Aerosol extractor for airway management of COVID-19 patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Saito T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7937356 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Aerosol extractor for airway management of COVID-19 patients.
Saito Tomoyuki T Fujishiro Asuka A Asai Takashi T
Journal of anesthesia 20210307 2
Similar Datasets
Project description:Exposure of healthcare providers to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a significant safety concern during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, requiring contact/droplet/airborne precautions. Because of global shortages, limited availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) has motivated the development of barrier-enclosure systems, such as aerosol boxes, plastic drapes, and similar protective systems. We examined the available evidence and scientific publications about barrier-enclosure systems for airway management in suspected/confirmed COVID-19 patients. MEDLINE/Embase/Google Scholar databases (from December 1, 2019 to May 27, 2020) were searched for all articles on barrier enclosures for airway management in COVID-19, including references and websites. All sources were reviewed by a panel of experts using a Delphi method with a modified nominal group technique. Fifty-two articles were reviewed for their results and level of evidence regarding barrier device feasibility, advantages, protection against droplets and aerosols, effectiveness, safety, ergonomics, and cleaning/disposal. The majority of analysed papers were expert opinions, small case series, technical descriptions, small-sample simulation studies, and pre-print proofs. The use of barrier-enclosure devices adds to the complexity of airway procedures with potential adverse consequences, especially during airway emergencies. Concerns include limitations on the ability to perform airway interventions and the aid that can be delivered by an assistant, patient injuries, compromise of PPE integrity, lack of evidence for added protection of healthcare providers (including secondary aerosolisation upon barrier removal), and lack of cleaning standards. Enclosure barriers for airway management are no substitute for adequate PPE, and their use should be avoided until adequate validation studies can be reported.
| S-EPMC7470712 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9726432 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:The COVID-19 pandemic is characterized by high transmissibility from patients with prolonged minimally- or asymptomatic periods, with a particularly increased risk of spread during aerosol-generating procedures, including endotracheal intubation. Observations:All patients presenting with upper airway obstruction due to angioedema during this time should be carefully managed in a way that is safest for both patient and provider. Conclusions:For patients requiring emergent airway management during the COVID-19 pandemic, minimization of aerosols while taking the necessary precautions to protect healthcare workers should are critical principles for their management.
| S-EPMC7274586 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveDuring the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), health care workers are innovating patient care and safety measures. Unfortunately, many of these are not properly tested for efficacy. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of the novel COVID-19 Airway Management Isolation Chamber (CAMIC) to contain and evacuate particulate.Study designMulti-institutional proof-of-concept study.SettingTwo academic institutions: Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) and Madigan Army Medical Center (MAMC).Subjects and methodsSmoke, saline nebulizer, and simulated working port models were developed to assess the efficacy of the CAMIC to contain and remove ultrafine particles. Particulate counts were collected at set time intervals inside and outside the system.ResultsWith the CAMIC on, smoke particulate counts inside the chamber significantly decreased over time: r(18) = -0.88, P < .001, WRNMMC; r(18) = -0.91, P < .001, MAMC. Similarly, saline nebulizer particulate counts inside the chamber significantly decreased over time: r(23) = -0.82, P < .001, WRNMMC; r(23) = -0.70, P < .001, MAMC. In the working port model, particulate counts inside the chamber significantly decreased over time: r(23) = -0.95, P < .001, WRNMMC; r(23) = -0.85, P < .001, MAMC. No significant leak was detected in the smoke, saline nebulizer, or working port model when the CAMIC was turned on.ConclusionsThe CAMIC system appears to provide a barrier that actively removes particles from within the chamber and limits egress. Further studies are necessary to determine clinical applicability. The CAMIC may serve as an adjunct to improve health care worker safety and patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC7361124 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 outbreak, healthcare providers might have avoided droplet/aerosol-generating procedures, such as non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) due to the concern of themselves being infected. We hypothesized that this change of practice could have also occurred to other non-COVID-infected patients in the Emergency Department (ED).MethodsA retrospective analytic study was conducted in the ED of Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, including adult patients presenting with signs and symptoms of respiratory distress between 1 March and 30 April 2020 (the COVID period). A comparison group using the same inclusion criteria was retrieved from 1 March to 30 April 2019 (the pre-COVID period). The primary outcome was rate of NIV and HFNC use. The secondary outcomes were rate of intubation, failure of NIV and HFNC, complications, and mortality.ResultsA total of 360 and 333 patients were included during the pre-COVID and COVID periods, respectively. After adjusting for baseline differences, patients in the COVID period were less likely to receive either NIV or HFNC than the pre-COVID period (adjusted OR 0.52 [95%CI 0.29-0.92]). Overall, intubation rate was similar between the two study periods. However, patients in respiratory distress with pulmonary edema had a relatively higher intubation rate in the COVID period. There were higher failure rates of NIV and HFNC, more infectious complications, and a higher rate of mortality in the pre-COVID period.ConclusionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, the overall usage of NIV and HFNC in emergency non-COVID patients decreased. Although not affecting the overall intubation rate, this change of practice could have affected some groups of patients. Therefore, treatment decisions based on a balance between the benefits to the patients and the safety of healthcare providers should be made.
| S-EPMC8397873 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7283688 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTracheal intubation for patients with COVID-19 is required for invasive mechanical ventilation. The authors sought to describe practice for emergency intubation, estimate success rates and complications, and determine variation in practice and outcomes between high-income and low- and middle-income countries. The authors hypothesized that successful emergency airway management in patients with COVID-19 is associated with geographical and procedural factors.MethodsThe authors performed a prospective observational cohort study between March 23, 2020, and October 24, 2020, which included 4,476 episodes of emergency tracheal intubation performed by 1,722 clinicians from 607 institutions across 32 countries in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation. The authors investigated associations between intubation and operator characteristics, and the primary outcome of first-attempt success.ResultsSuccessful first-attempt tracheal intubation was achieved in 4,017/4,476 (89.7%) episodes, while 23 of 4,476 (0.5%) episodes required four or more attempts. Ten emergency surgical airways were reported-an approximate incidence of 1 in 450 (10 of 4,476). Failed intubation (defined as emergency surgical airway, four or more attempts, or a supraglottic airway as the final device) occurred in approximately 1 of 120 episodes (36 of 4,476). Successful first attempt was more likely during rapid sequence induction versus non-rapid sequence induction (adjusted odds ratio, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.49 to 2.39]; P < 0.001), when operators used powered air-purifying respirators versus nonpowered respirators (adjusted odds ratio, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.16 to 2.20]; P = 0.006), and when performed by operators with more COVID-19 intubations recorded (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03 for each additional previous intubation [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.06]; P = 0.015). Intubations performed in low- or middle-income countries were less likely to be successful at first attempt than in high-income countries (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.79]; P = 0.001).ConclusionsThe authors report rates of failed tracheal intubation and emergency surgical airway in patients with COVID-19 requiring emergency airway management, and identified factors associated with increased success. Risks of tracheal intubation failure and success should be considered when managing COVID-19.Editor’s perspective
| S-EPMC8274456 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Molecular changes underlying the persistent health effects after SARS-CoV-2 infection remain poorly understood. To discern the gene regulatory landscape in the upper respiratory tract of COVID-19 patients, we performed enzymatic DNA methylome and single-cell RNA sequencing in nasal cells of COVID-19 patients (n=19, scRNA-seq n=14) and controls (n=14, scRNA-seq n=10). In addition, we re-sampled a subset of these patients for transcriptome analyses at 3 (n=7) and 12 months (n=5) post-infection and followed the expression of differentially regulated genes over time. Genome-wide DNA methylation analysis revealed 3,112 differentially methylated regions between COVID-19 patients and controls. Hypomethylated regions affected immune regulatory genes, while hypermethylated regions were associated with genes governing ciliary function. These genes were not only downregulated in the acute phase of disease but sustained repressed up to 12 months post-infection in ciliated cells. Validation in an independent cohort collected 6 months post-infection (n=15) indicated a symptom-dependent transcriptional repression of ciliary genes. We therefore propose that hypermethylation observed in the acute phase may exert a long-term effect on gene expression, possibly contributing to post-acute COVID-19 sequelae.
| S-SCDT-10_1038-S44321-025-00215-5 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionSignificant concerns raise for the healthcare workers involved in airway management of patients diagnosed with coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19). Due to shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), barrier enclosure systems such as aerosol box (AB) have been proposed worldwide. The aim of this study was to evaluate our experience using AB as protective equipment in patients with COVID-19 in a third-level center in Mexico.MethodsA retrospective study of COVID-19 patients requiring airway management using an AB in the Hospital Central Sur de Alta Especialidad de Pemex in Mexico City from March 1 to June 1, 2020. Antropometric data, pre-intubation vital signs, and laboratory tests were recorded; the primary endpoints were intubation success rate and complications associated with AB and patients' mortality. As a secondary endpoint, AB subjective evaluation was explored by administering a survey after airway management procedures.ResultsThirty-nine patients for a total of 40 intubations were documented. Thirty-one (77.5%) were men, with a mean age of 61.65 years; successful intubation occurred in 39 (97.55%) of the procedures, and AB was used in 36 (90%) of intubations, with success in 28 (70.0%); A Cormack-Lehane grade 3 view was recorded in 18 patients (46.2%), and during the procedure, the AB had to be removed in 8 (22.2%) cases, with migration documented in 91.6% of cases. The 30-day mortality was 48.71%, with 23.0% of patients discharged. 83.3% of surveyed anesthesiologists reported significant limitations in manipulating airway devices with AB used.ConclusionOur data indicate that in clinical practice, the use of AB may hinder airway management and decrease the intubation success rate and may also result in patients' injury. Further studies are necessary to validate the use of AB in clinical practice, and they should not replace certified PPE.
| S-EPMC10246106 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7361893 | biostudies-literature