Effects of Pressure Control Device (SensAwake™) on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) Patients Who Remove the Mask for Unknown Reasons during Automatic Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (Auto-CPAP) Therapy: A Prospective Randomized Crossover Trial.

Backgroundand Objectives: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients may remove their mask unconsciously during automatic continuous positive airway pressure (Auto-CPAP) therapy and therefore cannot receive good treatment. The discomfort from the airflow of Auto-CPAP may be one reason for interrupted sleep. Sens Awake (SA) can detect the arousal and lower the pressure to prevent patients from fully awakening from sleep. Materials and Methods: To evaluate the effect of SA, we designed a prospective, randomized, crossover trial comparing Auto-CPAP with and without SA on Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) Scale and recorded data from the auto-CPAP machine. Results: In the 25 patients who completed the study, the gender, age, body mass index, neck circumference, polysomnography data, and previous CPAP use were not significantly different between the two arms. The average and 90th percentile pressures were significantly lower during SA on (SA on vs. off: 6.9 ± 2.7 vs. 7.3 ± 2.6 [p = 0.032] and 8.6 ± 3.0 vs. 9.2 ± 2.9 [p = 0.002], respectively). The time used, days used, compliance, average and 90th percentile leaks, and the residual Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) were not significantly changed between the SA on-and-off. Based on the subjective evaluation, PSQI, ESS, and NOSE were not significantly different between the SA on-and-off; however, based on additional analyses which were compared with baseline data, the ESS was significantly lower when the SA was on (SA on vs. baseline: 11.1 ± 6.1 vs. 13.2 ± 6.0 [p = 0.023]). Conclusions: CPAP therapy with or without two weeks of the SA had a similar effect on CPAP use, sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, and nasal obstruction. The SA may have a tendency to improve daytime sleepiness, but needs further study with a longer duration of treatment.

Effectiveness of engineering interventions in decreasing worker exposure to metalworking fluid aerosols.

Machine industry accounts for the highest proportion of primary industry in Taiwan. Long-term exposure to metalworking fluid aerosols may pose significant threats to the health of workers. The aims of this study were to verify the efficacy of intervention methods in reducing airborne bacterial concentrations as well as effects on aerosol particle size distribution. This study evaluated airborne bacterial concentrations in a large precision machinery factory in Taichung, Taiwan, before and after the implementation of intervention methods. The installation of local exhaust systems and improvement of the operation mode were used as intervention methods. Concentration and size distribution of bacteria in the metal working environment were assessed using Andersen one-stage and six-stage viable impactors, respectively. The analytical results indicate that most bacterial concentrations were less than the recommended concentrations in the indoor air quality standards (500 CFU/m3) proposed by the United States Association of Advancing Occupational and Environmental Health (US ACGIH) before the installation of local exhaust systems. There was no significant difference in bacterial concentrations before and after the installation of the local exhaust and the intervention effect on reducing bacterial exposure was not as expected. The bacterial concentrations were significantly lowered in the Z region after improving the operation mode. The particle size of bioaerosols <7.0 µm was also substantially reduced. Improper operation modes are likely to expose employees to higher concentrations of bacteria within a short time period. It recommends adjusting the metal processing methods and proper use of air spray guns for decreasing high airborne bacterial concentrations exposure.

Potential risk for bacterial contamination in conventional reused ventilator systems and disposable closed ventilator-suction systems.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated the difference in bacterial contamination between conventional reused ventilator systems and disposable closed ventilator-suction systems. The aim of this study was to investigate the bacterial contamination rates of the reused and disposable ventilator systems, and the association between system disconnection and bacterial contamination of ventilator systems. METHODS: The enrolled intubated and mechanically ventilated patients used a conventional reused ventilator system and a disposable closed ventilator-suction system, respectively, for a week; specimens were then collected from the ventilator circuit systems to evaluate human and environmental bacterial contamination. The sputum specimens from patients were also analyzed in this study. RESULTS: The detection rate of bacteria in the conventional reused ventilator system was substantially higher than that in the disposable ventilator system. The inspiratory and expiratory limbs of the disposable closed ventilator-suction system had higher bacterial concentrations than the conventional reused ventilator system. The bacterial concentration in the heated humidifier of the reused ventilator system was significantly higher than that in the disposable ventilator system. Positive associations existed among the bacterial concentrations at different locations in the reused and disposable ventilator systems, respectively. The predominant bacteria identified in the reused and disposable ventilator systems included Acinetobacter spp., Bacillus cereus, Elizabethkingia spp., Pseudomonas spp., and Stenotrophomonas (Xan) maltophilia. CONCLUSIONS: Both the reused and disposable ventilator systems had high bacterial contamination rates after one week of use. Disconnection of the ventilator systems should be avoided during system operation to decrease the risks of environmental pollution and human exposure, especially for the disposable ventilator system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov PRS / NCT03359148.