Literature DB >> 34728573

Are aerosols generated during lung function testing in patients and healthy volunteers? Results from the AERATOR study.

Nicholas A Maskell1,2, James William Dodd3, Sadiyah Sheikh4, Fergus W Hamilton5,6,7, George W Nava8, Florence K A Gregson4, David T Arnold8, Colleen Riley9, Jules Brown10, Jonathan P Reid4, Bryan R Bzdek4.   

Abstract

Pulmonary function tests are fundamental to the diagnosis and monitoring of respiratory diseases. There is uncertainty around whether potentially infectious aerosols are produced during testing and there are limited data on mitigation strategies to reduce risk to staff. Healthy volunteers and patients with lung disease underwent standardised spirometry, peak flow and FENO assessments. Aerosol number concentration was sampled using an aerodynamic particle sizer and an optical particle sizer. Measured aerosol concentrations were compared with breathing, speaking and voluntary coughing. Mitigation strategies included a standard viral filter and a full-face mask normally used for exercise testing (to mitigate induced coughing). 147 measures were collected from 33 healthy volunteers and 10 patients with lung disease. The aerosol number concentration was highest in coughs (1.45-1.61 particles/cm3), followed by unfiltered peak flow (0.37-0.76 particles/cm3). Addition of a viral filter to peak flow reduced aerosol emission by a factor of 10 without affecting the results. On average, coughs produced 22 times more aerosols than standard spirometry (with filter) in patients and 56 times more aerosols in healthy volunteers. FENO measurement produced negligible aerosols. Cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) masks reduced aerosol emission when breathing, speaking and coughing significantly. Lung function testing produces less aerosols than voluntary coughing. CPET masks may be used to reduce aerosol emission from induced coughing. Standard viral filters are sufficiently effective to allow guidelines to remove lung function testing from the list of aerosol-generating procedures. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  infection control; respiratory infection; respiratory measurement

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34728573     DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-217671

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Thorax        ISSN: 0040-6376            Impact factor:   9.139


  5 in total

Review 1.  Aerosol-generating procedures and the anaesthetist.

Authors:  C Pope; W Harrop-Griffiths; J Brown
Journal:  BJA Educ       Date:  2021-12-21

Review 2.  Re-opening the pediatric pulmonary function laboratory during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Larry C Lands
Journal:  Paediatr Respir Rev       Date:  2022-01-11       Impact factor: 5.526

Review 3.  Pulmonary function testing during SARS-CoV-2: An ANZSRS/TSANZ position statement.

Authors:  Brigitte M Borg; Christian Osadnik; Keith Adam; David G Chapman; Catherine E Farrow; Vanda Glavas; Kerry Hancock; Celia J Lanteri; Ewan G Morris; Nicholas Romeo; Elena K Schneider-Futschik; Hiran Selvadurai
Journal:  Respirology       Date:  2022-08-10       Impact factor: 6.175

Review 4.  The use of aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) during the COVID-19 pandemic in the diagnosis of lung cancer: a narrative review.

Authors:  Siyamini Vythilingam; Matthew Quint; Richard Newsom; Alexander Hicks
Journal:  Mediastinum       Date:  2021-09-25

5.  A clinical observational analysis of aerosol emissions from dental procedures.

Authors:  Tom Dudding; Sadiyah Sheikh; Florence Gregson; Jennifer Haworth; Simon Haworth; Barry G Main; Andrew J Shrimpton; Fergus W Hamilton; Anthony J Ireland; Nick A Maskell; Jonathan P Reid; Bryan R Bzdek; Mark Gormley
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-03-10       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.