Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
J Clin Monit Comput ; 36(5): 1289-1295, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1437302

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused personal protective equipment shortages worldwide and required healthcare workers to develop novel ways of protecting themselves. Anesthesiologists in particular are exposed to increased risks of contamination when performing interventions such as airway manipulations. We developed and tested an aerosolization protective device which contains aerosols around the patient's airway and helps eliminate particles using negative pressure. This intubation box is a polymethyl methacrylate prism with openings for gloves, integrated suction and ventilation connectors. We conducted a randomised controlled series of tests to detect 0.5 µm particles after a simulated cough inside the intubation box, using a high-fidelity simulation mannequin. Setting and main outcome: We measured particle concentrations inside the box with and without suction turned on, in both negative and positive pressure operating rooms. We also obtained particle concentrations outside our box and compared them to non-airtight barrier devices. One minute following simulated cough, the mean number of particles per cubic foot in our box with suction on is around 45% that with the suction off (1,462,373 vs 3,272,080, P < 0.0001) in the negative pressure room, and four times lower than with the suction off (760,380 vs 3,088,700, P < 0.0001) in the positive pressure room. After a simulated cough inside the box, particles can be detected in front of the anesthesiologist's face with a non-airtight device, while none are detected when our box is sealed and its suction turned on. The use of our negative pressure intubation box prevents contamination of surroundings and increases particle elimination, regardless of room pressure.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional , Antigens, Bacterial , Cough , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Intubation, Intratracheal , Pandemics/prevention & control , Polymethyl Methacrylate , Respiratory Aerosols and Droplets , Vacuum
2.
Prog Urol ; 31(8-9): 495-502, 2021.
Article in French | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1213486

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assist urologists in the management of andrological and sexual medicine pathologies during the COVID-19 crisis. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Use of the formalized consensus method. RESULTS: The medical and surgical management of patients in andrology and sexual medicine must be adapted. Consultations should, as far as possible, be carried out by tele-consultation. For operative procedures, the delay between the operative decision and the date of (re)scheduling of the procedure will depend on: (1) the level of criticality of the clinical situation; (2) the type of intervention; (3) the functional and psychological repercussions, including quality of life while waiting for the procedure; (4) the notion of losing the chance of having an optimal outcome; (5) the risk of potential complications from delaying a procedure for too long; and (6) taking into account the patient's risk factors for severe forms of COVID-19. The protection of urologists from COVID-19 should be considered. Each urologist must make the best decision for the patient, taking into account the acceptable time frame and quality of life impact before surgical management, the COVID risk parameters, the technical and anesthetic feasibility and the structural possibility of the health care institution to ensure a specific dedicated pathway during the COVID-19 health crisis. CONCLUSION: The management of andrological and sexual medicine pathologies must be adapted to the COVID-19 crisis context. Some patients may require surgery, including in emergency. These recommendations are transitional and will end with the COVID-19 crisis.


Subject(s)
Penile Induration/diagnosis , Penile Induration/therapy , COVID-19 , Collagenases/therapeutic use , Combined Modality Therapy , Erectile Dysfunction/drug therapy , Humans , Injections , Male , Pandemics , Penile Implantation , Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Traction , Urologic Surgical Procedures, Male , Vacuum , Vasodilator Agents/therapeutic use , Verapamil/therapeutic use
4.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 43(1): 105-107, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1019653

ABSTRACT

The vacuum-exhausted isolation locker (VEIL) provides a safety barrier during the care of COVID-19 patients. The VEIL is a 175-L enclosure with exhaust ports to continuously extract air through viral particle filters connected to hospital suction. Our experiments show that the VEIL contains and exhausts exhaled aerosols and droplets.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aerosols , Humans , Inpatients , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacuum
5.
Ann Emerg Med ; 77(1): 1-10, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-741041

ABSTRACT

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, many emergency departments have been using passive protective enclosures ("intubation boxes") during intubation. The effectiveness of these enclosures remains uncertain. We sought to quantify their ability to contain aerosols using industry standard test protocols. METHODS: We tested a commercially available passive protective enclosure representing the most common design and compared this with a modified enclosure that incorporated a vacuum system for active air filtration during simulated intubations and negative-pressure isolation. We evaluated the enclosures by using the same 3 tests air filtration experts use to certify class I biosafety cabinets: visual smoke pattern analysis using neutrally buoyant smoke, aerosol leak testing using a test aerosol that mimics the size of virus-containing particulates, and air velocity measurements. RESULTS: Qualitative evaluation revealed smoke escaping from all passive enclosure openings. Aerosol leak testing demonstrated elevated particle concentrations outside the enclosure during simulated intubations. In contrast, vacuum-filter-equipped enclosures fully contained the visible smoke and test aerosol to standards consistent with class I biosafety cabinet certification. CONCLUSION: Passive enclosures for intubation failed to contain aerosols, but the addition of a vacuum and active air filtration reduced aerosol spread during simulated intubation and patient isolation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Infection Control/instrumentation , Intubation, Intratracheal/instrumentation , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Aerosols , COVID-19/transmission , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Equipment Design , Filtration/instrumentation , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Manikins , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacuum
7.
In Vivo ; 34(3 Suppl): 1651-1659, 2020 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-543430

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/AIM: Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak is currently having a huge impact on medical resource allocation. Breast Cancer (BC) patients are concerned both with BC treatment and COVID-19. This study aimed to estimate the impact of anxiety among patients, caused by the spreading of COVID-19. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between the 16th of January and the 20th of March 2020, we retrospectively enrolled 160 patients. Eighty-two patients with a suspected breast lesion (SBL) were divided into two groups: PRE-COVID-19-SBL and POST-COVID-19-SBL. Seventy-eight BC patients were divided into PRE-COVID-19-BC and POST-COVID-19-BC. Patient characteristics including age, marital status, SBL/BC diameter, personal and family history of BC, clinical stage and molecular subtype were recorded. Procedure Refusal (PR) and Surgical Refusal (SR) were also recorded with their reason. RESULTS: BC and SBL analysis showed no difference in pre-treatment characteristics (p>0.05). Both POST-COVID-19-SBL and POST-COVID-19-BC groups showed higher rates of PR and SR (p=0.0208, p=0.0065 respectively). Infection risk represented primary reason for refusal among POST-COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: COVID-19-related anxiety could affect patients' decision-making process.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/psychology , Biopsy, Large-Core Needle/psychology , Breast Neoplasms/psychology , Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Decision Making , Elective Surgical Procedures/psychology , Fear/psychology , Mastectomy/psychology , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , Treatment Refusal/psychology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anxiety/etiology , Attitude to Health , Biopsy, Large-Core Needle/methods , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , COVID-19 , Female , Humans , Italy , Mammography , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , Socioeconomic Factors , Ultrasonography, Mammary , Vacuum
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL