Aerosol-generating Procedures Research Articles

Aerosol Generation During Bronchoscopy.

Bronchoscopy is an aerosol-generating procedure and can place the health care providers at risk for exposure to viral pathogens. The pattern of aerosol generation during different aspects of bronchoscopy are poorly understood. The goal of this study is to characterize the pattern of aerosol generation during flexible and rigid bronchoscopy performed under moderate sedation or general anesthesia (GA). The inhalable mass concentration of aerosol generated during the procedures was measured continuously. The aerosol concentration in the endoscopy room at baseline and while the procedures were performed was measured. Procedures included flexible bronchoscopies with moderate sedation, flexible bronchoscopies performed through endotracheal tube under GA and rigid bronchoscopies under GA. Changes from the baseline were measured continuously during the bronchoscopy. Measurements obtained during the procedure were compared with the baseline reading. For flexible bronchoscopy under moderate sedation, the inhalable aerosol fraction was significantly higher (P=0.036) during atomization of lidocaine. For Flexible bronchoscopy through endotracheal tube, inhalable aerosol fraction was significantly higher (P<0.001) during intubation and extubation. For rigid bronchoscopy done under GA with jet ventilation, inhalable aerosol fraction was significantly higher during both the bronchoscopy (P=0.01) and recovery (P=0.012). Elevated levels of aerosol were generated during all aspects of bronchoscopy. However, atomization of lidocaine, intubation, extubation, and recovery generated the most aerosol.

Impact of personal protective equipment on neonatal resuscitation procedures: a randomised, cross-over, simulation study

Background and objectiveHealthcare providers should use personal protective equipment (PPE) when performing aerosol-generating medical procedures during highly infectious respiratory pandemics. We aimed to compare the timing of neonatal resuscitation procedures...

Aerosol boxes decrease aerosol exposure only in depressurized rooms during aerosol-generating procedures in a simulation study.

PurposeThe aim of this study was to compare aerosol exposure with or without an aerosol box in a pressurized/depressurized room during aerosol-generating procedures using an experimental model.MethodsCake flour (aerosol model) was expelled from an advanced life support training mannequin. The primary outcome measure was the number of 0.3–10 µm-sized particles at three locations corresponding to the physician, medical staff, and environmental aerosol exposure levels. The aerosol dispersion was visualized using a high-resolution video. The number of expelled particles was measured after artificial coughing during simulated tracheal intubation and extubation in four situations, with or without an aerosol box in a pressurized or depressurized room (≤ 2.5 Pa).ResultsThe particles arising from tracheal intubation at the three positions in the four groups differed significantly in size (p < 0.05). The sizes of particles arising from extubation at the physicians’ and medical staff’s faces in the four groups differed significantly in size (p < 0.05). Post hoc analysis showed that the counts of all particles at the three positions were significantly lower in the depressurized room with an aerosol box than in the pressurized room without an aerosol box during tracheal intubation (p < 0.05 at three positions) and extubation (p < 0.05) at the physician’s and medical staff’s positions). Visual assessments supported these results.ConclusionThe aerosol box decreased the exposure of the aerosol to the physician, medical staff, and environment during aerosol-generating procedures in the depressurized room only.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00540-021-02997-7.

Bronchoscopy During Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Bronchoscopist's Perspective.

Bronchoscopy is a safe and commonly performed procedure for diagnostic as well as therapeutic indications. Bronchoscopy is also an aerosol-generating procedure, and due to the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmission during the procedure, routine bronchoscopy has been discouraged by multiple professional societies, despite any solid evidence. There are only a few reports of bronchoscopy in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in the literature. Bronchoscopy in this patient population plays a crucial role not only in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 but also in the identification of secondary bacterial or fungal infections and in directing appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Bronchoscopy with therapeutic interventions may be lifesaving. Based on the literature, the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 transmission appears to be low among bronchoscopists and other healthcare workers when appropriate personal protective equipment is used. Bronchoscopy in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 should be strongly considered when clinically indicated.

Real-life measurement of size-fractionated aerosol concentration in a plethysmography box during the COVID-19 pandemic and estimation of the associated viral load

IntroductionThere are concerns about pulmonary function tests (PFTs) being associated with aerosol generation and enhanced virus transmission. As a consequence, the number of PFTs was reduced significantly during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. However, there are no robust data supporting this fear.ObjectivesTo perform real-life measurement of aerosol concentrations in a PFT laboratory to monitor the concentration of particles near the patient, and to model the associated potential viral load.MethodsTwo optical particle counters were used to sample the background concentration and the concentration of particles near the patient's mouth in a whole-body plethysmography box. Statistical evaluation of the measured particle concentration time series was completed. The particle exhalation rate was assessed based on the measured particle concentration data by applying the near-field/far-field theory. The number of exhaled viruses by an infected patient during the test was compared with the emission of viruses during quiet breathing and speaking.ResultsTwenty-five patients were included in the study. Eighteen patients showed a significant increase in aerosol concentration [mean 1910 (standard deviation 593) particles/L]. Submicron particles dominated the number size distribution of the generated particles, but large particles represented a higher volume fraction in the generated particles compared with background. An average gene exhalation rate of 0.2/min was estimated from this data. This is one order of magnitude higher than the release rate for the same infected person during quiet breathing, and of the same order of magnitude as the release rate during normal speaking.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that PFTs are aerosol-generating procedures. Based on these results, the moderate increase in viral load does not underpin stopping such examinations.

The use of aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) during the COVID-19 pandemic in the diagnosis of lung cancer: a narrative review.

ObjectiveIn this article we discuss the current evidence for these concerns and highlight where further work is required to understand the risk from these procedures and how it can be mitigated for.BackgroundThe COVID-19 (coronavirus-19 or SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has impacted on many aspects of patient care both for those with the virus and those with other illnesses. Of particular concern has been the risk to staff and patients from the spread of the virus in health care settings. This has led to changes in guidelines and practice in community and hospital settings that has implications on patient diagnostic pathways in lung cancer, with a specific emphasis on aerosol generating procedures (AGPs).MethodsA literature search was carried out and 44 abstracts were initially found. Given the novel status of COVID-19, we included severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in our search. Five papers were selected for further analysis. An additional paper was highlighted during our research and therefore included in our review.ConclusionsThe papers selected assessed the risk of transmission during AGPs. The six articles selected assessed the risk of aerosol transmission during various AGPs (bronchoscopy, pleural procedures and pulmonary function tests) and each found that the risk of viral transmission via aerosol was low. As mentioned above, at the time the paper was written, there was a paucity of evidence regarding AGPs in the era of COVID-19. There is emerging evidence that our understanding of these procedures may be outdated and the risk of transmission maybe lower than previously anticipated. However, we need further reliable evidence to change practice going forward.

Risk for Acquiring Coronavirus Disease Illness among Emergency Medical Service Personnel Exposed to Aerosol-Generating Procedures.

We investigated the risk of coronavirus disease (COVID-19)­ patients transmitting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to emergency medical service (EMS) providers, stratified by aerosol-generating procedures (AGP), in King County, Washington, USA, during February 16–July 31, 2020. We conducted a retrospective cohort investigation using a statewide COVID-19 registry and identified 1,115 encounters, 182 with ≥1 AGP. Overall, COVID-19 incidence among EMS personnel was 0.57 infections/10,000 person-days. Incidence per 10,000 person-days did not differ whether or not infection was attributed to a COVID-19 patient encounter (0.28 vs. 0.59; p>0.05). The 1 case attributed to a COVID-19 patient encounter occurred within an at-risk period and involved an AGP. We observed a very low risk for COVID-19 infection attributable to patient encounters among EMS first responders, supporting clinical strategies that maintain established practices for treating patients in emergency conditions.

COVID-19: Regional Anesthesia, Benefits, and Practical Recommendations.

During coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, efforts have been made to rethink the health system and provide various recommendations to the best care of patients and for the protection of health personnel. In patients with suspicion or confirmation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) who require surgical intervention and anesthetic management, strategies must be established to minimize aerosol-generating procedures. Regional anesthesia (RA) is not considered an aerosol-generating procedure per se and is currently proposed such as a safe strategy and part of comprehensive perioperative care. However, the preoperative evaluation has undergone changes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, so in addition to routine preoperative evaluation, a patient-oriented history, clinical, laboratory, and radiologic evaluation should be performed, and a series of general recommendations should be taken into account before, during, and after the performance of RA procedure. A search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases was performed until August 22, 2020, using the words: 〞regional anesthesia or nerve block or peripheral nerve block or spinal anesthesia or epidural anesthesia and SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 or MERS or SARS-CoV-1 or influenza.〞 We included in this review all articles, regardless of design, published in the English language. Given the benefits reported with the use of RA techniques, both for the patient and for healthcare personnel, it has recently been suggested that RA should be considered as the first choice. However, it is important to generate more precise and homogeneous management guidelines based on the evidence obtained every day during the care of patients with COVID-19.

Tips and Tricks to Improve Videolaryngoscopy Skills

Videolaryngoscopes (VLSs) are a promising addition to the difficult airway management armamentarium. These devices utilise video-camera technology to visualise airway structures on a monitor and facilitate endotracheal intubation. They offer an improved view of the glottis without the need for alignment of the oro-pharyngo-laryngeal axes. Today, in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a need for a shift towards a more cautious and circumspect approach towards airway management. Among the aerosol-generating procedures, endotracheal intubation is especially hazardous. Various protocols and guidelines recommend VLSs as the device of choice for intubating COVID-19 patients. It is thus becoming important that airway managers become adept at using various types of VLSs and troubleshoot problems along the way. We have a plethora of these devices with different configurations and shapes. Through this article, we hope to discuss a few practical troubleshooting tips while using different types of VLSs.

MP16-09 SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF TRANSURETHRAL RESECTION OF BLADDER TUMOUR COMPARING SPINAL ANAESTHESIA TO SPINAL ANAESTHESIA WITH AN OBTURATOR NERVE BLOCK: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

You have accessJournal of UrologyBladder Cancer: Non-invasive II (MP16)1 Sep 2021MP16-09 SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF TRANSURETHRAL RESECTION OF BLADDER TUMOUR COMPARING SPINAL ANAESTHESIA TO SPINAL ANAESTHESIA WITH AN OBTURATOR NERVE BLOCK: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS Anil Krishan, Angus Bruce, Shehab Khashaba, Mohamed Abouelela, and Syed Ali Ehsanullah Anil KrishanAnil Krishan More articles by this author , Angus BruceAngus Bruce More articles by this author , Shehab KhashabaShehab Khashaba More articles by this author , Mohamed AbouelelaMohamed Abouelela More articles by this author , and Syed Ali EhsanullahSyed Ali Ehsanullah More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002001.09AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether spinal anaesthesia with an obturator nerve block (SA+ONB) can be effectively employed for transurethral resection of bladder tumours (TURBT) during the COVID-19 pandemic to improve patient outcomes whilst also avoiding aerosol-generating procedures. We aimed to compare outcomes of TURBT using spinal anaesthesia (SA) alone versus SA+ONB in terms of rates of obturator reflex, bladder perforation, incomplete tumour resection, tumour recurrence and local anaesthetic toxicity. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, SCOPUS, Google Scholar and Web of Science), identifying studies comparing the outcomes of TURBT using spinal anaesthesia versus spinal with an obturator nerve block. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies were used to assess the included studies. Random effects modelling was used to calculate pooled outcome data. RESULTS: Searches of electronic databases resulted in 107 articles, from which four randomised control trials (RCTs) and three cohort studies met the eligibility criteria, enrolling a total of 448 patients. The use of spinal anaesthesia with an obturator nerve block was associated with a significantly reduced risk of obturator reflex (p <0.00001), bladder perforation (p=0.02), incomplete resection (p <0.0001) and 12-month tumour recurrence (p=0.005). Obturator nerve block was not associated with an increased risk of local anaesthetic toxicity (0/159). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests that TURBT employing spinal anaesthesia with an obturator nerve block is superior to the use of spinal anaesthesia alone. During the COVID-19 pandemic, where avoidance of aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) such as a general anaesthesia is paramount, the use of an obturator nerve block with spinal anaesthesia is essential for the safety of both patients and staff without compromising care. Further high-quality RCTs with adequate sample sizes are required to compare the different techniques of obturator nerve block as well as comparing this method to general anaesthesia with complete neuromuscular blockade. Source of Funding: Nil © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e299-e300 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Anil Krishan More articles by this author Angus Bruce More articles by this author Shehab Khashaba More articles by this author Mohamed Abouelela More articles by this author Syed Ali Ehsanullah More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...

Drill splatter in orthopaedic procedures and its importance during the COVID-19 pandemic : an experimental study.

AimsDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, drilling has been classified as an aerosol-generating procedure. However, there is limited evidence on the effects of bone drilling on splatter generation. Our aim was to quantify the effect of drilling on splatter generation within the orthopaedic operative setting.MethodsThis study was performed using a Stryker System 7 dual rotating drill at full speed. Two fluid mediums (Videne (Solution 1) and Fluorescein (Solution 2)) were used to simulate drill splatter conditions. Drilling occurred at saw bone level (0 cm) and at different heights (20 cm, 50 cm, and 100 cm) above the target to simulate the surgeon ‘working arm length’, with and without using a drill guide. The furthest droplets were marked and the droplet displacement was measured in cm. A surgical microscope was used to detect microscopic droplets.ResultsBone drilling produced 5 cm and 7 cm droplet displacement using Solutions 1 and 2, respectively. Drilling at 100 cm above the target produced the greatest splatter generation with a 95 cm macroscopic droplet displacement using Solution 2. Microscopic droplet generation was noticed at further distances than what can be macroscopically seen using Solution 1 (98 cm). Using the drill guide, there was negligible drill splatter generation.ConclusionOur study has shown lower than anticipated drill splatter generation. The use of a drill guide acted as a protective measure and significantly reduced drill splatter. We therefore recommend using a drill guide at all times to reduce the risk of viral transmission in the operative setting.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):752–756.

Experience of patients diagnosed as asymptomatic COVID-19 after dental treatment

BackgroundThe potential risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmission from asymptomatic COVID-19 patients is a concern in dental practice. However, the impact of this risk is not well documented to date. This report describes our dental clinical experience with patients who did not exhibit symptoms of COVID-19 but were later confirmed as positive for COVID-19.Case presentationOf the 149,149 patients who visited the outpatient clinic of KNUDH and the 3291 patients who visited the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinic of KNUH, 3 were later confirmed as having COVID-1 between 1 February 2020 and 28 February 2021. Owing to close contact with these patients during their treatments, 46 dental and medical staff had to undergo quarantine from the date of the patients’ confirmation of COVID-19 infection.ConclusionThe presented cases showed the potential existence of asymptomatic COVID-19 patients after dental treatment with aerosol-generating procedures. Clinicians should be aware of the infection prevention measures and try to protect healthcare personnel from secondary infection of COVID-19 during dental treatments.

The Impact of Restarting the High-Risk Procedures for COVID-19 Infection in Dental Practice on the Anxiety of Dental Employees

As SARS-CoV-2 is detected in the infected patients' saliva, dental employees performing aerosol-generating procedures are at high risk of being infected/spreading the infection. This study aimed to assess the impact of restarting the high-risk procedures for COVID-19 infection in dental practice during the pandemic on the anxiety levels of dental employees. All dental employees (dentists, nurses, data entry/cleaning staff) working in a university dental clinic were invited to the study and eighty-one employees (response rate: 97.5%) participated in the study. The volunteers' anxiety was measured consecutively twice with the State-Trait Anxiety Scale: First, on the day prior to restarting the high-risk procedures and the second, on the day these procedures began. Data were analyzed using t tests and the repeated measures ANOVA. The state anxiety level of the dental employees increased significantly on the day that the high risk procedures were restarted (mean 42.6 vs. 49.0, d = 0.6, P < 0.001). Concerning the subgroups, the increase in state anxiety levels was significant for females (t = 3,7; d = 0,8; P < 0.001), dentists working in departments of endodontics and restorative dental care (t = 3,5; d = 0,9; P < 0.001) and nurses (t = 2,8; d = 0,9; P < 0.001). The analysis showed no significant difference in trait anxiety levels between the assessment days (mean 44.0 vs. 44.2, P = 0.9). Restarting the high-risk procedures for COVID-19 infection in dental practice during the pandemic seems to be an extra stressor for dental employees' who already have high anxiety levels during the pandemic.

A descriptive study on Bulgarian preclinical dental students' knowledge and attitude towards coronavirus disease 2019 precautions and cross-infection control practices

BACKGROUND AND AIM: One year after the novel coronavirus pandemic, there is a sustained risk of further global spread and most countries continue to impose preventive measures to mitigate the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The current situation outlined a specific reformulation of dental education in Medical University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria - initial transition of face-to-face classes towards electronic learning (e-learning) processes, and subsequently, a transition from online teaching toward hybrid education. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate preclinical dental students' knowledge and attitude towards COVID-19 precautions as well as crossinfection control strategies. METHODS: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted online on 258 out of 516 preclinical dental students at the School of Dental Medicine, Sofia, using a self-administered questionnaire. Survey items were grouped in 3 general sections: educational experiences, students' knowledge and perceptions of COVID-19 precautions and sources of relevant information as well as students' personal experiences during the current pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 169 students participated in the study (response rate: 65.5%). Of them, 98 (57.9%) were secondyear students, 42.6% were men, and their mean age was 21 +/- 1 years. Almost one-third of the participants indicated violation of disinfection and sterilization protocols (28.9%) and the presence of aerosol-generating procedures (27.2%) as the most important COVID-19 predisposing factors in dental practice. Vaccination was suggested as the most effective way of prevention against the COVID-19. Proposed infection control practices included strict cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization (87.6%), personal protective equipment (PPE) (85.8%), frequent ventilation (53.3%), and treatment after a negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (or other) test (46.2%). Social media was considered as the main source for pandemic-related information (68.0%). CONCLUSION: In the light of COVID-19, dental students demonstrated a satisfactory level of knowledge regarding standard precautions in dental practice;however, more attention should be paid to additional transmission-based precautions to ensure the safety of educational and working environment.

Laryngology/Broncho‐Esophagology

Session Description: A landmark study found that in intensive care units (ICUs), tracheostomy incidents accounted for up to half of all airway-related deaths and hypoxic brain damage. Multidisciplinary adult and pediatric tracheostomy teams have achieved dramatic reductions in adverse events and improved patient outcomes, but dissemination of highly reliable practices has lagged. This panel addresses this gap by providing a strategy for rapid performance improvement with specific building blocks for enhancing care. Five key drivers-multidisciplinary ward rounds, standardized protocols, interdisciplinary education and staff allocation, patient and family involvement, and using data to drive improvement-can result in transformative change. We present data from 4 institutions, providing turnkey solutions and lessons learned from the creation of teams. We cover from the index procedure to decannulation and discharge, discussing obstacles encountered and how they are overcome. After presenting institution-level experience, we report on the largest implementation of these principles to date, drawing on prospectively captured patient-level global data from nearly 10,000 cases. We take a deep dive into a 3-year-long, 20-hospitalwide multipronged implementation that involved mixedmethods analysis, data tracking, and benchmarking to demonstrate powerful, statistically significant effects of reducing hospital and ICU length of stay, ventilator duration, time to cuff deflation, time to first vocalization, time to first oral intake, prevalence of anxiety and depression, and cost savings, projected at >$15,000 per patient. While heterogeneity is a defining feature of tracheostomy, we demonstrate how across age and geographies, multidisciplinary teams are a game changer in tracheostomy care. In addition, the imperatives of the COVID-19 pandemic have necessitated additional measures in relation to aerosol-generating procedures. We curate salient data and present practical evidence-based recommendations. Outcome Objectives: (1) Present building blocks and discuss obstacles to creating a multidisciplinary tracheostomy care team. (2) Leverage data-science and ongoing efforts to improve tracheostomy outcomes. (3) Compare the approaches of different hospital systems in the creation of tracheostomy care teams in the context of COVID-19.

Predictors of COVID-19 among Healthcare Workers who were Exposed to COVID-19

SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted via the inhalation of infected droplets or through direct contact with contaminated surfaces. Aerosol-generating procedures can also lead to airborne transmission. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at higher risks for infections than the general (...)

Environmental contamination and personal protective equipment contamination with SARS-CoV-2 virus in a real-life clinical setting.

The importance of SARS-CoV-2 transmission via contact routes and its stability on surfaces is becoming increasingly recognised. There is ongoing concern that patients can become infected through person-to-person spread and environment-to-person spread. This study assessed whether SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA can be detected in the environment either on staff members' personal protective equipment (PPE), on high-touch surfaces or around the bedspace of COVID-19-positive patients in a range of different ward settings to evaluate if there was any contamination of these. Results showed all PPE and high-touch surface swabs were negative. All swabs taken in the negative-pressure room where aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were being undertaken detected viral RNA (5/5 positive), whereas there was minimal contamination in the intensive therapy unit (1/5 positive) and none detected in the cohort bay. These findings would be consistent with the understanding that areas where AGPs are regularly performed are at higher risk of environmental contamination.

Ultrasonic scaling in COVID‐era dentistry: A quantitative assessment of aerosol spread during simulated and clinical ultrasonic scaling procedures

ObjectiveHealthcare agencies recommend limited use of aerosol‐generating procedures to mitigate disease (COVID‐19) transmission. However, total dispersion patterns of aerosols, particularly respirable droplets, via dental ultrasonic units is unclear. The purpose of this study was to characterize and map total spatter, droplet and aerosol dispersion during ultrasonic scaling in simulated and clinical contexts.MethodsUltrasonic scaling was performed on dental simulation units using methylene blue dye‐stained water. All resultant stain profiles were photoanalysed to calculate droplet size and travel distance/direction. Airborne particle concentrations were also documented 0–1.2 m (0–4ft.) and 1.2–2.4 m (4–8ft.) from patients during in vivo ultrasonic scaling with a saliva ejector.ResultsStain profiles showed droplets between 25 and 50µm in diameter were most common, with smaller droplets closer to the mouth. In‐vivo particle concentrations were uniformly low. The smallest (<1 µm, PM1) and largest (>10 µm, PM10+) particles were most common, especially within 1.2 m (4ft.) of the patient. Respirable particles (PM2.5) were uncommon.ConclusionsTests showed the highest concentration of small droplets in zones nearest the patient. While uncommon, particles were detected up to 2.4 m (8ft.) away. Furthermore, observed particle sizes were consistent with those that can carry infectious agents. Efforts to mitigate the spread of inhalable aerosols should emphasize proximate regions nearest the procedure, including personal protective equipment and the use of evacuation devices.

Fallow time determination in dentistry using aerosol measurement in mechanically and non-mechanically ventilated environments.

Aim To calculate fallow time (FT) required following dental aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) in both a dental hospital (mechanically ventilated) and primary care (non-mechanically ventilated). Secondary outcomes were to identify spread and persistence of aerosol in open clinics compared to closed surgeries (mechanically ventilated environment), and identify if extraoral scavenging (EOS) reduces FT and production of aerosol.Methods In vitro simulation of fast handpiece cavity preparations using a manikin was conducted in a mechanically and non-mechanically ventilated environment using Optical Particle Sizer and NanoScan at baseline, during the procedure and fallow period.Results AGPs carried out in the non-mechanically, non-ventilated environment failed to achieve baseline particle levels after one hour. In contrast, when windows were opened after AGPs, there was an immediate reduction in all particle sizes. In mechanically ventilated environments, the baseline levels of particles were very low and particle count returned to baseline within ten minutes following the AGP. There was no detectable difference between particles in mechanically ventilated open bays and closed surgeries. The effect of the EOS on reducing the particle count was greater in the non-mechanically ventilated environment; additionally, it also reduced the spikes in particle counts in mechanically ventilated environments.Conclusion High-efficiency particulate, air-filtered mechanical ventilation, along with mitigation (high-volume suction), resulted in reduction of fallow time (ten minutes). Non-ventilated rooms failed to reach baseline level even after one hour of fallow time. There was no difference in particle counts in open bays or closed surgeries in mechanically ventilated settings with an extraoral suction device reducing particulate spikes. This study confirms that AGPs are not recommended in dental surgeries where no ventilation is possible.

Feasibility of Prehospital Emergency Anesthesia in the Cabin of an AW169 Helicopter Wearing Personal Protective Equipment During Coronavirus Disease 2019

ObjectivePrehospital emergency anesthesia in the form of rapid sequence intubation (RSI) is a critical intervention delivered by advanced prehospital critical care teams. Our previous simulation study determined the feasibility of in-aircraft RSI. We now examine whether this feasibility is preserved in a simulated setting when clinicians wear personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) for in-aircraft, on-the-ground RSI. MethodsAir Ambulance Kent Surrey Sussex is a helicopter emergency medical service that uses an AW169 cabin simulator. Wearing full AGP PPE (eye protection, FFP3 mask, gown, and gloves), 10 doctor-paramedic teams performed RSI in a standard “can intubate, can ventilate” scenario and a “can't intubate, can't oxygenate” (CICO) scenario. Prespecified timings were reported, and participant feedback was sought by questionnaire. ResultsRSI was most commonly performed by direct laryngoscopy and was successfully achieved in all scenarios. The time to completed endotracheal intubation (ETI) was fastest (287 seconds) in the standard scenario and slower (370 seconds, P = .01) in the CICO scenario. The time to ETI was not significantly delayed by wearing PPE in the standard (P = .19) or CICO variant (P = .97). Communication challenges, equipment complications, and PPE difficulties were reported, but ways to mitigate these were also reported. ConclusionIn-aircraft RSI (aircraft on the ground) while wearing PPE for AGPs had no significant impact on the time to successful completion of ETI in a simulated setting. Patient safety is paramount in civilian helicopter emergency medical services, but the adoption of in-aircraft RSI could confer significant patient benefit in terms of prehospital time savings, and further research is warranted.