Dataset Information

Aerosol boxes decrease aerosol exposure only in depressurized rooms during aerosol-generating procedures in a simulation study.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The 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.

Methods

Cake 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).

Results

The 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.

Conclusion

The aerosol box decreased the exposure of the aerosol to the physician, medical staff, and environment during aerosol-generating procedures in the depressurized room only.

SUBMITTER: Sakai W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8415696 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is considered to be very contagious as it can be spread through multiple ways. Therefore, exposure risk of healthcare workers (HCWs) treating COVID-19 patients is a highly salient topic in exposure risk management. From a managerial perspective, wearing personal protective equipment and the risk of accidents occurring during aerosol generating procedures applied to COVID-19 patients are two interconnected issues encountered in all COVID-19 hospitals.ObjectiveThe study was conducted to understand the realistic impact of exposure risk management on HCWs exposed to risks of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection in a healthcare unit. In particular, this study discusses the role of personal protective equipment (PPEs) used in aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) to protect HCWs, and the related risk of accidents occurring when performing AGPs.MethodologyThis is a cross-sectional single-hospital study conducted at the "Sf. Ioan cel Nou" Hospital in Suceava, Romania, that had to ensure safety of healthcare workers (HCWs) getting in contact with COVID-19 cases. Data used in the study were collected between 10.12.2020-19.03.2021 by means of a questionnaire that collected information on risk assessment and healthcare workers' exposure management, and which was translated and adapted from the World Health Organization (WHO) and applied to respondents online. For this purpose, ethical approval was obtained, doctors and nurses from all hospital departments being invited to complete the questionnaire. Data processing, as well as descriptive, correlation and regression analyses have been done by using the 21.0 version of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences software.ResultsMost of the 312 HCWs reported having always used disposable gloves (98.13%), medical masks N95 (or equivalent) (92.86%), visors or googles (91.19%), disposable coverall (91.25%) and footwear protection (95.00%) during AGPs. The waterproof apron had always been worn only by 40% of the respondents, and almost 30% of staff had not used it at all during AGPs. Over the last three months, the period when the questionnaire was completed, 28 accidents were reported while performing AGPs: 11 accidents with splashing of biological fluids/ respiratory secretions in the eyes, 11 with splashing of biological fluids/ respiratory secretions on the non-idemn skin, 3 with splashing of biological fluids/ respiratory secretions in the oral/ nasal mucosa and 3 with puncture/ sting with any material contaminated with biological fluids/ respiratory secretions. Also, 84.29% of respondents declared having changed their routine, at least, moderately due to COVID-19.ConclusionAn effective risk exposure management is based on wearing protective equipment. The only protection offered by the disposable coverall, as it results from our analysis, is related to splashing of biological fluids/ respiratory secretions on the non-idemn skin. In addition, the results show that the number of accidents should decrease due to the fact that disposable gloves and footwear protection are used while performing AGPs on patients with COVID-19 and hand hygiene is practised before and after touching a patient with COVID-19 (regardless of glove wearing).