Paediatric headbox as aerosol and droplet barrier

SHEA NICU white paper series: Practical approaches for the prevention of viral respiratory infections

This white paper provides clinicians and hospital leaders with practical guidance on the prevention and control of viral respiratory infections in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). This document serves as a companion to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC)'s "Prophylaxis and Screening for Prevention of Viral Respiratory Infections in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Systematic Review." It provides practical, expert opinion and/or evidence-based answers to frequently asked questions about viral respiratory detection and prevention in the NICU. It was developed by a writing panel of pediatric and pathogen-specific experts who collaborated with members of the HICPAC systematic review writing panel and the SHEA Pediatric Leadership Council to identify questions that should be addressed. The document has been endorsed by SHEA, the American Hospital Association (AHA), The Joint Commission, the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (PIDS), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and the National Association of Neonatal Nurses (NANN).

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

Importance

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

Objective

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

Data Sources

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

Study Selection

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

Data Extraction and Synthesis

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

Main Outcomes and Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

Apneic oxygenation in pediatric anesthesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Apneic oxygenation is increasingly used in pediatric anesthesia. Its benefit for specific applications depends on the effect of apneic oxygenation on safe apnea time and carbon dioxide (CO2) elimination, on differences between low and high flow oxygen delivery, and on possible adverse effects. The present review summarizes current evidence on these pathophysiological aspects of apneic oxygenation as well as its applications in pediatric anesthesia.

RECENT FINDINGS

Apneic oxygenation with both low flow and high flow nasal oxygen increases the safe apnea time, but does not lead to increased CO2 elimination. Airway pressures and adverse effects like atelectasis formation, oxidative stress and aerosol generation under apneic oxygenation are not well studied in pediatric anesthesia. Data from adults suggest no important effect on airway pressures when the mouth is open, and no significant formation of atelectasis, oxidative stress or aerosol generation with high flow nasal oxygen.

SUMMARY

Apneic oxygenation in pediatric anesthesia is mainly used during standard and difficult airway management. It is sometimes used for airway interventions, but CO2 accumulation remains a major limiting factor in this setting. Reports highlight the use of high flow nasal oxygen in spontaneously breathing rather than in apneic children for airway interventions.