Aerosol Retention Characteristics of Barrier Devices.

BACKGROUND: Disease severity in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be associated with inoculation dose. This has triggered interest in intubation barrier devices to block droplet exposure; however, aerosol protection with these devices is not known. This study hypothesized that barrier devices reduce aerosol outside of the barrier. METHODS: Aerosol containment in closed, semiclosed, semiopen, and open barrier devices was investigated: (1) "glove box" sealed with gloves and caudal drape, (2) "drape tent" with a drape placed over a frame, (3) "slit box" with armholes and caudal end covered by vinyl slit diaphragms, (4) original "aerosol box," (5) collapsible "interlocking box," (6) "simple drape" over the patient, and (7) "no barrier." Containment was investigated by (1) vapor instillation at manikin's right arm with video-assisted visual evaluation and (2) submicrometer ammonium sulfate aerosol particles ejected through the manikin's mouth with ventilation and coughs. Samples were taken from standardized locations inside and around the barriers using a particle counter and a mass spectrometer. Aerosol evacuation from the devices was measured using standard hospital suction, a surgical smoke evacuator, and a Shop-Vac. RESULTS: Vapor experiments demonstrated leakage via arm holes and edges. Only closed and semiclosed devices and the aerosol box reduced aerosol particle counts (median [25th, 75th percentile]) at the operator's mouth compared to no barrier (combined median 29 [-11, 56], n = 5 vs. 157 [151, 166], n = 5). The other barrier devices provided less reduction in particle counts (133 [128, 137], n = 5). Aerosol evacuation to baseline required 15 min with standard suction and the Shop-Vac and 5 min with a smoke evacuator. CONCLUSIONS: Barrier devices may reduce exposure to droplets and aerosol. With meticulous tucking, the glove box and drape tent can retain aerosol during airway management. Devices that are not fully enclosed may direct aerosol toward the laryngoscopist. Aerosol evacuation reduces aerosol content inside fully enclosed devices. Barrier devices must be used in conjunction with body-worn personal protective equipment.

Pharmacologic methods to minimise coughing during extubation in the era of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Given the current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic, coughing at the time of extubation is at risk of creating aerosolisation. This may place health care workers at risk of nosocomial infection during the perioperative period. This study aims to summarise the current pharmacologic methods to minimise cough at the time of extubation, and to determine whether some strategies could be more beneficial than others. METHODS: This is a summary of systematic reviews. A comprehensive search through MEDLINE was performed. Thirty-three publications were screened for eligibility. Only the manuscripts discussing pharmacologic methods to minimise coughing on extubation were included in this review. FINDINGS: Many pharmacological agents have been proposed to decrease the incidence of cough at the time of extubation. Of these, intravenous administration of dexmedetomidine (relative risk 0.4; 95% CI: 0.4-0.5) or remifentanil (RR 0.4; 95% CI: 0.4-0.5) seems to have the largest effect to reduce cough on extubation. CONCLUSION: The available data in the current literature is sparse. Yet, dexmedetomidine and remifentanil seem to be the most efficient agents to decrease the incidence of emergence coughing.

Efficacy of universal masking for source control and personal protection from simulated cough and exhaled aerosols in a room.

Face masks reduce the expulsion of respiratory aerosols produced during coughs and exhalations ("source control"). Factors such as the directions in which people are facing (orientation) and separation distance also affect aerosol dispersion. However, it is not clear how the combined effects of masking, orientation, and distance affect the exposure of individuals to respiratory aerosols in indoor spaces. We placed a respiratory aerosol simulator ("source") and a breathing simulator ("recipient") in a 3 m × 3 m chamber and measured aerosol concentrations for different combinations of masking, orientation, and separation distance. When the simulators were front-to-front during coughing, masks reduced the 15-min mean aerosol concentration at the recipient by 92% at 0.9 and 1.8 m separation. When the simulators were side-by-side, masks reduced the concentration by 81% at 0.9 m and 78% at 1.8 m. During breathing, masks reduced the aerosol concentration by 66% when front-to-front and 76% when side-by-side at 0.9 m. Similar results were seen at 1.8 m. When the simulators were unmasked, changing the orientations from front-to-front to side-by-side reduced the cough aerosol concentration by 59% at 0.9 m and 60% at 1.8 m. When both simulators were masked, changing the orientations did not significantly change the concentration at either distance during coughing or breathing. Increasing the distance between the simulators from 0.9 m to 1.8 m during coughing reduced the aerosol concentration by 25% when no masks were worn but had little effect when both simulators were masked. During breathing, when neither simulator was masked, increasing the separation reduced the concentration by 13%, which approached significance, while the change was not significant when both source and recipient were masked. Our results show that universal masking reduces exposure to respiratory aerosol particles regardless of the orientation and separation distance between the source and recipient.