Fit Testing Retrofitted Full-Face Snorkel Masks as a Form of Novel Personal Protective Equipment During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Objective: Bottlenecks in the personal protective equipment (PPE) supply chain have contributed to shortages of PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in fractures in the functionality of healthcare systems. This study was conducted with the aim of determining the effectiveness of retrofitted commercial snorkel masks as an alternative respirator for healthcare workers during infectious disease outbreaks.Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed, analyzing qualitative and quantitative fit test results of the retrofitted Aria Ocean Reef® full-face snorkeling mask on healthcare workers at the McGill University Health Centre between April-June 2020. Historical fit test results, using medical-grade respirators, for healthcare workers were also analyzed.Results: During the study period, 71 participants volunteered for fit testing, 60.6% of which were nurses. The overall fit test passing rate using the snorkel mask was 83.1%. Of the participants who did not previously pass fit testing with medical-grade respirators, 80% achieved a passing fit test with the snorkel respirator.Conclusions: The results suggest that this novel respirator may be an effective and feasible alternative solution to address PPE shortages, while still providing healthcare workers with ample protection. Additional robust testing will be required to ensure that respirator fit is maintained, after numerous rounds of disinfection.

Adapted full-face snorkel masks as an alternative for COVID-19 personal protection during aerosol generating procedures in South Africa: A multi-centre, non-blinded in-situ simulation study.

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 has resulted in increased worldwide demand for personal protective equipment (PPE). With pressure from ongoing epidemic and endemic episodes, we assessed an adapted snorkel mask that provides full-face protection for healthcare workers (HCWs), particularly during aerosol-generating procedures. These masks have a custom-made adaptor which allows the fitment of standard medical respiratory filters. The aim of this study was to evaluate the fit, seal and clinical usability of these masks. METHODS: This multicentre, non-blinded in-situ simulation study recruited fifty-two HCWs to don and doff the adapted snorkel mask. Negative pressure seal checks and a qualitative fit test were performed. The HCWs completed intubation and extubation of a manikin in a university skills training laboratory, followed by a web-based questionnaire on the clinical usability of the masks. RESULTS: Whilst fit and usability data were generally satisfactory, two of the 52 participants (3.8%) felt that the mask did not span the correct distance from the nose to the chin, and 3 of 34 participants (8.8%) who underwent qualitative testing with a Bitrex test failed. The majority of users reported no fogging, humidity or irritation. It was reportedly easy to speak while wearing the mask, although some participants perceived that they were not always understood. Twenty-one participants (40%) experienced a subjective physiological effect from wearing the mask; most commonly a sensation of shortness of breath. DISCUSSION: A fit-tested modified full-face snorkel mask may offer benefit as a substitute for N95 respirators and face shields. It is, however, important to properly select the correct mask based on size, fit testing, quality of the three-dimensional (3D) printed parts and respiratory filter to be used. Additionally, HCWs should be trained in the use of the mask, and each mask should be used by a single HCW and not shared.

Evaluation of N95 respirators, modified snorkel masks and low-cost powered air-purifying respirators: a prospective observational cohort study in healthcare workers.

Disposable N95 respirator masks are the current standard for healthcare worker respiratory protection in the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to shortages, qualitative fit testing can have low sensitivity for detecting poor fit, leading to inconsistent protection. Multiple groups have developed alternative solutions such as modified snorkel masks to overcome these limitations, but validation of these solutions has been lacking. We sought to determine if N95s and snorkel masks with attached high-efficiency filters provide consistent protection levels in healthcare workers and if the addition of positive pressure via an inexpensive powered-air purifying respirator to the snorkel mask would provide enhanced protection. Fifty-one healthcare workers who were qualitatively fitted with N95 masks underwent quantitative mask fit testing according to a simulated workplace exercise protocol. N95, snorkel masks with high-efficiency filters and snorkel masks with powered-air purifying respirators were tested. Respiratory filtration ratios were collected for each step and averaged to obtain an overall workplace protocol fit factor. Failure was defined as either an individual filtration ratio or an overall fit factor below 100. N95s and snorkel masks with high-efficiency filters failed one or more testing steps in 59% and 20% of participants, respectively, and 24% and 12% failed overall fit factors, respectively. The snorkel masks with powered-air purifying respirators had zero individual or overall failures. N95 and snorkel masks with high-efficiency filter respirators were found to provide inconsistent respiratory protection in healthcare workers.

Surgical Performance Is Not Negatively Impacted by Wearing a Commercial Full-Face Mask with Ad Hoc 3D-Printed Filter Connection as a Substitute for Personal Protective Equipment during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Randomized Controlled Cross-Over Trial.

(1) Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, shortages in the supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) have become apparent. The idea of using commonly available full-face diving (FFD) masks as a temporary solution was quickly spread across social media. However, it was unknown whether an FFD mask would considerably impair complex surgical tasks. Thus, we aimed to assess laparoscopic surgical performance while wearing an FFD mask as PPE. (2) Methods: In a randomized-controlled cross-over trial, 40 laparoscopically naive medical students performed laparoscopic procedures while wearing an FFD mask with ad hoc 3D-printed connections to heat and moisture exchange (HME) filters vs. wearing a common surgical face mask. The performance was evaluated using global and specific Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) checklists for suturing and cholecystectomy. (3) Results: For the laparoscopic cholecystectomy, both global OSATS scores and specific OSATS scores for the quality of procedure were similar (Group 1: 25 ± 4.3 and 45.7 ± 12.9, p = 0.485, vs. Group 2: 24.1 ± 3.7 and 43.3 ± 7.6, p = 0.485). For the laparoscopic suturing task, the FFD mask group needed similar times to the surgical mask group (3009 ± 1694 s vs. 2443 ± 949 s; p = 0.200). Some participants reported impaired verbal communication while wearing the FFD mask, as it muffled the sound of speech, as well as discomfort in breathing. (4) Conclusions: FFD masks do not affect the quality of laparoscopic surgical performance, despite being uncomfortable, and may therefore be used as a substitute for conventional PPE in times of shortage-i.e., the global COVID-19 pandemic.