A comparative analysis of aerosol exposure and prevention strategies in bystander, pre-hospital, and inpatient cardiopulmonary resuscitation using simulation manikins.

To evaluate aerosol exposure risk and prevention strategies during bystander, pre-hospital, and inpatient cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This study compared hands-only CPR, CPR with a surgical or N95 mask, and CPR with a non-rebreather mask at 15 L/min. 30:2 compression-ventilation ratio CPR was tested with face-mask ventilation (FMV), FMV with a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter; supraglottic airway (SGA), SGA with a surgical mask, SGA with a HEPA filter, or SGA with both. Continuous CPR was tested with an endotracheal tube (ET), ET with a surgical mask, a HEPA filter, or both. Aerosol concentration at the head, trunk, and feet of the mannequin were measured to evaluate exposure to CPR personnel. Hands-only CPR with a surgical or N95 face mask coverings and ET tube ventilation CPR with filters showed the lowest aerosol exposure among all study groups, including CPR with NRM oxygenation, FMV, and SGA ventilation. NRM had a mask effect and reduced aerosol exposure at the head, trunk, and feet of the mannequin. FMV with filters during 30:2 CPR reduced aerosol exposure at the head and trunk, but increased at the feet of the mannequin. A tightly-sealed SGA when used with a HEPA filter, reduced aerosol exposure by 21.00-63.14% compared with a loose-fitting one. Hands-only CPR with a proper fit surgical or N95 face mask coverings is as safe as ET tube ventilation CPR with filters, compared with CPR with NRM, FMV, and SGA. FMV or tight-sealed SGA ventilation with filters prolonged the duration to achieve estimated infective dose of SARS-CoV-2 2.4-2.5 times longer than hands-on CPR only. However, a loose-fitting SGA is not protective at all to chest compressor or health workers standing at the foot side of the victim, so should be used with caution even when using with HEPA filters.

The Aerosol-Generating Effect Among Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation, High-Flow Nasal Cannula, Nonrebreather Mask, Nasal Cannula, and Ventilator-Assisted Preoxygenation.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate aerosol dispersion and exposure risk during oxygenation therapy among health care personnel. METHODS: This study compared the aerosol dispersion effect produced through continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP), BiPAP with face coverings, a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) with face coverings, nasal cannula oxygenation (NCO) at 15 L/min with face coverings, nonrebreather mask (NRM), and ventilator-assisted preoxygenation (VAPOX) during oxygenation therapy at a minute ventilation of 10 L/min and 20 L/min. The length and width of aerosol dispersion were recorded, and aerosol concentrations were then detected at a mannequin's head, trunk, and feet. RESULTS: The average length dispersion distance of CPAP was 47.12 cm (SD, 12.56 cm), of BiPAP was 100.13 cm (SD, 6.03 cm), of BiPAP with face coverings was 62.20 cm (SD, 8.46 cm), of HFNC with face coverings was 67.09 cm (SD, 12.74 cm); of NCO with face coverings was 85.55 cm (SD, 7.28 cm); and of NRM was 63.08 cm (SD, 15.33 cm); VAPOX showed no visible dispersion. The aerosol concentrations at the feet under CPAP and at the head under BiPAP were significantly higher than those observed without an oxygen device. Compared with no oxygen device, the aerosol concentration with HFNC was higher at the mannequin's head, trunk, and feet; whereas it was lower with VAPOX and NRM. Moreover, when translated to the number of virus particles required to infect medical personnel (Nf), VAPOX took more time to achieve Nf than other devices. CONCLUSION: Strong flow from the oxygenation devices resulted in increased aerosol concentrations. CPAP at the feet side, BiPAP at the head side, HFNC, and NCO with face coverings significantly increase aerosol exposure and should be used with caution. Aerosol concentrations at all positions were lower with NRM and VAPOX.

Comparing the effectiveness of negative-pressure barrier devices in providing air clearance to prevent aerosol transmission.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of aerosol clearance using an aerosol box, aerosol bag, wall suction, and a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter evacuator to prevent aerosol transmission. METHODS: The flow field was visualized using three protective device settings (an aerosol box, and an aerosol bag with and without sealed working channels) and four suction settings (no suction, wall suction, and a HEPA filter evacuator at flow rates of 415 liters per minute [LPM] and 530 LPM). All 12 subgroups were compared with a no intervention group. The primary outcome, aerosol concentration, was measured at the head, trunk, and foot of a mannequin. RESULTS: The mean aerosol concentration was reduced at the head (p < 0.001) but increased at the feet (p = 0.005) with an aerosol box compared with no intervention. Non-sealed aerosol bags increased exposure at the head and trunk (both, p < 0.001). Sealed aerosol bags reduced aerosol concentration at the head, trunk, and foot of the mannequin (p < 0.001). A sealed aerosol bag alone, with wall suction, or with a HEPA filter evacuator reduced the aerosol concentration at the head by 7.15%, 36.61%, and 84.70%, respectively (99.9% confidence interval [CI]: -4.51-18.81, 27.48-45.73, and 78.99-90.40); trunk by 70.95%, 73.99%, and 91.59%, respectively (99.9% CI: 59.83-82.07, 52.64-95.33, and 87.51-95.66); and feet by 69.16%, 75.57%, and 92.30%, respectively (99.9% CI: 63.18-75.15, 69.76-81.37, and 88.18-96.42), compared with an aerosol box alone. CONCLUSIONS: As aerosols spread, an airtight container with sealed working channels is effective when combined with suction devices.