Aerosol and Droplet Risk of Common Otolaryngology Clinic Procedures

Asymptomatic screening for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) as an infection prevention measure in healthcare facilities: Challenges and considerations

Testing of asymptomatic patients for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (ie, "asymptomatic screening) to attempt to reduce the risk of nosocomial transmission has been extensive and resource intensive, and such testing is of unclear benefit when added to other layers of infection prevention mitigation controls. In addition, the logistic challenges and costs related to screening program implementation, data noting the lack of substantial aerosol generation with elective controlled intubation, extubation, and other procedures, and the adverse patient and facility consequences of asymptomatic screening call into question the utility of this infection prevention intervention. Consequently, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) recommends against routine universal use of asymptomatic screening for SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare facilities. Specifically, preprocedure asymptomatic screening is unlikely to provide incremental benefit in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the procedural and perioperative environment when other infection prevention strategies are in place, and it should not be considered a requirement for all patients. Admission screening may be beneficial during times of increased virus transmission in some settings where other layers of controls are limited (eg, behavioral health, congregate care, or shared patient rooms), but widespread routine use of admission asymptomatic screening is not recommended over strengthening other infection prevention controls. In this commentary, we outline the challenges surrounding the use of asymptomatic screening, including logistics and costs of implementing a screening program, and adverse patient and facility consequences. We review data pertaining to the lack of substantial aerosol generation during elective controlled intubation, extubation, and other procedures, and we provide guidance for when asymptomatic screening for SARS-CoV-2 may be considered in a limited scope.

Quantitative Evaluation of Aerosol Generation During In-Office Flexible Laryngoscopy

Importance

Despite growing scientific knowledge and research, it is still unknown if office flexible laryngoscopy (FL) is aerosol generating and thereby potentially increases the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The limited literature that exists is conflicting, precluding formal conclusions.

Objective

To determine whether FL is aerosol generating.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective cohort study included 134 patients seen in the otolaryngology clinic at a single tertiary care academic institution between February and May 2021. Two optical particle sizer instruments were used, quantifying particles ranging from 0.02 μm to 5 μm. Measurements were taken every 30 seconds, with sample periods of 15 seconds throughout the patient encounter. Instruments were located 12 inches from the patient's nares. Timing of events was recorded, including the start and end of physical examination, topical spray administration, start and end of laryngoscopy, and other potential aerosol-generating events (eg, coughing, sneezing). Data analysis was performed from February to May 2021.

Exposures

Office examination and office FL.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Bayesian online change point detection (OCPD) algorithm was used to detect significant change points (CPs) in this time-series data. The primary outcome was significant CP after FL compared with baseline physiologic variations, such as breathing and phonation.

Results

Data were collected from 134 patients between February and May 2021. Ninety-one encounters involved FL. Of this group, 51 patients (56%) wore no mask over their mouth during FL. There was no statistically significant CP in either visits involving FL or visits where FL was not performed. Use of nasal spray did not result in CP in aerosol levels. Overall, neither the number of people present in the examination room, masks over patients' mouth, the duration of the visit, nor the duration of FL were associated with mean aerosol counts, regardless of the exposure. For larger aerosol sizes (≥1 μm), however, rooms with higher air exchange rates had significantly higher reductions in mean aerosol counts for visits involving FL.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cohort study support that FL, including topical spray administration, is not a significant aerosol-generating procedure. The Bayesian OCPD model has a promising application for future aerosol studies in otolaryngology.