Effectiveness of Elastomeric Half-Mask Respirators vs N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators During Simulated Resuscitation

Andrew J Barros,Costi D Sifri,Kyle B Enfield,Taison D Bell,Joshua C Eby

doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.1564

Andrew J Barros, Costi D Sifri + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.1564

Copy DOI

Abstract

Effectiveness of Elastomeric Half-Mask Respirators vs N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators During Simulated Resuscitation

Highlights

Respirators provide protection from airborne particles, and the N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) is the most commonly used type in health care
The Transparent Reporting of Evaluations With Nonrandomized Designs (TREND) reporting guideline was used for this study.[6]
Participants reported detection of the agent in 0 of 36 tests in the EMHR group and 18 of 64 tests (28.1%) in the FFR group

Summary

Introduction

Respirators provide protection from airborne particles, and the N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) is the most commonly used type in health care. Recent FFR shortages have led to increased interest in reusable elastomeric half-mask respirators (EHMRs),[1,2] which have a flexible interface and larger straps than FFRs. Data from simulation and industrial settings suggests that EMHRs may provide higher respiratory protection than FFRs.[3] Case reports in previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus pandemics have suggested transmission during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) despite FFR use,[4] and simulation studies have demonstrated an unacceptable leak during CPR in up to 40% FFR users.[5] Owing to shortages of FFR models, individuals who could not be fit in an available FFR model were fit for an EMHR. We assessed whether EHMRs provide improved fit during simulated CPR compared with FFRs

Methods

Results

Conclusion