Your browser doesn't support javascript.
A quantitative evaluation of aerosol generation during supraglottic airway insertion and removal.
Shrimpton, A J; Gregson, F K A; Brown, J M; Cook, T M; Bzdek, B R; Hamilton, F; Reid, J P; Pickering, A E.
  • Shrimpton AJ; Pain and Critical Care Sciences and School of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
  • Gregson FKA; School of Chemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
  • Brown JM; Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
  • Cook TM; Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Royal United Hospital NHS Trust, Bath, UK.
  • Bzdek BR; School of Chemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
  • Hamilton F; Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
  • Reid JP; School of Chemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
  • Pickering AE; Pain and Critical Care Sciences and School of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Anaesthesia ; 76(12): 1577-1584, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1318625
ABSTRACT
Many guidelines consider supraglottic airway use to be an aerosol-generating procedure. This status requires increased levels of personal protective equipment, fallow time between cases and results in reduced operating theatre efficiency. Aerosol generation has never been quantitated during supraglottic airway use. To address this evidence gap, we conducted real-time aerosol monitoring (0.3-10-µm diameter) in ultraclean operating theatres during supraglottic airway insertion and removal. This showed very low background particle concentrations (median (IQR [range]) 1.6 (0-3.1 [0-4.0]) particles.l-1 ) against which the patient's tidal breathing produced a higher concentration of aerosol (4.0 (1.3-11.0 [0-44]) particles.l-1 , p = 0.048). The average aerosol concentration detected during supraglottic airway insertion (1.3 (1.0-4.2 [0-6.2]) particles.l-1 , n = 11), and removal (2.1 (0-17.5 [0-26.2]) particles.l-1 , n = 12) was no different to tidal breathing (p = 0.31 and p = 0.84, respectively). Comparison of supraglottic airway insertion and removal with a volitional cough (104 (66-169 [33-326]), n = 27), demonstrated that supraglottic airway insertion/removal sequences produced <4% of the aerosol compared with a single cough (p < 0.001). A transient aerosol increase was recorded during one complicated supraglottic airway insertion (which initially failed to provide a patent airway). Detailed analysis of this event showed an atypical particle size distribution and we subsequently identified multiple sources of non-respiratory aerosols that may be produced during airway management and can be considered as artefacts. These findings demonstrate supraglottic airway insertion/removal generates no more bio-aerosol than breathing and far less than a cough. This should inform the design of infection prevention strategies for anaesthetists and operating theatre staff caring for patients managed with supraglottic airways.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Operating Rooms / Particle Size / Environmental Monitoring / Supraglottitis / Airway Extubation / Intubation, Intratracheal Type of study: Cohort study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Anaesthesia Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Anae.15542

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Operating Rooms / Particle Size / Environmental Monitoring / Supraglottitis / Airway Extubation / Intubation, Intratracheal Type of study: Cohort study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Anaesthesia Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Anae.15542