Aerosol generating procedures, dysphagia assessment and COVID-19: A rapid review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bolton L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7300802 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7560802 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Given high COVID-19 viral load and aerosolization in the head and neck, otolaryngologists are subject to uniquely elevated viral exposure in most of their inpatient and outpatient procedures and interventions. While elective activity has halted across the board nationally, the slow plateau of COVID-19 case rates prompts the question of timing of resumption of clinical activity. We sought to prospectively predict geographical "hot zones" for otolaryngological exposure to COVID-19 based on procedural volumes data from 2013 to 2017. METHODS:Otolaryngologic CPT codes were stratified based on risk-level, according to recently published specialty-specific guidelines. Using the Medicare POSPUF database, aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were mapped based on hospital referral regions, against up-to-date COVID-19 case distribution data, as of April 24, 2020. RESULTS:The most common AGPs were diagnostic flexible laryngoscopy, diagnostic nasal endoscopy, and flexible laryngoscopy with stroboscopy. The regions with the most AGPs per otolaryngologist were Iowa City, IA, Detroit, MI, and Burlington, VT, while the states with the most COVID-19 cases as of April 24th are New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. CONCLUSIONS:Our study provides a model for predicting possible "hot zones" for otolaryngologic exposure based on both COVID-19 case density and AGP-density. As the focus shifts to resuming elective procedures, these potential "hot zones" need to be evaluated for appropriate risk-based decision-making, such as "reopening strategies" and allocation of resources.
| S-EPMC7251363 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a contagious disease that is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Health care workers are at risk of infection from aerosolisation of respiratory secretions, droplet and contact spread. There are a number of procedures that represent a high risk of aerosol generation during cardiothoracic surgery. It is important that adequate training, equipment and procedures are in place to reduce that risk. RECOMMENDATIONS:We provide a number of key recommendations, which reduce the risk of aerosol generation during cardiothoracic surgery and help protect patients and staff. These include general measures such as patient risk stratification, appropriate use of personal protective equipment, consideration to delay surgery in positive patients, and careful attention to theatre planning and preparation. There are also recommended procedural interventions during airway management, transoesophageal echocardiography, cardiopulmonary bypass, chest drain management and specific cardiothoracic surgical procedures. Controversies exist regarding the management of low risk patients undergoing procedures at high risk of aerosol generation, and recommendations for these patients will change depending on the regional prevalence, risk of community transmission and the potential for asymptomatic patients attending for these procedures. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THIS STATEMENT:This statement reflects changes in management based on expert opinion, national guidelines and available evidence. Our knowledge with regard to COVID-19 continues to evolve and with this, guidance may change and develop. Our colleagues are urged to follow national guidelines and institutional recommendations regarding best practices to protect their patients and themselves. ENDORSED BY:Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons and the Anaesthetic Continuing Education Cardiac Thoracic Vascular and Perfusion Special Interest Group.
| S-EPMC7675478 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The world is going through the COVID-19 pandemic, which has high virulence and transmission rate. More significant the viral load during exposure, the greater is the likelihood of contracting a severe disease. Healthcare workers (HCWs) involved in airway care of COVID-19 patients are at high risk of getting exposed to large viral loads during aerosol-generating actions such as coughing or sneezing by the patient or during procedures such as bag-mask ventilation, intubation, extubation, and nebulization. This viral load exposure to airway caregivers decreases considerably with the use of an aerosol box during intubation. The safety tent proposed in this article is useful in limiting the viral load that HCWs are exposed to during airway procedures. Its role can be expanded beyond just intubation to protect against all aerosol-generating actions and procedures involving the patient's airway.
| S-EPMC7574005 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study evaluated particle spread associated with various common periodontal aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in simulated and clinical settings.Materials and methodsA simulation study visualized the aerosols, droplets, and splatter spread with and without high-volume suction (HVS, 325 L/min) during common dental AGPs, namely ultrasonic scaling, air flow prophylaxis, and implant drilling after fluorescein dye was added to the water irrigant as a tracer. Each procedure was repeated 10 times. A complementary clinical study measured the spread of contaminated particles within the dental operatory and quantified airborne protein dispersion following 10 min of ultrasonic supragingival scaling of 19 participants during routine periodontal treatment.ResultsThe simulation study data showed that air flow produced the highest amount of splatters and the ultrasonic scaler generated the most aerosol and droplet particles at 1.2 m away from the source. The use of HVS effectively reduced 37.5-96% of splatter generation for all three dental AGPs, as well as 82-93% of aerosol and droplet particles at 1.2 m for the ultrasonic scaler and air polisher. In the clinical study, higher protein levels above background levels following ultrasonic supragingival scaling were detected in fewer than 20% of patients, indicating minimal particle spread.ConclusionsWhile three common periodontal AGPs produce aerosols and droplet particles up to at least 1.2 m from the source, the use of HVS is of significant benefit. Routine ultrasonic supragingival scaling produced few detectable traces of salivary protein at various sites throughout the 10-min dental operatory.Clinical relevanceThe likelihood of aerosol spread to distant sites during common periodontal AGPs is greatly reduced by high-volume suction. Clinically, limited evidence of protein contaminants was found following routine ultrasonic scaling, suggesting that the the majority of the contamination consisits of the irrigant rather than organic matter from the oral cavity.
| S-EPMC9113070 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe aim of this study was to compare aerosol exposure with or without an aerosol box in a pressurized/depressurized room during aerosol-generating procedures using an experimental model.MethodsCake flour (aerosol model) was expelled from an advanced life support training mannequin. The primary outcome measure was the number of 0.3-10 µm-sized particles at three locations corresponding to the physician, medical staff, and environmental aerosol exposure levels. The aerosol dispersion was visualized using a high-resolution video. The number of expelled particles was measured after artificial coughing during simulated tracheal intubation and extubation in four situations, with or without an aerosol box in a pressurized or depressurized room (≤ 2.5 Pa).ResultsThe particles arising from tracheal intubation at the three positions in the four groups differed significantly in size (p < 0.05). The sizes of particles arising from extubation at the physicians' and medical staff's faces in the four groups differed significantly in size (p < 0.05). Post hoc analysis showed that the counts of all particles at the three positions were significantly lower in the depressurized room with an aerosol box than in the pressurized room without an aerosol box during tracheal intubation (p < 0.05 at three positions) and extubation (p < 0.05) at the physician's and medical staff's positions). Visual assessments supported these results.ConclusionThe aerosol box decreased the exposure of the aerosol to the physician, medical staff, and environment during aerosol-generating procedures in the depressurized room only.
| S-EPMC8415696 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant effect on the delivery of routine dentistry; and in particular, periodontal care across the world. This systematic review examines the literature relating to splatter, droplet settle and aerosol for periodontal procedures and forms part of a wider body of research to understand the risk of contamination in relation to periodontal care procedures relevant to COVID-19.MethodsA search of the literature was carried out using key terms and MeSH words relating to the review questions. Sources included Medline (OVID), Embase (OVID), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science and LILACS, ClinicalTrials.Gov . Studies meeting inclusion criteria were screened in duplicate and data extraction was carried out using a template. All studies were assessed for methodological quality and sensitivity. Narrative synthesis was undertaken.ResultsFifty studies were included in the review with procedures including ultrasonic scaling (n = 44), air polishing (n = 4), prophylaxis (n = 2) and hand scaling (n = 3). Outcomes included bacterial (colony-forming units e.g. on settle plates) or blood contamination (e.g. visible splatter) and non bacterial, non blood (e.g. chemiluminescence or coloured dyes) contamination. All studies found contamination at all sites although the contamination associated with hand scaling was very low. Contamination was identified in all of the studies even where suction was used at baseline. Higher power settings created greater contamination. Distribution of contamination varied in relation to operator position and was found on the operator, patient and assistant with higher levels around the head of the operator and the mouth and chest of the patient. Settle was identified 30 min after treatments had finished but returned to background levels when measured at or after an hour. The evidence was generally low to medium quality and likely to underestimate contamination.ConclusionUltrasonic scaling, air polishing and prophylaxis procedures produce contamination (splatter, droplets and aerosol) in the presence of suction, with a small amount of evidence showing droplets taking between 30 min and 1 h to settle. Consideration should be given to infection control, areas of cleaning particularly around the patient and appropriate personal protective equipment, with particular attention to respiratory, facial and body protection for these procedures. In addition, the use of lower power settings should be considered to reduce the amount and spread of contamination.
| S-EPMC7988384 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) may expose health care workers (HCWs) to pathogens causing acute respiratory infections (ARIs), but the risk of transmission of ARIs from AGPs is not fully known. We sought to determine the clinical evidence for the risk of transmission of ARIs to HCWs caring for patients undergoing AGPs compared with the risk of transmission to HCWs caring for patients not undergoing AGPs. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, University of York CRD databases, EuroScan, LILACS, Indian Medlars, Index Medicus for SE Asia, international health technology agencies and the Internet in all languages for articles from 01/01/1990 to 22/10/2010. Independent reviewers screened abstracts using pre-defined criteria, obtained full-text articles, selected relevant studies, and abstracted data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The outcome of interest was risk of ARI transmission. The quality of evidence was rated using the GRADE system. We identified 5 case-control and 5 retrospective cohort studies which evaluated transmission of SARS to HCWs. Procedures reported to present an increased risk of transmission included [n; pooled OR(95%CI)] tracheal intubation [n?=?4 cohort; 6.6 (2.3, 18.9), and n?=?4 case-control; 6.6 (4.1, 10.6)], non-invasive ventilation [n?=?2 cohort; OR 3.1(1.4, 6.8)], tracheotomy [n?=?1 case-control; 4.2 (1.5, 11.5)] and manual ventilation before intubation [n?=?1 cohort; OR 2.8 (1.3, 6.4)]. Other intubation associated procedures, endotracheal aspiration, suction of body fluids, bronchoscopy, nebulizer treatment, administration of O2, high flow O2, manipulation of O2 mask or BiPAP mask, defibrillation, chest compressions, insertion of nasogastric tube, and collection of sputum were not significant. Our findings suggest that some procedures potentially capable of generating aerosols have been associated with increased risk of SARS transmission to HCWs or were a risk factor for transmission, with the most consistent association across multiple studies identified with tracheal intubation.
| S-EPMC3338532 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7980185 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDuring medical procedures with the potential to produce aerosols such as bronchoscopy, intubation, or CPR, health-care workers (HCWs) may be exposed to infectious bioaerosols. This scenario is of particular concern when high consequence pathogens such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are circulating. Thousands of HCWs have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, the determinants of aerosol generation during medical procedures and their relative risk to HCWs remain poorly characterized.Research questionThe goal of this study was to characterize aerosols produced during airway intubation by using an uninfected translational animal model and in human subjects undergoing elective aerosol-generating procedures. The study also determined the particle size distribution of generated particles.Study design and methodsAerosol generation was measured during highly controlled experimental (pig) intubations (N = 16) and elective bronchoscopies in uninfected patients (N = 49) using an optical particle counter. Recovery of normal respiratory flora was used as a surrogate for pathogen dispersion.ResultsThere was a small but significant (P = .03) decrease in 0.3 μm size particles during highly controlled pig intubations compared with baseline. The concentration of 1.0 μm and 5.0 μm aerosol particles did not significantly change, although oral bacteria were collected from the air. For elective patient bronchoscopies, there was a significant decrease in the generation of larger particles (1.0 μm and 5.0 μm) compared with baseline (P < .01); however, 18 of 39 (46%) patients showed increased aerosol production in 0.3 μm size particles, four of whom exhibited measurable increases.InterpretationAlthough the total amount of aerosols produced during intubation and bronchoscopy did not increase significantly relative to preprocedural levels, a small number of participants exhibited a measurable increase in submicron particle emission, meriting further research to delineate determinants of fine particle production during aerosol-generating procedures.
| S-EPMC7373051 | biostudies-literature