scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Circuit Set-ups to Reduce Virus Aerosolization During Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation: Dancing in the Dark.

01 Jul 2021-Chest (Elsevier)-Vol. 160, Iss: 1, pp 13-14
About: This article is published in Chest.The article was published on 2021-07-01 and is currently open access. It has received None citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Aerosolization.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Coughs and sneezes disperse a large number of droplets of varying size into the environment, and they transmit respiratory viral infections by direct or indirect physical contact, by droplets or inhalation of fine particulate droplet nuclei.
Abstract: Coughs and sneezes disperse a large number of droplets of varying size into the environment, and they transmit respiratory viral infections by direct or indirect physical contact, by droplets or inhalation of fine particulate droplet nuclei. Larger droplets in the cloud produced by coughing and sneezing settle quickly, and the force with which they are expelled determines how far they are dispersed. The respiratory droplets evaporate to form smaller droplet nuclei that carry infectious agents, remain suspended in air, and susceptible individuals farther away from the source could inhale them. The particle size distribution within the multi-phase cloud produced by coughs/sneezes changes with time and distance from the source depending on several environmental factors. After inhalation, larger respiratory droplets are filtered by the nose or deposit in the oropharynx, whereas smaller droplet nuclei are carried by the airstream into the lungs where their site of deposition depends on their mass, size and shape and is governed by various mechanisms. Airborne particles could also be produced by various aerosol generating procedures, such as suctioning or tracheal intubation, and by aerosol generators, especially jet nebulizers. Prevention of respiratory viral infections depends upon whether they are carried in respiratory droplets or as fine droplet nuclei (airborne or aerosol transmission). The SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 is mainly transmitted by respiratory droplets or by contact. Airborne transmission of this virus has not been established, but is possible under special circumstances. Appropriate protective measures are necessary to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus in various settings. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

263 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 (SCCD) 2019 panel as mentioned in this paper provided guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU.
Abstract: Background The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Methods The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Results The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning. Conclusion The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Based on a living guideline model the recommendations will be updated as new evidence becomes available.

257 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: There is a role for non-invasive respiratory therapies in the context of COVID-19 ARF, but more research is still needed to define the balance of benefits and risks to patients and HCW.

134 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors conducted a multicentre cohort study using a prospectively collected database of patients with COVID-19 associated acute respiratory failure admitted to 36 Spanish and Andorran intensive care units (ICUs).
Abstract: Whether the use of high-flow nasal oxygen in adult patients with COVID-19 associated acute respiratory failure improves clinically relevant outcomes remains unclear. We thus sought to assess the effect of high-flow nasal oxygen on ventilator-free days, compared to early initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation, on adult patients with COVID-19. We conducted a multicentre cohort study using a prospectively collected database of patients with COVID-19 associated acute respiratory failure admitted to 36 Spanish and Andorran intensive care units (ICUs). Main exposure was the use of high-flow nasal oxygen (conservative group), while early invasive mechanical ventilation (within the first day of ICU admission; early intubation group) served as the comparator. The primary outcome was ventilator-free days at 28 days. ICU length of stay and all-cause in-hospital mortality served as secondary outcomes. We used propensity score matching to adjust for measured confounding. Out of 468 eligible patients, a total of 122 matched patients were included in the present analysis (61 for each group). When compared to early intubation, the use of high-flow nasal oxygen was associated with an increase in ventilator-free days (mean difference: 8.0 days; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.4 to 11.7 days) and a reduction in ICU length of stay (mean difference: − 8.2 days; 95% CI − 12.7 to − 3.6 days). No difference was observed in all-cause in-hospital mortality between groups (odds ratio: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.64). The use of high-flow nasal oxygen upon ICU admission in adult patients with COVID-19 related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure may lead to an increase in ventilator-free days and a reduction in ICU length of stay, when compared to early initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation. Future studies should confirm our findings.

113 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Consistent experimental settings, uniform terminology, and standard measurement criteria are deemed to be useful to enhance bench assessment of characteristics and comparison of performance of ventilators and interfaces for NIV.
Abstract: Because non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) is increasingly used, new devices, both ventilators and interfaces, have been continuously proposed for clinical use in recent years. To provide the clinicians with valuable information about ventilators and interfaces for NIV, several bench studies evaluating and comparing the performance of NIV devices have been concomitantly published, which may influence the choice in equipment acquisition. As these comparisons, however, may be problematic and sometimes lacking in consistency, in the present article we review and discuss those technical aspects that may explain discrepancies. Studies concerning bench evaluations of devices for NIV were reviewed, focusing on some specific technical aspects: lung models and simulation of inspiratory demand and effort, mechanical properties of the virtual respiratory system, generation and quantification of air leaks, ventilator modes and settings, assessment of the interface-ventilator unit performance. The impact of the use of different test lung models is not clear and warrants elucidation; standard references for simulated demand and effort, mode of generation and extent of air leaks, resistance and compliance of the virtual respiratory system, and ventilator settings are lacking; the criteria for assessment of inspiratory trigger function, inspiration-to-expiration (I:E) cycling, and pressurization rate vary among studies; finally, the terminology utilized is inconsistent, which may also lead to confusion. Consistent experimental settings, uniform terminology, and standard measurement criteria are deemed to be useful to enhance bench assessment of characteristics and comparison of performance of ventilators and interfaces for NIV.

65 citations