Effectiveness of a novel semi-closed barrier device with a personalized exhaust in cough aerosol simulation according to particle counts and visualization of particles

Efficacy of a surgical mask during high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in preventing aerosol dispersion: a randomized controlled study

PURPOSE

It is not clear whether or not high-flow nasal oxygenation used in patients with severe respiratory tract infection, or coughing, increases the risk of infection to the healthcare personnel, and whether or not applying a surgical mask to the patient's face or treating the patient in a negative-pressure room can reduce the risk.

METHODS

In a randomized crossover design, we compared in 50 participants receiving high-flow nasal oxygenation, the aerosol counts measured at approximately 20 cm above the participant's mouth in 32 different circumstances (with or without coughing, with or without wearing a surgical mask, at four different flow rates of oxygenation, in a positive- or negative-pressure operating room).

RESULTS

In a positive-pressure room, a surgical mask significantly decreased the aerosol counts during coughing (P = 0.0005), or during no coughing (P = 0.009), under high-flow nasal oxygenation (at 60 l.min-1). In the negative-pressure room, the aerosol count was significantly lower than in the positive-pressure room, for all the circumstances (all P < 0.001), and a surgical mask significantly decreased the aerosol counts during coughing (P = 0.047) but not during no coughing (P = 0.60).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, treating a patient in a negative-pressure room, or applying a surgical mask, during high-flow nasal oxygenation (with the flow rate of 60 l.min-1) would inhibit, but would not completely prevent, dispersion of aerosols by coughing.

Aerosol containment device design considerations and performance evaluation metrics

BACKGROUND

Spurred by the Coronavirus infectious disease 2019 pandemic, aerosol containment devices (ACDs) were developed to capture infectious respiratory aerosols generated by patients at their source. Prior reviews indicated that such devices had low evidence of effectiveness, but did not address how ACDs should be evaluated, how well they should perform, nor have clearly defined performance standards. Towards developing design criteria for ACDs, two questions were posed: 1) What characteristics have guided the design of ACDs? 2) How have these characteristics been evaluated?

METHODS

A scoping review was performed consistent with PRISMA guidelines. Data were extracted with respect to general study information, intended use of the device, device design characteristics and evaluation.

RESULTS

Fifty-four articles were included. Evaluation was most commonly performed with respect to device aerosol containment (n = 31, 61%), with only 5 (9%), 3 (6%) and 8 (15%) formally assessing providing experience, patient experience and procedure impact, respectively. Nearly all of the studies that explored provider experience and procedure impact studied intubation. Few studies provided a priori performance criteria for any evaluation metric, or referenced any external guidelines by which to bench mark performance.

CONCLUSION

With respect to aerosol containment, ACDs should reduce exposure among HCP with the device compared with the absence of the device, and provide ≥90% reduction in respirable aerosols, equivalent in performance to N95 filtering facepiece respirators, if the goal is to reduce reliance on personal protective equipment. The ACD should not increase awkward or uncomfortable postures, or adversely impact biomechanics of the procedure itself as this could have implications for procedure outcomes. A variety of standardized instruments exist to assess the experience of patients and healthcare personnel. Integration of ACDs into routine clinical practice requires rigorous studies of aerosol containment and the user experience.