COVID-19 aerosol box as protection from droplet and aerosol contaminations in healthcare workers performing airway intubation: a randomised cross-over simulation study.
Adult
Aerosols
COVID-19
/ prevention & control
Cross-Over Studies
Female
Health Personnel
Humans
Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional
/ prevention & control
Intubation, Intratracheal
/ instrumentation
Laryngoscopy
Malaysia
Male
Manikins
Patient Simulation
Personal Protective Equipment
SARS
airway
emergency department
infectious diseases
Journal
Emergency medicine journal : EMJ
ISSN: 1472-0213
Titre abrégé: Emerg Med J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100963089
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2021
Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
10
08
2020
revised:
16
10
2020
accepted:
19
10
2020
pubmed:
22
11
2020
medline:
4
9
2021
entrez:
21
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Concerns over high transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2 have led to innovation and usage of an aerosol box to protect healthcare workers during airway intubation in patients with COVID-19. Its efficacy as a barrier protection in addition to the use of a standard personal protective equipment (PPE) is not fully known. We performed a simulated study to investigate the relationship between aerosol box usage during intubation and contaminations on healthcare workers pre-doffing and post-doffing of PPE. This was a randomised cross-over study conducted between 9 April to 5 May 2020 in the ED of University Malaya Medical Centre. Postgraduate Emergency Medicine trainees performed video laryngoscope-assisted intubation on an airway manikin with and without an aerosol box in a random order. Contamination was simulated by nebulised Glo Germ. Primary outcome was number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing and post-doffing of PPE of the intubator and assistant. Secondary outcomes were intubation time, Cormack-Lehane score, number of intubation attempts and participants' feedback. Thirty-six trainees completed the study interventions. The number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing of PPE was significantly higher without the aerosol box (all p values<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the number of contaminations post-doffing of PPE between using and not using the aerosol box, with a median contamination of zero. Intubation time was longer with the aerosol box (42.5 s vs 35.5 s, p<0.001). Cormack-Lehane scores were similar with and without the aerosol box. First-pass intubation success rate was 94.4% and 100% with and without the aerosol box, respectively. More participants reported reduced mobility and visibility when intubating with the aerosol box. An aerosol box may significantly reduce exposure to contaminations but with increased intubation time and reduced operator's mobility and visibility. Furthermore, the difference in degree of contamination between using and not using an aerosol box could be offset by proper doffing of PPE.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Concerns over high transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2 have led to innovation and usage of an aerosol box to protect healthcare workers during airway intubation in patients with COVID-19. Its efficacy as a barrier protection in addition to the use of a standard personal protective equipment (PPE) is not fully known. We performed a simulated study to investigate the relationship between aerosol box usage during intubation and contaminations on healthcare workers pre-doffing and post-doffing of PPE.
METHODS
METHODS
This was a randomised cross-over study conducted between 9 April to 5 May 2020 in the ED of University Malaya Medical Centre. Postgraduate Emergency Medicine trainees performed video laryngoscope-assisted intubation on an airway manikin with and without an aerosol box in a random order. Contamination was simulated by nebulised Glo Germ. Primary outcome was number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing and post-doffing of PPE of the intubator and assistant. Secondary outcomes were intubation time, Cormack-Lehane score, number of intubation attempts and participants' feedback.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Thirty-six trainees completed the study interventions. The number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing of PPE was significantly higher without the aerosol box (all p values<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the number of contaminations post-doffing of PPE between using and not using the aerosol box, with a median contamination of zero. Intubation time was longer with the aerosol box (42.5 s vs 35.5 s, p<0.001). Cormack-Lehane scores were similar with and without the aerosol box. First-pass intubation success rate was 94.4% and 100% with and without the aerosol box, respectively. More participants reported reduced mobility and visibility when intubating with the aerosol box.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
An aerosol box may significantly reduce exposure to contaminations but with increased intubation time and reduced operator's mobility and visibility. Furthermore, the difference in degree of contamination between using and not using an aerosol box could be offset by proper doffing of PPE.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33219133
pii: emermed-2020-210514
doi: 10.1136/emermed-2020-210514
pmc: PMC7681799
doi:
Substances chimiques
Aerosols
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
111-117Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Anaesthesia. 2020 Aug;75(8):1014-1021
pubmed: 32397008
Trials. 2009 Apr 30;10:27
pubmed: 19405975
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 18;10(8):e0133023
pubmed: 26284684
Anaesthesia. 2020 Jul;75(7):969
pubmed: 32311772
Med J Aust. 2020 Jun;212(10):472-481
pubmed: 32356900
Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Mar 5;66(6):950-958
pubmed: 29471368
Anaesthesia. 2020 Jul;75(7):920-927
pubmed: 32246849
Anaesthesia. 2020 Jun;75(6):785-799
pubmed: 32221970
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017 Sep;38(9):1077-1083
pubmed: 28606192
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Apr 17;69(15):477-481
pubmed: 32298247
Can J Anaesth. 2020 Jul;67(7):902-904
pubmed: 32246431
J Infect Dis. 2022 May 4;225(9):1561-1568
pubmed: 32301491
Anaesthesia. 2020 Dec;75(12):1587-1595
pubmed: 32559315
PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35797
pubmed: 22563403
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 16;382(16):1564-1567
pubmed: 32182409
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2019 Aug;16(8):575-581
pubmed: 31291152
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 14;382(20):1957-1958
pubmed: 32243118