Literature DB >> 32302444

Skin reactions to non-glove personal protective equipment: an emerging issue in the COVID-19 pandemic.

M Gheisari1,2, F Araghi1, H Moravvej1, M Tabary3, S Dadkhahfar1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32302444      PMCID: PMC7264802          DOI: 10.1111/jdv.16492

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol        ISSN: 0926-9959            Impact factor:   9.228


× No keyword cloud information.
To Editor Protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) is crucial during Corona Virus Disease 2019 pandemic and requires wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). While most of the studies have focused on the skin reactions caused by gloves, other PPE such as gowns, respirator masks, face shields and goggles are also worn by HCWs for long hours during the current epidemic and skin irritations caused by these equipment may cause discouragement of health workers from using them. In this letter, we have focused on the reaction caused by non‐glove PPE. The N95 respirator masks are made of polypropylene fabric processed by a non‐woven technology and should fit tightly to the face to be effective. The study by Foo et al. revealed that 35.5% of the staff who used N95 masks regularly experienced acne, facial dermatitis and pigmentation of nasal bridge, cheeks and chin. In this study, acne was one of the most prevalent skin reactions related to the use of N95 respirator masks. The dermatitis that often presented with pruritic skin lesions was mostly irritant type but allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) due to adhesives or other parts of the respirator masks such as rubber straps and metal clips was also reported. Several factors including humidity, warm environment and occlusion due to local pressures could explain the exacerbation of these conditions. In another study by Donovan et al., on the possible N95 mask reactions during the SARS epidemic in Toronto, urticarial facial eruption was reported in three patients, dermatitis in five patients and acute respiratory symptoms without skin lesions in two patients. Pressure effect on the nose has also been reported as one of the 15 delphi measures that discouraged HCWs to use N95 respirator masks. Goggles have been used routinely to protect HCWs against highly infectious diseases related to exposure to contaminated body fluids. Heat and dehydration were major complications of both goggles and face shields application during the Ebola outbreak. Other dermatologic side‐effects such as pressure injury, contact dermatitis, urticaria, xerosis and aggravation of underlying dermatosis might occur due to the impairment of the skin integrity during mechanical trauma of goggles. A study by Lan et al., revealed that 87.9% of HCWs, who were wearing goggles for more than 6 h, developed skin reactions on their nasal bridge. Skin reactions such as acne, ACD and irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) were mentioned following the use of goggles in HCWs. Occlusion and friction were mentioned as the underlying mechanism. Wearing gowns and coveralls may cause heat stress and dehydration. Skin reactions due to the clothing, which are made of natural and synthetic untreated fabrics, are rare. However, additive chemicals and dye fibres might be the main reason of ICD and ACD. Skin dermatoses are mostly developed where the gowns adhere tightly to the skin. Friction, moisture and warmth of those regions might increase the risk of ACD. In the study by Foo et al., four (1.6%) out of 258 cases developed adverse skin reactions related to the repetitive wearing of disposable gowns for average time of 6.2 h during a mean period of 8.8 months in the SARS epidemic in Singapore. Itching and wrist rashes were the most frequent reactions, while pruritus without skin lesions was also observed in one case. In Toronto SARS epidemic, there were reports of developing ACD due to the reaction to formaldehyde textiles and resin in gowns. Avoiding over‐tight gowns and sufficient ingestion of liquids are of paramount importance for HCWs to preserve a balance between self‐protection and the ability to care for patients efficiently, while wearing PPE. Skin reactions to personal protective equipment and management strategies are depicted in Fig. 1.
Figure 1

Adverse skin reaction to personal protective equipment and management strategies.

Adverse skin reaction to personal protective equipment and management strategies.

Acknowledgement

The patients in this manuscript have given written informed consent to publication of their case details.
  9 in total

Review 1.  Formaldehyde as a textile allergen.

Authors:  Joseph F Fowler
Journal:  Curr Probl Dermatol       Date:  2003

2.  Allergic contact dermatitis from formaldehyde textile resins in surgical uniforms and nonwoven textile masks.

Authors:  Jeff Donovan; Sandy Skotnicki-Grant
Journal:  Dermatitis       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 4.845

Review 3.  A review of non-glove personal protective equipment-related occupational dermatoses reported to EPIDERM between 1993 and 2013.

Authors:  Bevin Bhoyrul; Kamalini Lecamwasam; Mark Wilkinson; Faheem Latheef; Susan J Stocks; Raymond Agius; Melanie Carder
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  2019-01-10       Impact factor: 6.600

4.  Effective factors on not using the N95 respirators among health care workers: Application of Fuzzy Delphi and Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP).

Authors:  Marzieh Honarbakhsh; Mehdi Jahangiri; Payam Farhadi
Journal:  J Healthc Risk Manag       Date:  2017-09-21

5.  Incorporating health workers' perspectives into a WHO guideline on personal protective equipment developed during an Ebola virus disease outbreak.

Authors:  Saskia Den Boon; Constanza Vallenas; Mauricio Ferri; Susan L Norris
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2018-01-11

6.  Protecting Chinese healthcare workers while combating the 2019 novel coronavirus.

Authors:  Pengcheng Zhou; Zebing Huang; Yinzong Xiao; Xun Huang; Xue-Gong Fan
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 3.254

7.  Adverse skin reactions to personal protective equipment against severe acute respiratory syndrome--a descriptive study in Singapore.

Authors:  Chris C I Foo; Anthony T J Goon; Yung-Hian Leow; Chee-Leok Goh
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 6.600

8.  Consensus of Chinese experts on protection of skin and mucous membrane barrier for health-care workers fighting against coronavirus disease 2019.

Authors:  Yicen Yan; Hui Chen; Liuqing Chen; Bo Cheng; Ping Diao; Liyun Dong; Xinghua Gao; Heng Gu; Li He; Chao Ji; Hongzhong Jin; Wei Lai; Tiechi Lei; Li Li; Liuyi Li; Ruoyu Li; Dongxian Liu; Wei Liu; Qianjin Lu; Ying Shi; Jiquan Song; Juan Tao; Baoxi Wang; Gang Wang; Yan Wu; Leihong Xiang; Jun Xie; Jinhua Xu; Zhirong Yao; Furen Zhang; Jianzhong Zhang; Shaomin Zhong; Hengjin Li; Hang Li
Journal:  Dermatol Ther       Date:  2020-03-29       Impact factor: 2.851

9.  Reply to: "Skin damage among health care workers managing coronavirus disease-2019".

Authors:  Teresa Oranges; Agata Janowska; Valentina Dini
Journal:  J Am Acad Dermatol       Date:  2020-04-10       Impact factor: 11.527

  9 in total
  32 in total

Review 1.  COVID-19 and dermatological personal protective equipment considerations.

Authors:  Travis S Dowdle; Mallory Thompson; Mahmud Alkul; Jeannie M Nguyen; Ashley L E Sturgeon
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2021-03-23

2.  Mask-induced skin changes during COVID pandemic: A cross-sectional web-based survey among physicians in a tertiary care teaching hospital.

Authors:  Gaurav Dash; Nibedita Patro; Binayak Chandra Dwari; Kumar Abhisekh
Journal:  J Cosmet Dermatol       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 2.189

Review 3.  COVID-19: What are the challenges for NHS surgery?

Authors:  Natasha L Wielogórska; Chidi C Ekwobi
Journal:  Curr Probl Surg       Date:  2020-07-02       Impact factor: 1.909

4.  Status of occupational protection in the COVID-19 Fangcang Shelter Hospital in Wuhan, China.

Authors:  Min Zhang; Lili Wang; Siyuan Yu; Guixin Sun; Han Lei; Wenjuan Wu
Journal:  Emerg Microbes Infect       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 7.163

Review 5.  Skin disorders associated with the COVID-19 pandemic: A review.

Authors:  Jennifer Akl; Jessica El-Kehdy; Antoine Salloum; Anthony Benedetto; Paula Karam
Journal:  J Cosmet Dermatol       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 2.189

6.  COVID-19 lockdown induced acral dermatosis in children.

Authors:  N Bodak; C Chiaverini; S Barbarot
Journal:  J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol       Date:  2020-08-26       Impact factor: 9.228

7.  Skin changes attributed to protective measures against COVID-19: A compilation.

Authors:  Anupam Das; Satarupa Kumar; Abheek Sil; Mohammad Jafferany
Journal:  Dermatol Ther       Date:  2020-07-10       Impact factor: 3.858

8.  Increased flare of acne caused by long-time mask wearing during COVID-19 pandemic among general population.

Authors:  Changxu Han; Jialiang Shi; Yan Chen; Zhenying Zhang
Journal:  Dermatol Ther       Date:  2020-07-02       Impact factor: 3.858

9.  Where do we stand as dermatologists in combat with COVID-19.

Authors:  Mohamad Goldust; Swathi Shivakumar; George Kroumpouzos; Dedee F Murrell; Simon M Mueller; Alexander A Navarini
Journal:  Dermatol Ther       Date:  2020-06-23       Impact factor: 3.858

Review 10.  Are the cutaneous manifestations during or due to SARS-CoV-2 infection/COVID-19 frequent or not? Revision of possible pathophysiologic mechanisms.

Authors:  Paulo Ricardo Criado; Beatrice Martinez Zugaib Abdalla; Isabelle Carvalho de Assis; Cristina van Blarcum de Graaff Mello; Gabriela Cacciolari Caputo; Ingrid Campos Vieira
Journal:  Inflamm Res       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 6.986

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.