An Engineering Alternative to Lockdown During COVID-19 and Other Airborne Infectious Disease Pandemics: Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Now and in the future, airborne diseases such as COVID-19 could become uncontrollable and lead the world into lockdowns. Finding alternatives to lockdowns, which limit individual freedoms and cause enormous economic losses, is critical. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of achieving a society or a nation that does not require lockdown during a pandemic due to airborne infectious diseases through the mass production and distribution of high-performance, low-cost, and comfortable powered air purifying respirators (PAPRs). METHODS: The feasibility of a social system using PAPR as an alternative to lockdown was examined from the following perspectives: first, what PAPRs can do as an alternative to lockdown; second, how to operate a social system utilizing PAPR; third, directions of improvement of PAPR as an alternative to lockdown; and finally, balancing between efficiency of infection control and personal freedom through the use of Internet of Things (IoT). RESULTS: PAPR was shown to be a possible alternative to lockdown through the reduction of airborne and droplet transmissions and through a temporary reduction of infection probability per contact. A social system in which individual constraints imposed by lockdown are replaced by PAPRs was proposed, and an example of its operation is presented in this paper. For example, the government determines the type and intensity of the lockdown and activates it. At that time, the government will also indicate how PAPR can be substituted for the different activity and movement restrictions imposed during a lockdown, for example, a curfew order may be replaced with the permission to go outside if wearing a PAPR. The following 7 points were raised as directions for improvement of PAPR as an alternative method to lockdown: flow optimization, precise differential pressure control, design improvement, maintenance method, variation development such as booth type, information terminal function, and performance evaluation method. In order to achieve the effectiveness and efficiency in controlling the spread of infection and the individual freedom at a high level in a social system that uses PAPRs as an alternative to lockdown, it was considered effective to develop a PAPR wearing rate network management system utilizing IoT. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that using PAPR with infection control ability and with less economic and social damage as an alternative to nationwide lockdown is possible during a pandemic due to airborne infectious diseases. Further, the efficiency of the government's infection control and each citizen's freedom can be balanced by using the PAPR wearing rate network management system utilizing an IoT system.

Impact of personal protective equipment attached powered air-purifying respirator on nursing-skill performance and psychosocial stress of intensive care unit COVID-19 nurses: A cross-sectional study.

AIM: To investigate how personal protective equipment with an attached powered air-purifying respirator worn by intensive care unit nurses caring for COVID-19 patients in Korea impacts nursing-skill performance and psychosocial stress. DESIGN: A cross-sectional descriptive study was designed using purposive sampling. REVIEW METHODS: Online data collection was conducted from 3 March 2021-20 March 2021on 181 nurses who had worked for more than 1 month in COVID-19 critical care settings wearing personal protective equipment with a powered air-purifying respirator. A structured questionnaire was used to gather data on sociodemographic characteristics, attitude toward personal protective equipment, nursing-skill performance wearing personal protective equipment and psychosocial stress. DATA SOURCES: Data was sourced from structured questionnaire responses. RESULTS: Nursing skill performance decreased to 63.4%, compared with normal performance. Subjects' perceptions and attitudes related to PPE scored 3.56 out of 5; 44.7% of subjects reported severe psychosocial stress, which was significantly affected by attitude toward personal protective equipment usage, nursing performance, experience caring for COVID-19 patients and length of personal protective equipment usage per shift. CONCLUSION: Greater negative attitude toward usage of personal protective equipment with a powered air-purifying respirator, results in lower nursing-skill performance and higher the psychosocial stress of nurses responding to COVID-19 outbreaks. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: High negative attitude toward PPE and low nursing-skill performance due to PPE with an attached PAPR results in significant and debilitating psychosocial stress in ICU nurses responding to COVID-19 outbreaks. To respond effectively to future infectious disease outbreaks and improve nursing performance, minimising the inconvenience and restrictions experienced by nurses wearing personal protective equipment is critical. REPORTING METHOD: We adhered to relevant EQUATOR guidelines to report. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

Validation of personal protective equipment ensembles, incorporating powered air-purifying respirators protected from contamination, for the care of patients with high-consequence infectious diseases.

BACKGROUND: The UK High-Consequence Infectious Diseases (HCID) Network of high-level isolation units provides care for patients with contact- or airborne-transmissible highly infectious and highly dangerous diseases. In most HCID units, the healthcare workers (HCWs) wear personal protective equipment (PPE) ensembles incorporating a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) for head and respiratory protection. Some PAPRs have components worn outside/over other PPE, necessitating decontamination of re-usable elements. Two alternative PAPRs, with all re-usable elements worn under PPE, were trialled in this study. AIM: To undertake scenario-based testing of PAPRs and PPE to determine usability, comfort and ability to remove contaminated PPE without personal cross-contamination. METHODS: Trained healthcare volunteers (N=20) wearing PAPR/PPE ensembles were sprayed with ultraviolet fluorescent markers. They undertook exercises to mimic patient care, and subsequently, after doffing the contaminated PPE following an established protocol, any personal cross-contamination was visualized under ultraviolet light. Participants also completed a questionnaire to gauge how comfortable they found the PPE. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The ensembles were tested under extreme 'worst case scenario' conditions, augmented by physical and manual dexterity tests. Participating volunteers considered the exercise to be beneficial in terms of training and PPE evaluation. Data obtained, including feedback from questionnaires and doffing buddy observations, supported evidence-based decisions on the PAPR/PPE ensemble to be adopted by the HCID Network. One cross-contamination event was recorded in the ensemble chosen; this could be attributed to doffing error, and could therefore be eliminated with further practice.

Comparison of respiratory protection during exercise tasks between different methods of wearing replaceable particulate respirators and powered air-purifying respirators.

This study evaluated the differences in respiratory protection between replaceable particulate respirators (RPRs) and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) based on different wearing methods during exercise tasks. Ten participants wore RPRs and PAPRs alternately in ways comparable to those adopted by workers in actual workplaces. We measured the fit factor of the respiratory protective equipment (RPE) during exercise tasks for each wearing variation. The exercise load was set to 80W using an ergometer. The exercise tasks comprised five actions described in the Japan Industrial Standard T8150 in 2018. We compared the results with experimental data obtained at rest in our previous studies. The fit factor of RPRs during exercise was significantly lower than (p<0.001) and about half that measured at rest, indicating inadequate respiratory protection. On the other hand, the fit factor of PAPRs during exercise tasks was also significantly lower than (p<0.001) and about half that at rest, but respiratory protection was maintained. This suggests that the protection provided by PAPRs is independent of wearing method during exercise. PAPRs may thus be better than RPRs for workers who have to wear RPE inappropriately due to health problems.

Exploring healthcare workers' perspectives of video feedback for training in the use of powered air purifying respirators (PAPR) at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: With the advent of COVID-19, many healthcare workers (HWs) in Australia requested access to powered air purifying respirators (PAPR) for improved respiratory protection, comfort and visibility. The urgency of the response at our hospital required rapid deployment of innovative training to ensure the safe use of PAPRs, in particular, a video-feedback training option to prepare HWs for PAPR competency. AIM: To explore the feasibility, acceptability, and utility of video-feedback in PAPR training and competency assessment. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 HWs, including clinicians from Intensive Care, Anaesthetics and Respiratory Medicine, at a large teaching hospital in Australia. FINDINGS: Participants believed that the use of video-feedback in PAPR training was feasible, acceptable and useful. They described a variety of benefits to learning and retention, from a variety of ways in which they engaged with the personal video-feedback. Participants also described the impact of reviewing personalised practice footage, compared to generic footage of an ideal performance. CONCLUSION: By conceptualising video-feedback using a pedagogical approach, this study contributes to knowledge around optimising methods for training HWs in PPE use, particularly when introducing a new and complex PPE device during an infectious disease outbreak.

Short-term effects of the toxic component of traffic-related air pollution (TRAP) on lung function in healthy adults using a powered air purifying respirator (PAPR).

Short-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution (TRAP) are associated with reduced lung function. However, TRAP is a mixture of various gaseous pollutants and particulate matter (PM), and therefore it is unknown that which components of TRAP are responsible for the respiratory toxicity. Using a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR), we conducted a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial in which 40 adults were exposed to TRAP for 2 h at the sidewalk of a busy road. During the exposure, the participants wore the PAPR fitted with a PM filter, a PM and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) filter, or a sham filter (no filtration, Sham mode). The participants were blinded to the type of filter in their PAPR, and experienced three exposures, once for each intervention mode in random order. We measured two lung function measures (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1] and forced vital capacity [FVC]) and an airway inflammation marker (fraction of exhaled nitric oxide [FENO]) before and immediately after each exposure, and further measured them at different time periods after exposure. We applied linear mixed effect models to estimate the effects of the interventions on the changes of lung function from baseline values after controlling for other covariates. Compared to baseline, exposing to TRAP decreased FEV1 and FVC, and increased FEV1/FVC and FENO in all three intervention modes. The mixed models showed that with the sham mode as reference, lung function and airway inflammation post exposure were significantly improved by filtering both PM and VOCs, but marginally affected by filtering only PM. In conclusion, the VOCs component of TRAP is responsible for the reduction in lung function caused by short-term exposure to TRAP. However, the result needs to be interpreted cautiously before further verified by laboratory experiment using purely isolated component(s) of TRAP.

Efficacy of cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance while wearing a powered air-purifying respirator.

BACKGROUND: The use of personal protective equipment for respiratory infection control during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a physical burden to healthcare providers. The duration for which CPR quality according to recommended guidelines can be maintained under these circumstances is important. We investigated whether a 2-min shift was appropriate for chest compression and determined the duration for which chest compression was maintained in accordance with the recommended guidelines while wearing personal protective equipment. METHODS: This prospective crossover simulation study was performed at a single center from September 2020 to October 2020. Five indicators of CPR quality were measured during the first and second sessions of the study period. All participants wore a Level D powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR), and the experiment was conducted using a Resusci Anne manikin, which can measure the quality of chest compressions. Each participant conducted two sessions. In Session 1, the sequence of 2 min of chest compressions, followed by a 2-min rest, was repeated twice; in Session 2, the sequence of 1-min chest compressions followed by a 1-min rest was repeated four times. RESULTS: All 34 participants completed the study. The sufficiently deep compression rate was 65.9 ± 31.1% in the 1-min shift group and 61.5 ± 30.5% in the 2-min shift group. The mean compression depth was 52.8 ± 4.3 mm in the 1-min shift group and 51.0 ± 6.1 mm in the 2-min shift group. These two parameters were significantly different between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the other values related to CPR quality. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicated that 1 min of chest compressions with a 1-min rest maintained a better quality of CPR while wearing a PAPR.

Impact of Personal Protective Equipment on Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation in Coronavirus Pandemic.

Background and Objectives: This retrospective study evaluated the clinical impact of enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) on the clinical outcomes in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Moreover, by focusing on the use of a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR), we investigated the medical personnel's perceptions of wearing PAPR during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Materials and Methods: According to the arrival time at the emergency department, the patients were categorized into a conventional PPE group (1 August 2019 to 20 January 2020) and an enhanced PPE group (21 January 2020, to 31 August 2020). The primary outcomes of this analysis were the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate. Additionally, subjective perception of the medical staff regarding the effect of wearing enhanced PPE during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was evaluated by conducting a survey. Results: This study included 130 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, with 73 and 57 patients in the conventional and enhanced PPE groups, respectively. The median time intervals to first intubation and to report the first arterial blood gas analysis results were longer in the enhanced PPE group than in the conventional PPE group (3 min vs. 2 min; p = 0.020 and 8 min vs. 3 min; p < 0.001, respectively). However, there were no significant differences in the ROSC rate (odds ratio (OR) = 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38-1.67; p = 0.542) and 1 month survival (OR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.07-2.10; p = 0.266) between the two groups. In total, 67 emergent department (ED) professionals responded to the questionnaire. Although a significant number of respondents experienced inconveniences with PAPR use, they agreed that PAPR was necessary during the CPR procedure for protection and reduction of infection transmission. Conclusion: The use of enhanced PPE, including PAPR, affected the performance of CPR to some extent but did not alter patient outcomes. PAPR use during the resuscitation of OHCA patients might positively impact the psychological stability of the medical staff.

Powered air-purifying respirators used during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic significantly reduce speech perception.

BACKGROUND: Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, interventions in the upper airways are considered high-risk procedures for otolaryngologists and their colleagues. The purpose of this study was to evaluate limitations in hearing and communication when using a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) system to protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission and to assess the benefit of a headset. METHODS: Acoustic properties of the PAPR system were measured using a head and torso simulator. Audiological tests (tone audiometry, Freiburg speech test, Oldenburg sentence test (OLSA)) were performed in normal-hearing subjects (n = 10) to assess hearing with PAPR. The audiological test setup also included simulation of conditions in which the target speaker used either a PAPR, a filtering face piece (FFP) 3 respirator, or a surgical face mask. RESULTS: Audiological measurements revealed that sound insulation by the PAPR headtop and noise, generated by the blower-assisted respiratory protection system, resulted in significantly deteriorated hearing thresholds (4.0 ± 7.2 dB hearing level (HL) vs. 49.2 ± 11.0 dB HL, p < 0.001) and speech recognition scores in quiet (100.0 ± 0.0% vs. 2.5 ± 4.2%, p < 0.001; OLSA: 20.8 ± 1.8 dB vs. 61.0 ± 3.3 dB SPL, p < 0.001) when compared to hearing without PAPR. Hearing with PAPR was significantly improved when the subjects were equipped with an in-ear headset (p < 0.001). Sound attenuation by FFP3 respirators and surgical face masks had no clinically relevant impact on speech perception. CONCLUSIONS: The PAPR system evaluated here can be considered for high-risk procedures in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, provided that hearing and communication of the surgical team are optimized by the additional use of a headset.

Time to intubation with McGrath™ videolaryngoscope versus direct laryngoscope in powered air-purifying respirator: a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, multiple guidelines have recommended the videolaryngoscope for tracheal intubation. However, there is no evidence that videolaryngoscope reduces time to tracheal intubation, which is important for COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure. METHODS: To simulate intubation of COVID-19 patients, we randomised 28 elective surgical patients to be intubated with either the McGrath™ MAC videolaryngoscope or the direct laryngoscope by specialist anaesthetists donning 3M™ Jupiter™ powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) and N95 masks. Primary outcome was time to intubation. RESULTS: The median (IQR) times to intubation were 61s (37-63 s) and 41.5s (37-56 s) in the videolaryngoscope and direct laryngoscope groups respectively (p = 0.35). The closest mean (SD) distances between the anaesthetist and the patient during intubation were 21.6 cm (4.8 cm) and 17.6 cm (5.3 cm) in the videolaryngoscope and direct laryngoscope groups, respectively (p = 0.045). There were no significant differences in the median intubation difficulty scale scores, proportion of successful intubation at first laryngoscopic attempt and proportion of intubations requiring adjuncts. Intubations for all the patients were successful with no adverse event. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in the time to intubation by specialist anaesthetists who were donned in PAPR and N95 masks on elective surgical patients with either the McGrath™ videolaryngoscope or direct laryngoscope. The distance between the anaesthetist and patient was significantly further with the videolaryngoscope. The direct laryngoscope could be an equal alternative to videolaryngoscope for specialist anaesthetists when resources are limited or disrupted due to the pandemic.

What's New in Neuraxial Labor Analgesia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article provides an update of recent practice trends in neuraxial labor analgesia. It reviews available evidence regarding management of labor pain in obstetric patients with COVID-19, serious adverse events in obstetric anesthesia to help inform risk/benefit decisions, and increasingly popular neuraxial labor analgesia techniques and adjuvants. State-of-the-art modes of epidural drug delivery are also discussed. RECENT FINDINGS: There has recently been a focus on several considerations specific to obstetric anesthesia, such as anesthetic management of obstetric patients with COVID-19, platelet thresholds for the safe performance of neuraxial analgesia in obstetric patients with thrombocytopenia, and drug delivery modes for initiation and maintenance of neuraxial labor analgesia. SUMMARY: Neuraxial labor analgesia (via standard epidural, dural puncture epidural, and combined spinal epidural techniques) is the most effective therapy to alleviate the pain of childbirth. SARS-CoV-2 infection is not, in and of itself, a contraindication to neuraxial labor analgesia or cesarean delivery anesthesia. Early initiation of neuraxial labor analgesia in patients with COVID-19 is recommended if not otherwise contraindicated, as it may reduce the need for general anesthesia should emergency cesarean delivery become necessary. Consensus regarding platelet thresholds for safe initiation of neuraxial procedures has historically been lacking. Recent studies have concluded that the risk of spinal epidural hematoma formation after neuraxial procedures is likely low at or above an imprecise range of platelet count of 70-75,000 × 106/L. Thrombocytopenia has been reported in obstetric patients with COVID-19, but severe thrombocytopenia precluding initiation of neuraxial anesthesia is extremely rare. High neuraxial blockade has emerged as one of the most common serious complications of neuraxial analgesia and anesthesia in obstetric patients. Growing awareness of factors that contribute to failed conversion of epidural labor analgesia to cesarean delivery anesthesia may help avoid the risks associated with performance of repeat neuraxial techniques and induction of general anesthesia after failed epidural blockade. Dural puncture techniques to alleviate the pain of childbirth continue to become more popular, as do adjuvant drugs to enhance or prolong neuraxial analgesia. Novel techniques for epidural drug delivery have become more widely disseminated.

Headache Related to PPE Use during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Personal protection equipment (PPE)-associated headache is an unusual secondary headache disorder that predominantly occurs in healthcare workers as a consequence of the donning of protective respirators, face masks and/or eyewear. The appreciation of this entity is important given the significant ramifications upon the occupational health of healthcare workers and could additionally have an impact on persons living with pre-existing headache disorder(s). RECENT FINDINGS: There has been a renewed interest and recognition of PPE-associated headaches amongst healthcare professionals, largely brought about by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic which has besieged healthcare systems worldwide. De novo PPE-associated headaches may present with migrainous or tension-type features and can be viewed as a subtype of external compression headache. The prognosis of the disorder is generally favourable, given that most headaches are short-lived without long-term sequalae. Several aetiologies have been postulated to account for the development of these headaches. Notably, these headaches can affect the occupational health and work performance of healthcare workers. In this review, we discuss the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, probable etiopathogenesis, management and prognosis of PPE-associated headaches in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Future directions for research and PPE development are proposed.

Carbon dioxide increases with face masks but remains below short-term NIOSH limits.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: COVID-19 pandemic led to wide-spread use of face-masks, respirators and other personal protective equipment (PPE) by healthcare workers. Various symptoms attributed to the use of PPE are believed to be, at least in part, due to elevated carbon-dioxide (CO2) levels. We evaluated concentrations of CO2 under various PPE. METHODS: In a prospective observational study on healthy volunteers, CO2 levels were measured during regular breathing while donning 1) no mask, 2) JustAir® powered air purifying respirator (PAPR), 3) KN95 respirator, and 4) valved-respirator. Serial CO2 measurements were taken with a nasal canula at a frequency of 1-Hz for 15-min for each PPE configuration to evaluate whether National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) limits were breached. RESULTS: The study included 11 healthy volunteers, median age 32 years (range 16-54) and 6 (55%) men. Percent mean (SD) changes in CO2 values for no mask, JustAir® PAPR, KN95 respirator and valve respirator were 0.26 (0.12), 0.59 (0.097), 2.6 (0.14) and 2.4 (0.59), respectively. Use of face masks (KN95 and valved-respirator) resulted in significant increases in CO2 concentrations, which exceeded the 8-h NIOSH exposure threshold limit value-weighted average (TLV-TWA). However, the increases in CO2 concentrations did not breach short-term (15-min) limits. Importantly, these levels were considerably lower than the long-term (8-h) NIOSH limits during donning JustAir® PAPR. There was a statistically significant difference between all pairs (p < 0.0001, except KN95 and valved-respirator (p = 0.25). However, whether increase in CO2 levels are clinically significant remains debatable. CONCLUSION: Although, significant increase in CO2 concentrations are noted with routinely used face-masks, the levels still remain within the NIOSH limits for short-term use. Therefore, there should not be a concern in their regular day-to-day use for healthcare providers. The clinical implications of elevated CO2 levels with long-term use of face masks needs further studies. Use of PAPR prevents relative hypercapnoea. However, whether PAPR should be advocated for healthcare workers requiring PPE for extended hours needs to evaluated in further studies.

Ambient Noise Levels and Wireless Headsets for Communication in Aerosolizing Otolaryngology Surgery During COVID-19.

The objective of this short scientific communication is to describe and test a strategy to overcome communication barriers in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era otolaryngology operating rooms. Thirteen endoscopic sinus surgeries, 4 skull base surgeries, and 1 tracheotomy were performed with powered air-purifying respirators. During these surgeries, surgical team members donned headsets with microphones linked via conference call. Noise measurements and survey responses were obtained and compared to pre-COVID-19 data. Noise was problematic and caused miscommunication as per 93% and 76% of respondents, respectively. Noise in COVID-19 era operating rooms was significantly higher compared to pre-COVID-19 era data (73.8 vs 70.2 decibels, P = .04). Implementation of this headset strategy significantly improved communication. Respondents with headsets were less likely to encounter communication problems (31% vs 93%, P < .001). Intraoperative measures to protect surgical team members during aerosolizing surgeries may impair communication. Linking team members via a conference call is a solution to improve communication.

A Personal Respirator to Improve Protection for Healthcare Workers Treating COVID-19 (PeRSo).

Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 infection is a global pandemic. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to protect healthcare workers has been a recurrent challenge in terms of global stocks, supply logistics and suitability. In some settings, around 20% of healthcare workers treating COVID-19 cases have become infected, which leads to staff absence at peaks of the pandemic, and in some cases mortality. Methods: To address shortcomings in PPE, we developed a simple powered air purifying respirator, made from inexpensive and widely available components. The prototype was designed to minimize manufacturing complexity so that derivative versions could be developed in low resource settings with minor modification. Results: The "Personal Respirator - Southampton" (PeRSo) delivers High-Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filtered air from a battery powered fan-filter assembly into a lightweight hood with a clear visor that can be comfortably worn for several hours. Validation testing demonstrates that the prototype removes microbes, avoids excessive CO2 build-up in normal use, and passes fit test protocols widely used to evaluate standard N95/FFP2 and N99/FFP3 face masks. Feedback from doctors and nurses indicate the PeRSo prototype was preferred to standard FFP2 and FFP3 masks, being more comfortable and reducing the time and risk of recurrently changing PPE. Patients report better communication and reassurance as the entire face is visible. Conclusion: Rapid upscale of production of cheaply produced powered air purifying respirators, designed to achieve regulatory approval in the country of production, could protect healthcare workers from infection and improve healthcare delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Personal protective equipment availability and usage amongst pediatric otorhinolaryngologists during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international survey.

OBJECTIVES: To survey a group of global pediatric otolaryngology specialists to assess their usage and access to personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A survey of 13 questions was created collecting information on: basic demographics of practice, types of PPE used for procedures of varying aerosolization risk, access to positive air-purifying respirator (PAPR) and patient testing for SARS-CoV-2. Pediatric otolaryngologists were invited to complete the survey via Whatsapp™. RESULTS: 96 responses were collected from 17 different countries. N95 was the most commonly utilized PPE when dealing with COVID-19 patients (64.2%-81.9% depending on aerosolization risk of the procedure). Significantly higher use of PAPR was noted in high-risk aerosolization generating medical procedures, when compared to other risks. Face covering was used consistently (91.6%). Most respondents (78.1%, n = 75) had access to PAPR or had at least requested it. The majority of patients (56.2%, n = 54) was being tested for SARS-CoV-2 prior to procedures performed in operating rooms (OR); whereas, only 1.1% (n = 1) of clinic patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 irrespective of the history or symptomatology. CONCLUSIONS: Most pediatric otolaryngologists used N95 and some form of face covering (eg. goggles, face shields) when dealing with patients with COVID-19 positive status. PAPR was used in situations of high aerosolization risk. Majority of respondents were screening all patients prior to procedures in the operating room.

Evaluation of the performance of replaceable particulate and powered air-purifying respirators considering non-recommended wearing methods.

This study evaluated the performance of two respirators, a replaceable particulate respirator (RPR) and a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR), worn according to non-recommended methods. Ten subjects wore either an RPR or PAPR according to the recommended method, or according to a non-recommended method, with a knit cover placed between the facepiece cushion and face, with a towel placed between the facepiece cushion and face, or with the headband on a helmet. The leakage rate of each wearing variation was then measured, according to the procedure for determining the protection factor of respiratory protective equipment, using atmospheric dust as required by JIS T8150. The average leakage rate for the RPR was 1.82-10.92%, whereas that of the PAPR was 0.18-0.42%. The performance of the RPR decreased when worn in methods outside of recommendations; however, there was no significant decrease in the performance of PAPR under any method of wear. Therefore, a PAPR is recommended for work in which a replaceable or disposable particulate respirator fails to provide sufficient protection against hazardous dust substances, or for workers who are unable to use a particulate respirator according to the recommended method owing to the work environment or health conditions.

Conversion of self-contained breathing apparatus mask to open source powered air-purifying particulate respirator for fire fighter COVID-19 response.

To assist firefighters and other first responders to use their existing equipment for respiration during the COVID-19 pandemic without using single-use, low-supply, masks, this study outlines an open source kit to convert a 3M-manufactured Scott Safety self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) into a powered air-purifying particulate respirator (PAPR). The open source PAPR can be fabricated with a low-cost 3-D printer and widely available components for less than $150, replacing commercial conversion kits saving 85% or full-fledged proprietary PAPRs saving over 90%. The parametric designs allow for adaptation to other core components and can be custom fit specifically to fire-fighter equipment, including their suspenders. The open source PAPR has controllable air flow and its design enables breathing even if the fan is disconnected or if the battery dies. The open source PAPR was tested for air flow as a function of battery life and was found to meet NIOSH air flow requirements for 4 h, which is 300% over expected regular use.

Use of powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) by healthcare workers for preventing highly infectious viral diseases-a systematic review of evidence.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at particular risk during pandemics and epidemics of highly virulent diseases with significant morbidity and case fatality rate. These diseases include severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2, Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and Ebola. With the current (SARS-CoV-2) global pandemic, it is critical to delineate appropriate contextual respiratory protection for HCWs. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) as part of respiratory protection versus another device (egN95/FFP2) on HCW infection rates and contamination. METHODS: Our primary outcomes included HCW infection rates with SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-1, Ebola, or MERS when utilizing PAPR. We included randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, and observational studies. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL). Two reviewers independently screened all citations, full-text articles, and abstracted data. Due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity, we did not conduct a meta-analysis. Where applicable, we constructed evidence profile (EP) tables for each individual outcome. Confidence in cumulative evidence for each outcome was classified according to the GRADE system. RESULTS: We identified 689 studies during literature searches. We included 10 full-text studies. A narrative synthesis was provided. Two on-field studies reported no difference in the rates of healthcare workers performing airway procedures during the care of critical patients with SARS-CoV-2. A single simulation trial reported a lower level of cross-contamination of participants using PAPR compared to alternative respiratory protection. There is moderate quality evidence that PAPR use is associated with greater heat tolerance but lower scores for mobility and communication ability. We identified a trend towards greater self-reported wearer comfort with PAPR technology in low-quality observational simulation studies. CONCLUSION: Field observational studies do not indicate a difference in healthcare worker infection utilizing PAPR devices versus other compliant respiratory equipment. Greater heat tolerance accompanied by lower scores of mobility and audibility in PAPR was identified. Further pragmatic studies are needed in order to delineate actual effectiveness and provider satisfaction with PAPR technology. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review was prospectively registered with the International Register of Systematic Reviews identification number CRD42020184724 .

COVID-19 and a novel initiative to improve safety by 3D printing personal protective equipment parts from computed tomography.

BACKGROUND: Powered air-purifying respirators are in short supply and can break down with extended use. Replacement parts can become hard to acquire. The aim of this study was to create an innovative quality improvement proof of concept using rapid prototyping. METHODS: Here we report three cases of 3D printed powered air-purifying respirator parts. 3D printing was performed on all parts using fused deposition modeling with standard polylactic acid, in the same way that presurgical models would be created. Measurements using an electronic caliper as well as CT scans were used to compare an original part to its corresponding 3D printed parts for accuracy. RESULTS: Electronic caliper and computed tomography measurements both showed accuracy consistant with current published norms. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, there will be questions surrounding intellectual property, effectiveness and potential long-term safety for these types of 3D printed parts. Future research should look into the addition of specific nanoparticles from the position of cost, efficacy, safety and improved accuracy.