Russell K Gore1,2, Christopher Saldana3, David W Wright4, Adam M Klein5. 1. Department of Biomedical EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaGA30332USA. 2. Shepherd CenterAtlantaGA30309USA. 3. Department of Mechanical EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaGA30332USA. 4. Department of Emergency MedicineEmory UniversityAtlantaGA30322USA. 5. Department of OtolaryngologyEmory UniversityAtlantaGA30322USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Worldwide efforts to protect front line providers performing endotracheal intubation during the COVID-19 pandemic have led to innovative devices. Authors evaluated the aerosol containment effectiveness of a novel intubation aerosol containment system (IACS) compared with a recently promoted intubation box and no protective barrier. METHODS: In a simulation center at the authors' university, the IACS was compared to no protective barrier and an intubation box. Aerosolization was simulated using a commercial fog machine and leakage of aerosolize mist was visually assessed. RESULTS: The IACS appeared to contain the aerosolized mist, while the intubation box allowed for mist to contact the laryngoscopist and contaminate the clinical space through arm port holes and the open caudal end. Both devices protected the laryngoscopist better than no protective barrier. DISCUSSION: The IACS with integrated sleeves and plastic drape appears to offer superior protection for the laryngoscopist and assistant providers from aerosolized particles.
OBJECTIVES: Worldwide efforts to protect front line providers performing endotracheal intubation during the COVID-19 pandemic have led to innovative devices. Authors evaluated the aerosol containment effectiveness of a novel intubation aerosol containment system (IACS) compared with a recently promoted intubation box and no protective barrier. METHODS: In a simulation center at the authors' university, the IACS was compared to no protective barrier and an intubation box. Aerosolization was simulated using a commercial fog machine and leakage of aerosolize mist was visually assessed. RESULTS: The IACS appeared to contain the aerosolized mist, while the intubation box allowed for mist to contact the laryngoscopist and contaminate the clinical space through arm port holes and the open caudal end. Both devices protected the laryngoscopist better than no protective barrier. DISCUSSION: The IACS with integrated sleeves and plastic drape appears to offer superior protection for the laryngoscopist and assistant providers from aerosolized particles.
Entities:
Keywords:
Personal protective equipment; aerosols; biohazard containment; endotracheal intubation; resuscitation
Authors: Juan Silvestre G Pascual; Katrina Hannah D Ignacio; Michelle Regina L Castillo; Kathleen Joy O Khu Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2021-12-11 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Anna Q Yaffee; Elizabeth Peacock; Roslyn Seitz; George Hughes; Philip Haun; Michael Ross; Tim P Moran; Andrew Pendley; Nataisia Terry; David W Wright Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2020-09-25
Authors: Massimiliano Sorbello; William Rosenblatt; Ross Hofmeyr; Robert Greif; Felipe Urdaneta Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2020-09-03 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Nora Colman; Christopher Saldana; Kentez Craig; Nicole Edwards; Jennifer McGough; Carrie Mason; Kiran B Hebbar Journal: Pediatr Qual Saf Date: 2021-07-28