Randomized crossover study comparing quantitative fit tests between Trident™ and 3M™ Aura™ N95/P2 respirators.

Abstract

Various styles of N95/P2 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) have been used by Australian healthcare workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is usually driven by the national stockpile availability. Many studies demonstrate three-panel flat-fold N95/P2 FFRs have higher quantitative fit test (QNFT) pass rates than other FFR styles. This prospective randomized crossover study utilized QNFT to evaluate the performance of the new three-panel flat-fold FFR, the Trident™ P2 respirator compared to the previously most effective model, the 3M™ Aura™ 9320A+N95 respirator. We recruited 500 participants who completed online training and QNFT on both respirators. The order of the respirator being examined first was randomly allocated. The primary outcome was the QNFT pass rate. Secondary outcomes included the overall fit factor, the individual fit factor for each exercise, and the first-attempt QNFT pass rate. We found that both the overall and first-attempt QNFT pass rates of the Trident P2 respirator were significantly higher than the 3M Aura (99.2% vs 92.6%, p<0.001; and 92.6% vs 76.4%, p<0.001 respectively). The overall fit factor and the individual fit factor were also significantly higher for the Trident FFR than the 3M Aura. This study is the first to report hospital-based QNFT results of the Trident FFR, demonstrating very high first-time and overall pass rates. Our findings are consistent with previous research showing very high QNFT pass rates with three-panel flat-fold FFRs. These findings are important for pandemic preparedness with respect to the stockpiling and safe utilization of N95/P2 respirators.