Literature DB >> 33003954

Effect of Face Masks on Gas Exchange in Healthy Persons and Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Rajesh Samannan1, Gregory Holt2,3, Rafael Calderon-Candelario2,3, Mehdi Mirsaeidi2,3, Michael Campos2,3.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33003954      PMCID: PMC7919152          DOI: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202007-812RL

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc        ISSN: 2325-6621


× No keyword cloud information.
To the Editor: Current evidence, from observational studies to systematic reviews and epidemiologic modeling, supports the use of masks by the public, especially surgical masks, for mitigating coronavirus disease (COVID-19) transmission and deaths (1–5). However, public mask use has been heavily politicized with inconsistent recommendations by authorities leading to divided public opinion. Despite evidence to the contrary, an online UK/U.S. survey found that only 29.7–37.8% of participants thought that wearing a surgical mask was “highly effective” in protecting them from acquiring COVID-19 (6). Another reason commonly argued against mask use involves safety concerns, as mask discomfort has been attributed to rebreathing CO2 and hypoxemia, with some even considering that masks are lethal (7).

Objective

To evaluate whether gas exchange abnormalities occur with the use of surgical masks in subjects with and without lung function impairment.

Methods and Findings

To demonstrate the changes in end-tidal CO2 and oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry before and after wearing a surgical mask, we used a convenience sample of 15 house staff physicians without lung conditions (aged 31.1 ± 1.9 yr, 60% male) and 15 veterans with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (aged 71.6 ± 8.7 yr, forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] 44.0 ± 22.2%, 100% male). The patients needed to have a postbronchodilator FEV1 <50% and FEV1/forced vital capacity <0.7 and were enrolled from the pulmonary function laboratory during a scheduled 6-minute walk test ordered to assess the need for supplemental oxygen. In our institution, the 6-minute walk tests are done with arterial blood analysis before and immediately after the walk to assess the need for long-term oxygen. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the 6-minute walk tests are done with subjects using a surgical mask. As this was a clinical observation study, exemption from the local institutional review board was obtained. Baseline measures on room air without a mask were performed noninvasively using a Life Sense monitor (model Ls1-9R; Nonin Medical), followed by continuous monitoring using a surgical mask. At 5 and 30 minutes, no major changes in end-tidal CO2 or oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry of clinical significance were noted at any time point in either group at rest (Table 1). With the 6-minute walk, subjects with severe COPD decreased oxygenation as expected (with two qualifying for supplemental oxygen). However, as a group, subjects with COPD did not exhibit major physiologic changes in gas exchange measurements after the 6-minute walk test using a surgical mask, particularly in CO2 retention.
Table 1.

Physiologic parameters measured in study volunteers before and after surgical mask use

 HR
RR
SpO2
ETCO2
Po2 (mm Hg)Pco2 (mm Hg)
min−1)min−1)(%)(mm Hg)
Healthy house staff*
 Baseline values without mask on room air72.5 ± 10.0 (61 to 88)17.2 ± 2.5 (13 to 21)97.5 ± 1.2 (95 to 100)36.2 ± 2.3 (31 to 40)NPNP
 Change from baseline      
  Surgical mask at 5 min at rest0.50 ± 3.8 (−5.0 to 6.0)0.52 ± 0.5 (0 to 2.0)−0.28 ± 0.7 (−1 to 1)1.06 ± 1.1 (0.8 to 2.5)NPNP
  Surgical mask at 30 min at rest−0.64 ± 5.4 (−9.0 to 10.0)1.13 ± 1.4 (−1.0 to 3.0)0.10 ± 0.6 (−1 to 1)0.75 ± 1.0 (0.6 to 2.1)NPNP
Subjects with severe COPD
 Baseline values without mask on room air86.0 ± 9.8 (72 to 103)20.5 ± 5.4 (12 to 35)91.3 ± 5.8 (89 to 97)36.1 ± 3.3 (29.7 to 43.6)77.2 ± 15.1 (54.4 to 99.6)38.9 ± 5.6 (30.6 to 50.2)
 Change from baseline      
  Surgical mask at 5 min at rest−1.83 ± 4.1 (−8.0 to 5.0)−0.12 ± 3.8 (−6.0 to 4.0)0.35 ± 1.4 (−1.0 to 3.0)−1.67 ± 3.9 (−12.0 to 6.0)NPNP
  Surgical mask at 30 min at rest and before 6MWT−2.13 ± 6.4 (−14.0 to 8.0)1.03 ± 5.0 (−7.0 to 9.0)0.87 ± 2.1 (−2.0 to 5.0)−1.63 ± 4.3 (−10.0 to 4.0)NPNP
  Surgical mask after 30 min rest and after 6MWT11.00 ± 12.0 (−3.0 to 39.0)3.30 ± 6.2 (−3.0 to18.0)−2.28 ± 7.3 (−19.0 to 5.0)−0.14 ± 5.6 (−9.0 to 7.0)−4.6 ± 13.9 (−15.9 to 27.8)0.97 ± 2.4 (−2.8 to 5.3)

Definition of abbreviations: 6MWT = 6-minute walk test; COPD = chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; ETCO = end-tidal carbon dioxide; HR = heart rate; NP = not performed; Pco2 = carbon dioxide tension/partial pressure; Po2 = oxygen pressure/tension; RR = respiratory rate; SpO = oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry.

Values shown as mean ± standard deviation (range).

N = 15.

N = 15.

Physiologic parameters measured in study volunteers before and after surgical mask use Definition of abbreviations: 6MWT = 6-minute walk test; COPD = chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; ETCO = end-tidal carbon dioxide; HR = heart rate; NP = not performed; Pco2 = carbon dioxide tension/partial pressure; Po2 = oxygen pressure/tension; RR = respiratory rate; SpO = oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry. Values shown as mean ± standard deviation (range). N = 15. N = 15.

Discussion

Although we did not measure changes in tidal volume or minute ventilation, these data find that gas exchange is not significantly affected by the use of surgical mask, even in subjects with severe lung impairment. Our results agree with a prior observation on 20 healthy volunteers using a surgical mask for 1 hour during moderate work rates, in which mild increases in physiological responses also deemed to be of no clinical significance were observed (8). The discomfort felt with surgical mask use has been ascribed to neurological reactions (increased afferent impulses from the highly thermosensitive area of the face covered by the mask or from the increased temperature of the inspired air) or associated psychological phenomena such as anxiety, claustrophobia, or affective responses to perceived difficulty in breathing (8). These findings are in contrast to the use of N-95 masks, in which carbon dioxide tension/partial pressure (Pco2) may increase in lung-healthy users but without major physiologic burden (9). We did not intend to compare healthy versus diseased individuals but rather aimed to assess the effect of using a surgical mask in two distinct populations. We acknowledge that our observations may be limited by sample size; however, our population offers a clear signal on the nil effect of surgical masks on relevant physiological changes in gas exchange under routine circumstances (prolonged rest, brief walking). Other studies studying surgical or N-95 masks have used samples of 6–10 individuals per group (8–11). We focused on subjects with severe COPD because they are at a higher risk of CO2 retention compared with subjects with COPD of milder severity or other pulmonary conditions. As shown, we observed a small drop in oxygen pressure/tension in this group, expected based on their disease severity, but not a rise in Pco2 after walking. An ideal setting would have been to allow these individuals to walk without a mask; however, because of the current epidemic, this was not allowed in our institution at the time of the evaluation. The nature of our veteran population precluded us from enrolling women with COPD; however, we do not expect major sex-related physiologic responses when using a surgical mask. It is important to inform the public that the discomfort associated with mask use should not lead to unsubstantiated safety concerns as this may attenuate the application of a practice proved to improve public health. As growing evidence indicates that asymptomatic individuals can fuel the spread of COVID-19 (12), universal mask use needs to be vigorously enforced in community settings, particularly now that we are facing a pandemic with minimal proven therapeutic interventions. We believe our data will help mitigate fears about the health risks of surgical mask use and improve public confidence for more widespread acceptance and use.
  11 in total

1.  Physiological impact of the N95 filtering facepiece respirator on healthcare workers.

Authors:  Raymond J Roberge; Aitor Coca; W Jon Williams; Jeffrey B Powell; Andrew J Palmiero
Journal:  Respir Care       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 2.258

2.  Surgical mask placement over N95 filtering facepiece respirators: physiological effects on healthcare workers.

Authors:  Raymond J Roberge; Aitor Coca; W Jon Williams; Andrew J Palmiero; Jeffrey B Powell
Journal:  Respirology       Date:  2010-03-11       Impact factor: 6.424

3.  Absence of consequential changes in physiological, thermal and subjective responses from wearing a surgical mask.

Authors:  Raymond J Roberge; Jung-Hyun Kim; Stacey M Benson
Journal:  Respir Physiol Neurobiol       Date:  2012-02-02       Impact factor: 1.931

4.  Evaluation of N95 respirator use with a surgical mask cover: effects on breathing resistance and inhaled carbon dioxide.

Authors:  Edward James Sinkule; Jeffrey Bryon Powell; Fredric Lee Goss
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2012-10-29

Review 5.  Community Use Of Face Masks And COVID-19: Evidence From A Natural Experiment Of State Mandates In The US.

Authors:  Wei Lyu; George L Wehby
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2020-06-16       Impact factor: 6.301

6.  Face masks for the public during the covid-19 crisis.

Authors:  Trisha Greenhalgh; Manuel B Schmid; Thomas Czypionka; Dirk Bassler; Laurence Gruer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2020-04-09

7.  To mask or not to mask: Modeling the potential for face mask use by the general public to curtail the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Steffen E Eikenberry; Marina Mancuso; Enahoro Iboi; Tin Phan; Keenan Eikenberry; Yang Kuang; Eric Kostelich; Abba B Gumel
Journal:  Infect Dis Model       Date:  2020-04-21

8.  Use of Rapid Online Surveys to Assess People's Perceptions During Infectious Disease Outbreaks: A Cross-sectional Survey on COVID-19.

Authors:  Pascal Geldsetzer
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2020-04-02       Impact factor: 5.428

9.  Substantial undocumented infection facilitates the rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2).

Authors:  Ruiyun Li; Sen Pei; Bin Chen; Yimeng Song; Tao Zhang; Wan Yang; Jeffrey Shaman
Journal:  Science       Date:  2020-03-16       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Face mask use in the general population and optimal resource allocation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Colin J Worby; Hsiao-Han Chang
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2020-08-13       Impact factor: 14.919

View more
  30 in total

Review 1.  Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?

Authors:  Kai Kisielinski; Paul Giboni; Andreas Prescher; Bernd Klosterhalfen; David Graessel; Stefan Funken; Oliver Kempski; Oliver Hirsch
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-04-20       Impact factor: 3.390

2.  Decrease in Exacerbations During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic in a Cohort of Veterans with COPD.

Authors:  Christian Trujillo; Brian Garnet; Ali Vaeli Zadeh; Gisel Urdaneta; Michael Campos
Journal:  Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis       Date:  2021-10-28

3.  The Physiological Effects of Face Masks During Exercise Worn Due to COVID-19: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Iván Asín-Izquierdo; Eva Ruiz-Ranz; Marta Arévalo-Baeza
Journal:  Sports Health       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 4.355

4.  Effects of Wearing Face Masks on Cardiorespiratory Parameters at Rest and after Performing the Six-Minute Walk Test in Older Adults.

Authors:  Patchareeya Amput; Sirima Wongphon
Journal:  Geriatrics (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-07

5.  Investigating the Effects of Protective Face Masks on the Respiratory Parameters of Children in the Postanesthesia Care Unit During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Authors:  Burhan Dost; Özgür Kömürcü; Sezgin Bilgin; Hilal Dökmeci; Özlem Terzi; Sibel Barış
Journal:  J Perianesth Nurs       Date:  2021-02-11       Impact factor: 1.084

6.  Wearing a surgical mask: Effects on gas exchange and hemodynamic responses during maximal exercise.

Authors:  Büşra Alkan; Sevgi Özalevli; Özlem A Sert
Journal:  Clin Physiol Funct Imaging       Date:  2022-05-02       Impact factor: 2.121

Review 7.  The perspective of fluid flow behavior of respiratory droplets and aerosols through the facemasks in context of SARS-CoV-2.

Authors:  Sanjay Kumar; Heow Pueh Lee
Journal:  Phys Fluids (1994)       Date:  2020-11-01       Impact factor: 3.521

8.  Effectiveness of Mask Wearing to Control Community Spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Authors:  John T Brooks; Jay C Butler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2021-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 9.  The Physiological Impact of Masking Is Insignificant and Should Not Preclude Routine Use During Daily Activities, Exercise, and Rehabilitation.

Authors:  Rebecca H Haraf; Mark A Faghy; Brian Carlin; Richard A Josephson
Journal:  J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 3.646

Review 10.  Face Masks and the Cardiorespiratory Response to Physical Activity in Health and Disease.

Authors:  Susan R Hopkins; Paolo B Dominelli; Christopher K Davis; Jordan A Guenette; Andrew M Luks; Yannick Molgat-Seon; Rui Carlos Sá; A William Sheel; Erik R Swenson; Michael K Stickland
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2021-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.