Asunto(s)
Disección Aórtica , Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica , Implantación de Prótesis de Válvulas Cardíacas , Prótesis Valvulares Cardíacas , Reemplazo de la Válvula Aórtica Transcatéter , Disección Aórtica/diagnóstico por imagen , Disección Aórtica/etiología , Disección Aórtica/cirugía , Válvula Aórtica/diagnóstico por imagen , Válvula Aórtica/cirugía , Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/diagnóstico por imagen , Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/cirugía , Humanos , Factores de Riesgo , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Reemplazo de la Válvula Aórtica Transcatéter/efectos adversos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The current COVID-19 pandemic has produced numerous innovations in personal protective equipment, barrier devices, and infection mitigation strategies, which have not been validated. During high-risk procedures such as airway manipulation, coughs are common and discrete events that may expose healthcare workers to large amounts of viral particles. A simulated cough under controlled circumstances can rapidly test novel devices and protocols and thus aid in their evaluation and the development of implementation guidelines. Physiologic cough simulators exist but require significant expertise and specialized equipment not available to most clinicians. METHODS: Using components commonly found in healthcare settings, a cough simulator was designed for clinicians to easily assemble and use. Both droplet and aerosol particle generators were incorporated into a bimodal experimental system. High-speed flash photography was used for data collection. RESULTS: Using a gas flow analyzer, video recordings, and high-speed digital photography, the cough and particle simulators were quantitatively and qualitatively compared with known physiologic cough parameters and in vivo Schlieren imaging of human coughs. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our validation studies, this cough and particle simulator model approximates a physiologic, human cough in the context of testing personal protective equipment, barrier devices, and infection prevention measures.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Equipo de Protección Personal , Tos , Humanos , Transmisión de Enfermedad Infecciosa de Paciente a Profesional/prevención & control , Pandemias/prevención & control , Aerosoles y Gotitas RespiratoriasRESUMEN
SUMMARY STATEMENT: The COVID-19 pandemic threatened to overwhelm the medical system of New York City, and the threat of ventilator shortages was real. Using high-fidelity simulation, a variety of solutions were tested to solve the problem of ventilator shortages including innovative designs for safely splitting ventilators, converting noninvasive ventilators to invasive ventilators, and testing and improving of ventilators created by outside companies. Simulation provides a safe environment for testing of devices and protocols before use on patients and should be vital in the preparation for emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19/epidemiología , Respiración Artificial/métodos , Entrenamiento Simulado/organización & administración , Ventiladores Mecánicos/provisión & distribución , Humanos , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Numerous barrier devices have recently been developed and rapidly deployed worldwide in an effort to protect health care workers (HCWs) from exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during high-risk procedures. However, only a few studies have examined their impact on the dispersion of droplets and aerosols, which are both thought to be significant contributors to the spread of COVID-19. METHODS: Two commonly used barrier devices, an intubation box and a clear plastic intubation sheet, were evaluated using a physiologically accurate cough simulator. Aerosols were modeled using a commercially available fog machine, and droplets were modeled with fluorescein dye. Both particles were propelled by the cough simulator in a simulated intubation environment. Data were captured by high-speed flash photography, and aerosol and droplet dispersion were assessed qualitatively with and without a barrier in place. RESULTS: Droplet contamination after a simulated cough was seemingly contained by both barrier devices. Simulated aerosol escaped the barriers and flowed toward the head of the bed. During barrier removal, simulated aerosol trapped underneath was released and propelled toward the HCW at the head of the bed. Usage of the intubation sheet concentrated droplets onto a smaller area. If no barrier was used, positioning the patient in slight reverse Trendelenburg directed aerosols away from the HCW located at the head of the bed. CONCLUSIONS: Our observations imply that intubation boxes and sheets may reduce HCW exposure to droplets, but they both may merely redirect aerosolized particles, potentially resulting in increased exposure to aerosols in certain circumstances. Aerosols may remain within the barrier device after a cough, and manipulation of the box may release them. Patients should be positioned to facilitate intubation, but slight reverse Trendelenburg may direct infectious aerosols away from the HCW. Novel barrier devices should be used with caution, and further validation studies are necessary.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19/terapia , Control de Infecciones/instrumentación , Transmisión de Enfermedad Infecciosa de Paciente a Profesional/prevención & control , Exposición por Inhalación/prevención & control , Intubación Intratraqueal , Exposición Profesional/prevención & control , Equipo de Protección Personal , Aerosoles , COVID-19/transmisión , Humanos , Exposición por Inhalación/efectos adversos , Intubación Intratraqueal/efectos adversos , Maniquíes , Ensayo de Materiales , Exposición Profesional/efectos adversos , Salud LaboralRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The aerosol box was rapidly developed and disseminated to minimize viral exposure during aerosolizing procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet users may not understand how to use and clean the device. This could potentially lead to increased viral exposure to subsequent patients and practitioners. We evaluated intraoperative contamination and aerosol box decontamination and the impact of a preoperative educational visual aid. METHODS: Using a double-blinded randomized design, forty-four anesthesiology trainees and faculty completed a simulated anesthetic case using an aerosol box contaminated with a fluorescent marker; half of the subjects received a visual aid prior to the simulation. Intraoperative contamination was evaluated at 10 standardized locations using an ultraviolet (UV) light. Next, subjects were instructed to clean the aerosol box for use on the next patient. Following cleaning, the box was evaluated for decontamination using an UV light. RESULTS: Median total contamination score was significantly reduced in the experimental group (5.0 vs. 10.0, P < 0.001). The aerosol box was completely cleaned by 36.4% of subjects in the experimental group compared to 4.5% in the control group (P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a visual aid significantly decreased intraoperative contamination and improved box cleaning. Despite these findings, a potentially clinically significant amount of viral exposure may exist. Thorough evaluation of the risks and benefits of the aerosol box should be completed prior to use. If an aerosol box is used, a visual aid should be considered to remind practitioners how to best use and clean the box.