth of new data on the science of respiratory pathogen transmission and revealed opportunities to enhance infection prevention practices in healthcare settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

New data refute the traditional division between droplet vs airborne transmission and clarify the central role of aerosols in spreading all respiratory viruses, including Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), even in the absence of so-called 'aerosol-generating procedures' (AGPs). Indeed, most AGPs generate fewer aerosols than talking, labored breathing, or coughing. Risk factors for transmission include high viral loads, symptoms, proximity, prolonged exposure, lack of masking, and poor ventilation. Testing all patients on admission and thereafter can identify early occult infections and prevent hospital-based clusters. Additional prevention strategies include universal masking, encouraging universal vaccination, preferential use of N95 respirators when community rates are high, improving native ventilation, utilizing portable high-efficiency particulate air filters when ventilation is limited, and minimizing room sharing when possible.

SUMMARY

Multifaceted infection prevention programs that include universal testing, masking, vaccination, and enhanced ventilation can minimize nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients and workplace infections in healthcare personnel. Extending these insights to other respiratory viruses may further increase the safety of healthcare and ready hospitals for novel respiratory viruses that may emerge in the future.

Quantifying the Risk to Health Care Workers of Cough as an Aerosol Generating Event in an Ambulance Setting: A Research Report

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

United Kingdom Health Security Agency (UKHSA) guidance related to mask use for health care workers in a non-aerosol generating procedure (AGP) setting has remained as Level 2 water repellent paper mask (surgical mask) only. Energetic respiratory events, such as coughing, can generate vast numbers of droplets and aerosols. Coughing, considered to be a non-AGP event, frequently occurs in the relatively small, confined space of an ambulance (∼25 m3). The report seeks to explore whether existing research can provide an indication of the risk to ambulance staff, via aerosol transmission, of an acute respiratory infection (ARI) during a coughing event within the clinical setting of an ambulance.

METHODS

International bibliographic databases were searched (CINAHL Plus, SCOPUS, PubMed, and CENTRAL) using appropriate search strings and a combination of relevant medical subject headings with appropriate truncation. Methodological filters were not applied. Papers without an English language abstract were excluded from the review. Grey literature was sought by searching specialist databases OpenGrey and GreyNet, as well as key organizations' websites. The initial search identified 2,405 articles. Following screening, along with forward and backward citation of key papers identified within the literature search, 36 papers were deemed eligible for the scoping review.

DISCUSSION

Attempts to replicate a clinical environment to investigate the risk of transmission of airborne viruses to health care workers during a coughing event provided evidence for the generation of respirable aerosol particles and thus potential transmission of pathogens. In cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), potential to infect versus true airborne transmission is a debate that continues, but there is general consensus that a large variation of cough characteristics and aerosol generation amongst individuals exists. Studies widely endorsed face masks as a source control device, but there were conflicting views about the impact of mask leakage.

CONCLUSION

Further research is required to provide clarity of the risk to health care workers when caring for a coughing patient in the confined clinical ambulance setting and to provide an evidence base to assist in the determination of appropriate respiratory protective equipment (RPE).

Exhaled gases and the potential for cross-infection via noninvasive ventilation machines

Use of long-term ventilation (LTV) benefits patients with a diverse range of conditions, including Duchenne muscular dystrophy, motor neurone disease and scoliosis [1]. Patients with pulmonary disease as well as neuromuscular disease can benefit from LTV. COPD patients treated with LTV experience a reduction in hospital admissions and the use of LTV in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients is increasing [2, 3].

Guidelines suggest that exhaled gases do not reach the outlet of noninvasive ventilators in clinical use. In this study, when tidal volumes exceeded 800 mL, exhaled gases did reach the ventilator, leading to a risk of cross-infection between users.https://bit.ly/3EdvtY6

Survey of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection control policies at leading US academic hospitals in the context of the initial pandemic surge of the severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) omicron variant

OBJECTIVE

To assess coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection policies at leading US medical centers in the context of the initial wave of the severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) omicron variant.

DESIGN

Electronic survey study eliciting hospital policies on masking, personal protective equipment, cohorting, airborne-infection isolation rooms (AIIRs), portable HEPA filters, and patient and employee testing.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

"Hospital epidemiologists from U.S. News top 20 hospitals and 10 hospitals in the CDC Prevention Epicenters program."  As it is currently written, it implies all 30 hospitals are from the CDC Prevention Epicenters program, but that only applies to 10 hospitals.  Alternatively, we could just say "Hospital epidemiologists from 30 leading US hospitals."

METHODS

Survey results were reported using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of 30 hospital epidemiologists surveyed, 23 (77%) completed the survey between February 15 and March 3, 2022. Among the responding hospitals, 18 (78%) used medical masks for universal masking and 5 (22%) used N95 respirators. 16 hospitals (70%) required universal eye protection. 22 hospitals (96%) used N95s for routine COVID-19 care and 1 (4%) reserved N95s for aerosol-generating procedures. 2 responding hospitals (9%) utilized dedicated COVID-19 wards; 8 (35%) used mixed COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 units; and 13 (57%) used both dedicated and mixed units. 4 hospitals (17%) used AIIRs for all COVID-19 patients, 10 (43%) prioritized AIIRs for aerosol-generating procedures, 3 (13%) used alternate risk-stratification criteria (not based on aerosol-generating procedures), and 6 (26%) did not routinely use AIIRs. 9 hospitals (39%) did not use portable HEPA filters, but 14 (61%) used them for various indications, most commonly as substitutes for AIIRs when unavailable or for specific high-risk areas or situations. 21 hospitals (91%) tested asymptomatic patients on admission, but postadmission testing strategies and preferred specimen sites varied substantially. 5 hospitals (22%) required regular testing of unvaccinated employees and 1 hospital (4%) reported mandatory weekly testing even for vaccinated employees during the SARS-CoV-2 omicron surge.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 infection control practices in leading hospitals vary substantially. Clearer public health guidance and transparency around hospital policies may facilitate more consistent national standards.

Re-opening the pediatric pulmonary function laboratory during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic continues with new waves of intensification. This review provides an update based on international recommendations concerning the conduct of pulmonary function testing in a manner to limit risk to both patient and tester.

Quantitative evaluation of aerosol generation from upper airway suctioning assessed during tracheal intubation and extubation sequences in anaesthetized patients

BACKGROUND

Open respiratory suctioning is defined as an aerosol generating procedure (AGP). Laryngopharyngeal suctioning, used to clear secretions during anaesthesia, is widely managed as an AGP. However, it is uncertain whether upper airway suctioning should be designated as an AGP due to the lack of both aerosol and epidemiological evidence.

AIM

To assess the relative risk of aerosol generation by upper airway suctioning during tracheal intubation and extubation in anaesthetized patients.

METHODS

This prospective environmental monitoring study was undertaken in an ultraclean operating theatre setting to assay aerosol concentrations during intubation and extubation sequences, including upper airway suctioning, for patients undergoing surgery (N=19). An optical particle sizer (particle size 0.3-10 μm) sampled aerosol 20 cm above the patient's mouth. Baseline recordings (background, tidal breathing and volitional coughs) were followed by intravenous induction of anaesthesia with neuromuscular blockade. Four periods of laryngopharyngeal suctioning were performed with a Yankauer sucker: pre-laryngoscopy, post-intubation, pre-extubation and post-extubation.

FINDINGS

Aerosol was reliably detected {median 65 [interquartile range (IQR) 39-259] particles/L} above background [median 4.8 (IQR 1-7) particles/L, P<0.0001] when sampling in close proximity to the patient's mouth during tidal breathing. Upper airway suctioning was associated with a much lower average aerosol concentration than breathing [median 6.0 (IQR 0-12) particles/L, P=0.0007], and was indistinguishable from background (P>0.99). Peak aerosol concentrations recorded during suctioning [median 45 (IQR 30-75) particles/L] were much lower than during volitional coughs [median 1520 (IQR 600-4363) particles/L, P<0.0001] and tidal breathing [median 540 (IQR 300-1826) particles/L, P<0.0001].

CONCLUSION

Upper airway suctioning during airway management was not associated with a higher aerosol concentration compared with background, and was associated with a much lower aerosol concentration compared with breathing and coughing. Upper airway suctioning should not be designated as a high-risk AGP.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies among dental teams in Germany

OBJECTIVES

During the corona pandemic, dental practices temporarily closed their doors to patients except for emergency treatments. Due to the daily occupational exposure, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission among dentists and their team is presumed to be higher than that in the general population. This study examined this issue among dental teams across Germany.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 2784 participants provided usable questionnaires and dry blood samples. Dry blood samples were used to detect IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. The questionnaires were analyzed to investigate demographic data and working conditions during the pandemic. Multivariable logistic mixed-effects models were applied.

RESULTS

We observed 146 participants with positive SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies (5.2%) and 30 subjects with a borderline finding (1.1%). Seventy-four out of the 146 participants with SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies did not report a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test (50.7%), while 27 participants without SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies reported a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test (1.1%). Combining the laboratory and self-reported information, the number of participants with a SARS-CoV-2 infection was 179 (6.5%). Though after adjustment for region, mixed-effects models indicated associations of use of rubber dams (OR 1.65; 95% CI: 1.01-2.72) and the number of protective measures (OR 1.16; 95% CI: 1.01-1.34) with increased risk for positive SARS-CoV-2 status, none of those variables was significantly associated with a SARS-CoV-2 status in fully adjusted models.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission was not higher among the dental team compared to the general population.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Following hygienic regulations and infection control measures ensures the safety of the dental team and their patients.

A comparison of respiratory particle emission rates at rest and while speaking or exercising

Background

The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic led to the prohibition of group-based exercise and the cancellation of sporting events. Evaluation of respiratory aerosol emissions is necessary to quantify exercise-related transmission risk and inform mitigation strategies.

Methods

Aerosol mass emission rates are calculated from concurrent aerosol and ventilation data, enabling absolute comparison. An aerodynamic particle sizer (0.54–20 μm diameter) samples exhalate from within a cardiopulmonary exercise testing mask, at rest, while speaking and during cycle ergometer-based exercise. Exercise challenge testing is performed to replicate typical gym-based exercise and very vigorous exercise, as determined by a preceding maximally exhaustive exercise test.

Results

We present data from 25 healthy participants (13 males, 12 females; 36.4 years). The size of aerosol particles generated at rest and during exercise is similar (unimodal ~0.57–0.71 µm), whereas vocalization also generated aerosol particles of larger size (i.e. was bimodal ~0.69 and ~1.74 µm). The aerosol mass emission rate during speaking (0.092 ng s⁻¹; minute ventilation (VE) 15.1 L min⁻¹) and vigorous exercise (0.207 ng s⁻¹, p = 0.726; VE 62.6 L min⁻¹) is similar, but lower than during very vigorous exercise (0.682 ng s⁻¹, p < 0.001; VE 113.6 L min⁻¹).

Conclusions

Vocalisation drives greater aerosol mass emission rates, compared to breathing at rest. Aerosol mass emission rates in exercise rise with intensity. Aerosol mass emission rates during vigorous exercise are no different from speaking at a conversational level. Mitigation strategies for airborne pathogens for non-exercise-based social interactions incorporating vocalisation, may be suitable for the majority of exercise settings. However, the use of facemasks when exercising may be less effective, given the smaller size of particles produced.

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and other respiratory viruses are transmitted via respiratory particles emitted while breathing or speaking. Transmission of these viruses will depend in part on the rate at which these particles are emitted. Here, we studied respiratory particle sizes and emission rates in healthy people while breathing at rest, while speaking and during exercise on a static bicycle. We find that speaking generates larger particles and exercise generates smaller particles. The particle emission rate during speaking and typical gym-based exercise was similar but lower than values measured during very vigorous exercise. These findings help us to understand the emission of respiratory particles during different activities, and suggest that preventative measures for COVID-19 such as social distancing, used for non-exercise-based social interactions involving speaking, may be suitable for the majority of exercise settings.

Orton and Symons et al. compare respiratory particle sizes and emission rates by sampling exhalates from participants at rest, and while speaking or exercising. They find that vocalisation produces larger particles and that while emission rates are similar between speaking and vigorous exercise, very vigorous exercise leads to higher rates.

Impact of home CPAP treated obstructive sleep apnea on COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To investigate the association between moderate or severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) treated with home continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

Retrospective study of patients admitted for COVID-19. Patients with OSA treated with home CPAP were identified and for each of them we selected 5 patients admitted consecutively in the following hours. The main outcome of the study was the development of severe COVID-19, defined as: a) death, or b) a composite outcome of death or the presence of severe hypoxemic respiratory failure at or during admission. The association between CPAP-treated OSA and these outcomes was estimated by logistic regression analysis after applying inverse probability of treatment weighting using a propensity score-weighting approach.

RESULTS

Of the 2059 patients admitted, 81 (3.9%) were receiving treatment with home CPAP. Among the 486 patients included in the study, 19% died and 39% presented the composite outcome. The logistic regression analysis did not show an association of CPAP treatment either with death (OR [95% CI]: 0.684 [0.332-1.409], p:0.303) or with the composite outcome (OR [95% CI]: 0.779 [0.418-1.452], p:0.432). Death was associated with age (OR [95% CI]: 1.116 [1.08-1.152], p<0.001) and number of comorbidities (OR [95% CI]: 1.318 [1.065-1.631], p:0.012), and the composite outcome was associated with male sex (OR [95% CI]: 2.067[1.19-3.589], p:0.01) and number of comorbidities (OR [95% CI]:1.241 [1.039-1.484], p:0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalized COVID-19 patients, prior OSA treated with home CPAP is not independently associated with worse outcomes.

Aerosol generation during general anesthesia is comparable to coughing: An observational clinical study

BACKGROUND

Intubation, laryngoscopy, and extubation are considered highly aerosol-generating procedures, and additional safety protocols are used during COVID-19 pandemic in these procedures. However, previous studies are mainly experimental and have neither analyzed staff exposure to aerosol generation in the real-life operating room environment nor compared the exposure to aerosol concentrations generated during normal patient care. To assess operational staff exposure to potentially infectious particle generation during general anesthesia, we measured particle concentration and size distribution with patients undergoing surgery with Optical Particle Sizer.

METHODS

A single-center observative multidisciplinary clinical study in Helsinki University Hospital with 39 adult patients who underwent general anesthesia with tracheal intubation. Mean particle concentrations during different anesthesia procedures were statistically compared with cough control data collected from 37 volunteers to assess the differences in particle generation.

RESULTS

This study measured 25 preoxygenations, 30 mask ventilations, 28 intubations, and 24 extubations. The highest total aerosol concentration of 1153 particles (p)/cm³ was observed during mask ventilation. Preoxygenations, mask ventilations, and extubations as well as uncomplicated intubations generated mean aerosol concentrations statistically comparable to coughing. It is noteworthy that difficult intubation generated significantly fewer aerosols than either uncomplicated intubation (p = .007) or coughing (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Anesthesia induction generates mainly small (<1 µm) aerosol particles. Based on our results, general anesthesia procedures are not highly aerosol-generating compared with coughing. Thus, their definition as high-risk aerosol-generating procedures should be re-evaluated due to comparable exposures during normal patient care.

IMPLICATION STATEMENT

The list of aerosol-generating procedures guides the use of protective equipments in hospitals. Intubation is listed as a high-risk aerosol-generating procedure, however, aerosol generation has not been measured thoroughly. We measured aerosol generation during general anesthesia. None of the general anesthesia procedures generated statistically more aerosols than coughing and thus should not be considered as higher risk compared to normal respiratory activities.

Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand Position Statement on Acute Oxygen Use in Adults: 'Swimming between the flags'

Oxygen is a life-saving therapy but, when given inappropriately, may also be hazardous. Therefore, in the acute medical setting, oxygen should only be given as treatment for hypoxaemia and requires appropriate prescription, monitoring and review. This update to the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand (TSANZ) guidance on acute oxygen therapy is a brief and practical resource for all healthcare workers involved with administering oxygen therapy to adults in the acute medical setting. It does not apply to intubated or paediatric patients. Recommendations are made in the following six clinical areas: assessment of hypoxaemia (including use of arterial blood gases); prescription of oxygen; peripheral oxygen saturation targets; delivery, including non-invasive ventilation and humidified high-flow nasal cannulae; the significance of high oxygen requirements; and acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. There are three sections which provide (1) a brief summary, (2) recommendations in detail with practice points and (3) a detailed explanation of the reasoning and evidence behind the recommendations. It is anticipated that these recommendations will be disseminated widely in structured programmes across Australia and New Zealand.

Mitigating Fugitive Aerosols During Aerosol Delivery via High-Flow Nasal Cannula Devices

BACKGROUND

Aerosol delivery via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has attracted clinical interest in recent years. However, both HFNC and nebulization are categorized as aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs). In vitro studies raised concerns that AGPs had high transmission risk. Very few in vivo studies examined fugitive aerosols with nebulization via HFNC, and effective methods to mitigate aerosol dispersion are unknown.

METHODS

Two HFNC devices (Airvo 2 and Vapotherm) with or without a vibrating mesh nebulizer were compared; HFNC alone, surgical mask over HFNC interface, and HFNC with face tent scavenger were used in a random order for 9 healthy volunteers. Fugitive aerosol concentrations at sizes of 0.3-10.0 μm were continuously measured by particle sizers placed at 1 and 3 ft from participants. On a different day, 6 of the 9 participants received 6 additional nebulizer treatments via vibrating mesh nebulizer or small-volume nebulizer (SVN) with a face mask or a mouthpiece with/without an expiratory filter. In vitro simulation was employed to quantify inhaled dose of albuterol with vibrating mesh nebulizer via Airvo 2 and Vapotherm.

RESULTS

Compared to baseline, neither HFNC device generated higher aerosol concentrations. Compared to HFNC alone, vibrating mesh nebulizer via Airvo 2 generated higher 0.3-1.0 μm particles (all P < .05), but vibrating mesh nebulizer via Vapotherm did not. Concentrations of 1.0-3.0 μm particles with vibrating mesh nebulizer via Airvo 2 were similar with vibrating mesh nebulizer and a mouthpiece/face mask but less than SVN with a mouthpiece/face mask (all P < .05). Placing a surgical mask over HFNC during nebulization reduced 0.5-1.0 μm particles (all P < .05) to levels similar to the use of a nebulizer with mouthpiece and expiratory filter. In vitro the inhaled dose of albuterol with vibrating mesh nebulizer via Airvo 2 was ≥ 6 times higher than vibrating mesh nebulizer via Vapotherm.

CONCLUSIONS

During aerosol delivery via HFNC, Airvo 2 generated higher inhaled dose and consequently higher fugitive aerosols than Vapotherm. Simple measures, such as placing a surgical mask over nasal cannula during nebulization via HFNC, could effectively reduce fugitive aerosol concentrations.

Local Exhaust Ventilation to Control Dental Aerosols and Droplets

Dental procedures produce aerosols that may remain suspended and travel significant distances from the source. Dental aerosols and droplets contain oral microbes, and there is potential for infectious disease transmission and major disruption to dental services during infectious disease outbreaks. One method to control hazardous aerosols often used in industry is local exhaust ventilation (LEV). The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of LEV on aerosols and droplets produced during dental procedures. Experiments were conducted on dental mannequins in an 825.4-m3 open-plan clinic and a 49.3-m3 single surgery. Ten-minute crown preparations were performed with an air-turbine handpiece in the open-plan clinic and 10-min full-mouth ultrasonic scaling in the single surgery. Fluorescein was added to instrument irrigation reservoirs as a tracer. In both settings, optical particle counters (OPCs) were used to measure aerosol particles between 0.3 and 10.0 µm, and liquid cyclone air samplers were used to capture aerosolized fluorescein tracer. In addition, in the open-plan setting, fluorescein tracer was captured by passive settling onto filter papers in the environment. Tracer was quantified fluorometrically. An LEV device with high-efficiency particulate air filtration and a flow rate of 5,000 L/min was used. LEV reduced aerosol production from the air-turbine handpiece by 90% within 0.5 m, and this was 99% for the ultrasonic scaler. OPC particle counts were substantially reduced for both procedures and air-turbine settled droplet detection reduced by 95% within 0.5 m. The effect of LEV was substantially greater than suction alone for the air-turbine and was similar to the effect of suction for the ultrasonic scaler. LEV reduces aerosol and droplet contamination from dental procedures by at least 90% in the breathing zone of the operator, and it is therefore a valuable tool to reduce the dispersion of dental aerosols.

Pulmonary Procedures in the COVID-19 Era

Purpose of Review

The purpose of this review is to discuss the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pulmonary procedures, including new guidelines, restrictions, techniques, and overall effect on patient care.

Recent Findings

SARS-CoV-2 predominately impacts the pulmonary system and can result in a severe lower respiratory tract infection. Early guidelines based largely on data from the SARS epidemic recommended significant restrictions on procedure volume out of concern for healthcare worker safety. Newer data suggests relative safety in performing airway and pleural procedures as long as appropriate precautions are followed and new techniques are utilized. The introduction of effective vaccines and more reliable testing has led to a re-expansion of elective procedures.

Summary

Many guidelines and expert statements exist for the management and practice of pulmonary procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic. A flexible and individualized approach may be necessary as our understanding of COVID-19 continues to evolve.