Barrier Enclosure for Endotracheal Intubation in a Simulated COVID-19 Scenario: A Crossover Study

Development and demonstration of the protective efficacy of a convertible respiratory barrier enclosure: a simulation study

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy of previously developed respiratory barrier enclosures to limit healthcare workers' exposure to aerosols from COVID-19 patients remains unclear; in addition, the design of these devices is unsuitable for transportation or other emergency procedures. Therefore, we developed a novel negative pressure respiratory isolator to improve protection from patient-generated aerosols and evaluated its protective effect in conversion to systemic isolator.

METHODS

This in vitro study simulated droplets by nebulizing 1% glycerol + 99% ethanol solution. We performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and converted a respiratory barrier enclosure into a systemic isolator with a respiratory barrier as well as a respiratory barrier with negative pressure generator (NPG), which were compared with control and room air. During the procedure, particles were counted for 30 seconds and the count was repeated 10 times.

RESULTS

During CPR, the total number of particles in the respiratory barrier with NPG (280,529; interquartile range [IQR], 205,263-359,195; P=0.970) was similar to that in the control (308,789; IQR, 175,056-473,276). Using NPG with a respiratory barrier reduced the number of particles to 27,524 (IQR, 26,703- 28,905; P=0.001). Particle number during conversion of the respiratory barrier into a systemic isolator was also lower than in the control (25,845; IQR, 19,391- 29,772; P=0.001).

CONCLUSION

The novel isolator was converted to a systemic isolator without air leakage. The aerosol-blocking effect of the isolator was quantified using a particle counter during CPR. Further studies comparing the barrier effect of isolators within various pressure differentials are warranted.

Introduction of Infection Prevention Tracheal Intubation Protocol during the COVID-19 Pandemic Is Not Associated with First-Pass Success Rates of Endotracheal Intubation in the Emergency Department: A Before-and-After Comparative Study

Aerosols and droplets have put healthcare workers performing airway management at high risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Experts have developed endotracheal intubation (ETI) guidelines and protocols to protect intubators from infection. We aimed to determine whether changes in the emergency department (ED) intubation protocol to prevent COVID-19 infection were associated with first-pass success (FPS) rates in ETI. We used data from the airway management registries in two academic EDs. The study was divided into pre-pandemic (January 2018 to January 2020) and pandemic (February 2020 to February 2022) periods. We selected 2476 intubation cases, including 1151 and 1325 cases recorded before and during the pandemic, respectively. During the pandemic, the FPS rate was 92.2%, which did not change significantly, and major complications increased slightly but not significantly compared with the pre-pandemic period. The OR for the FPS of applying infection prevention intubation protocols was 0.72 (p = 0.069) in a subgroup analysis, junior emergency physicians (PGY1 residents) had an FPS of less than 80% regardless of pandemic protocol implementation. The FPS rate of senior emergency physicians in physiologically difficult airways decreased significantly during the pandemic (98.0% to 88.5%). In conclusion, the FPS rate and complications for adult ETI performed by emergency physicians using COVID-19 infection prevention intubation protocols were similar to pre-pandemic conditions.

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.

A new device for bronchoscopy for better protection

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has not been precisely known in bronchoscopy procedures. We have designed a cabinet device called Ankara University Bronchoscopy Cabinet (Aubrocab®) to protect healthcare. We aimed to evaluate preventing effect of Aubrocab® on aerosol spreading by measuring the particles in the bronchoscopy suite.

METHODS

The patients were categorized into two groups as those who underwent bronchoscopy with and without Aubrocab®. We measured PM 0.5 levels before and after bronchoscopy in the bronchoscopy suite.

RESULTS

A total of 82 patients, 62 of whom underwent bronchoscopy with Aubrocab®, were enrolled in the study. The PM 0.5 level measured before bronchoscopy was similar in both groups, whereas the PM 0.5 level measured after bronchoscopy was lower in the Aubrocab® group (42,603 ± 8,632 vs. 50,377 ± 10,487, p = 0.001). The percent of particle change (50.76 ± 19.91 vs 67.15 ± 24.24, p = 0.003) and the difference of the particle numbers between pre and postprocedure (13,638 ± 4,292 and 19,501 ± 5,891, p < 0.001) were lower in the Aubrocab® group.

DISCUSSION

Our institution developed a barrier device named Aubrocab® which was shown to prevent excessive aerosol release in addition to routine precautions during bronchoscopy procedures.

Application of a protective sleeve is associated with decreased occupational anxiety during endotracheal intubation: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The high risk of cross-infection during tracheal intubation has caused excessive occupational anxiety for anaesthesiologists amid the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Currently, there is no effective way to attenuate their anxiety in clinical practice. We found that anaesthesiologist with better protective equipment might experience decreased levels of anxiety during intubation.

METHODS

In this study, 60 patients who underwent intubation and extubation in the operating room were enrolled, and then randomized 1:1 to either wear protective sleeves (protective sleeve group) or not (control group). Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to measure the anxiety level of anaesthesiologists during intubation. The respiratory droplets of patients on the sleeve, and the anaesthesiologists' perception including the patient's oral malodour, exertion, satisfaction degree, waist discomfort and shoulder discomfort were recorded. The patients' anxiety, oppressed feelings and hypoxia and postoperative complications were all measured and recorded.

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, the anaesthesiologists in protective sleeve group achieved lower anxiety scores and better satisfaction degrees during the process of intubation and extubation (all P < 0.05). Respiratory droplets were observed only on the inner side, but not the external side, of the protective sleeves (P < 0.001). The incidence of the anaesthesiologists' perception of patients' oral malodour was significantly lower in the protective sleeve group (P = 0.02) and no patients developed hypoxemia or intubation-related complications in the protective sleeve group.

CONCLUSION

Using protective devices for intubation might eliminate droplet transmission from patients to anaesthesiologists, while also decreasing their anxiety in a controlled operating room environment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial. no. ChiCTR2000030705 . Registry at www.chictr.org.cn on 10/03/2020.

The FEES box: A novel barrier to contain particles during aerosol-generating procedures

PURPOSE

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) such as flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) have been deemed high-risk and in some cases restricted, indicating the need for additional personal protective equipment. The aim of this study was to erect and study a protective barrier for FEES.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A PVC cube was constructed to fit over a patient while allowing for upright endoscopy. A plastic drape was fitted over the cube, and the protective barrier was subsequently named the "FEES Box." Three different particulate-generating tasks were carried out: sneezing, coughing, and spraying water from an atomizer bottle. Each task was completed within and without the FEES Box, and particulate was measured with a particle counter. The average particles/L detected during the three tasks, and baseline measurements, were statistically compared.

RESULTS

Without the FEES Box in place, the sneezing and spraying tasks resulted in a statistically significant increase in particles above baseline (p < 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively); coughing particulate never reached levels significantly higher than baseline (p = 0.230). With use of the FEES Box, there was no statistically significant increase in particles above baseline in any of the three tasks.

CONCLUSION

The FEES Box effectively contained particles generated during sneezes and an atomizer spray. It would also likely mitigate coughing particulate, but coughing did not generate a significant increase in particles above baseline. Further research is warranted to test the efficacy of the FEES Box in containing particulate matter during a complete FEES procedure.