Site-directed mutagenesis of ribosomal RNA. Construction and characterization of deletion mutants.

R. Gourse,Michael J.R. Stark,A. E. Dahlberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2836(82)90291-1

IF: 6.151

1982-08-15

Journal of Molecular Biology

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

An overview of COVID-19 aerosol box for preventing droplet and aerosol contaminations in healthcare providers performing airway intubation

Yan Li,Yujun Fu,Yunwei Zhang,Shuai Yu,Jinhong Luo,Yuanyuan Li,Caihong Wang,Jingjing Zhu,Huiling Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03639045.2022.2053984

IF: 3.727

2022-03-29

Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy

Abstract:The COVID-19 is caused by the SARS-CoV-2, which is extremely infectious. Numerous virologist suggestions and guidelines advised using P2/N95 masks, gloves, goggles, face-shields, and frocks or gowns as routine specific protective tools during airway management to protect healthcare personnel from infection (PPE). However, numerous imitation research has indicated that conventional PPE cannot adequately protect healthcare personnel. Since then, numerous firms and healthcare professionals have created their personal reformed devices 'aerosol containment devices' (ACD). Their usage has expanded throughout the world without being properly evaluated for usefulness, efficacy, or safety. The practice of 'ACD' has been shown to make tracheal intubation (TI) more problematic in several simulated tests. Furthermore, the device should limit the transmission of droplets from a patient; however, it might put healthcare personnel at danger of being exposed to greater levels of viral aerosols. Consequently, the existing state of information suggests that 'ACD' deprived of a vacuum mechanism can simply protect healthcare personnel against viral transmission to a limited extent. We search various databases for the literature with keywords 'COVID-19,' 'aerosol box,' 'aerosol contaminations,' and 'droplet contaminations.' The current review focused on the aerosol box from various perspectives, including their mechanism, optimum time of use, the spread of aerosol control, current gaps, and future perspective for bridging those gaps.

pharmacology & pharmacy,chemistry, medicinal
Aerosol containment device for airway management of patients with COVID-19: a narrative review

Tomoyuki Saito,Takashi Asai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-020-02879-4

Abstract:Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is highly contagious. To protect healthcare workers from infection during airway management, some expert recommendations and guidelines recommended wearing P2/N95 masks, goggles or glasses, glove, face-shields, and gowns as standard personal protective equipment (PPE). Nevertheless, several simulation studies have suggested that the standard PPE may not fully protect healthcare workers. Dr. Hsien Yung Lai introduced an acrylic box ("aerosol box") as a part of PPE during airway management. Since then, several companies and healthcare workers have made their own modified devices ("aerosol containment device"), and the use of such a device has spread worldwide, without being formally assessed for its effectiveness, efficacy and safety. Several simulation studies have indicated that "aerosol containment device" would make tracheal intubation more difficult. In addition, the device would prevent the spread of droplets from a patient, but may increase the risk of healthcare workers being exposed to a higher concentration of viral aerosols. Therefore, the current state of knowledge indicates that an "aerosol containment device" without vacuum mechanism has only limited efficacy in protecting healthcare workers from viral transmission.
PCR analysis of the STR HUMF13A01 in a population sample of central Italy.

L. Buscemi,A. Tagliabracci,C. Sassaroli,M. Paoli,F. Bianchi,R. Giorgetti,D. Rodriguez

Abstract:A population genetic study was carried out on an Italian sample of Central Italy (n = 159) using the short tandem repeat (STR) system HUMF13A01. After vertical electrophoresis in denaturing polyacrylamide gel, 11 alleles were found. No deviation from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium were observed. The power of discrimination (PD) was 0.91 and the chance of exclusion was 0.59. The allelic comparison with previous Italian population studies showed no significant difference.
One beta hairpin after the other: exploring mechanical unfolding pathways of the transmembrane beta-barrel protein OmpG.

K. Sapra,Mehdi Damaghi,Stefan Köster,Özkan Yildiz,W. Kühlbrandt,Daniel J. Muller

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.200904361

2009-10-19

Angewandte Chemie

Abstract:Single-molecule force spectroscopy (SMFS) is a unique approach to study the mechanical unfolding of proteins. Such forced unfolding experiments yield insight into how interactions stabilize a protein and guide its unfolding pathways. Previous SMFS work has probed the mechanical stability of water-soluble proteins composed of a helices and b strands. A prominent example of unfolding of a b-barrel structure is that of the green fluorescent protein (GFP), the stability of which plays a major role for its application as a marker in modern fluorescence microscopy. In contrast to the variety of water-soluble proteins characterized, only a-helical membrane proteins have been probed by SMFS. It was found that a-helical membrane proteins unfold via many intermediates, which is different to the mostly two-state unfolding process of water-soluble proteins. Upon mechanically pulling the peptide end of a membrane protein, single and grouped a helices and polypeptide loops unfold in steps until the entire protein has unfolded. Whether the a helices and loops unfold individually or cooperatively to form an unfolding intermediate depends on the interactions established within the membrane protein and with the environment. Each of these unfolding events creates an unfolding intermediate with the sequence of intermediates describing the unfolding pathway taken. However, so far, b-barrel-forming membrane proteins have not been characterized by SMFS. For these reasons, we have characterized the interactions and unfolding of the b-barrel-forming outer-membrane protein OmpG from Escherichia coli by SMFS. The structure of OmpG comprises 14 b strands that form a transmembrane b-barrel pore. Six short loops (T1–T6) on the periplasmic side and seven longer loops (L1–L7) on the extracellular side connect the individual b strands. OmpG is gated by loop L6, which controls the flux of small molecules through the pore and the permeability of the bacterial outer membrane in a pH-dependent manner. Being able to withstand rather harsh environmental conditions, OmpG forms a robust pore, which makes it suitable for application as a biosensor. In our SMFS experiments, OmpG reconstituted in E. coli lipid membranes were first imaged by AFM. The AFM tip was then pushed onto the OmpG surface to facilitate the nonspecific attachment of the N or C terminus (Figure 1a).
A quantitative evaluation of aerosol generation during tracheal intubation and extubation

J. Brown,F. K. A. Gregson,A. Shrimpton,T. M. Cook,B. R. Bzdek,J. P. Reid,A. E. Pickering

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.15292

IF: 12.893

2020-10-22

Anaesthesia

Abstract:<p>The potential aerosolised transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 is of global concern. Airborne precaution personal protective equipment and preventative measures are universally mandated for medical procedures deemed to be aerosol‐generating. The implementation of these measures is having a huge impact on healthcare provision. There is currently a lack of quantitative evidence on the number and size of airborne particles produced during aerosol‐generating procedures to inform risk assessments. To address this evidence gap, we conducted real‐time, high‐resolution environmental monitoring in ultraclean ventilation operating theatres during tracheal intubation and extubation sequences. Continuous sampling with an optical particle sizer allowed characterisation of aerosol generation within the zone between the patient and anaesthetist. Aerosol monitoring showed a very low background particle count (0.4 particles.l<sup>‐1</sup>) allowing resolution of transient increases in airborne particles associated with airway management. A positive reference control quantitated the aerosol produced in the same setting by a volitional cough (average concentration, 732 (418) particles.l<sup>‐1</sup>, n = 38). Tracheal intubation including face‐mask ventilation produced very low quantities of aerosolised particles (average concentration, 1.4 (1.4) particles.l<sup>‐1</sup>, n = 14, p < 0·0001 vs. cough). Tracheal extubation, particularly when the patient coughed, produced a detectable aerosol (21 (18) l<sup>‐1</sup>, n = 10) which was 15‐fold greater than intubation (p = 0.0004) but 35‐fold less than a volitional cough (p < 0.0001). The study does not support the designation of elective tracheal intubation as an aerosol‐generating procedure. Extubation generates more detectable aerosol than intubation but falls below the current criterion for designation as a high risk aerosol‐generating procedure. These novel findings from real‐time aerosol detection in a routine healthcare setting provide a quantitative methodology for risk assessment that can be extended to other airway management techniques and clinical settings. They also indicate the need for reappraisal of what constitutes an aerosol‐generating procedure and the associated precautions for routine anaesthetic airway management.</p>

anesthesiology
Anaesthesia Practice in the First Wave of the COVID-19 Outbreak in the United States: a Population-Based Cohort Study.

Vassilis Athanassoglou,Haoyan Zhong,Jashvant Poeran,Jiabin Liu,Crispiana Cozowicz,Alex Illescas,Stavros G. Memtsoudis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2022.04.003

IF: 11.719

2022-01-01

British Journal of Anaesthesia

Abstract:Editor—The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted daily clinical practice. Numerous clinical practice recommendations were published during the first wave focusing on guidance to maximise patient and healthcare worker safety.1–3 However, many of these recommendations were not backed by rigorous evidence,4–7 sometimes leading to confusion. For example some experts suggested that use of tracheal intubation was preferable to supraglottic airway devices to create a closed system and minimise aerosolisation and environmental contamination, whereas others cautioned that airway instrumentation itself was aerosol generating.
The efferent projections of the rat lateral habenular nucleus revealed by the PHA-L anterograde tracing method

M. Araki,P. Mcgeer,H. Kimura

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(88)91410-2

IF: 3.61

1988-02-16

Brain Research

Abstract:
Aerosol box for protection during airway manipulation in covid-19 patients

Nitu Puthenveettil,Sundeep Vijayaraghavan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.IJA_375_20

2020-05-23

Indian Journal of Anaesthesia

Abstract:Sundeep Vijayaraghavan, Nitu Puthenveettil Indian Journal of Anaesthesia 2020 64(14):148-149
Balancing Act: Evaluating the Need for Airborne Isolation Tools—Sometimes More Is Less

Jie Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.11940

2024-03-28

Respiratory Care

Abstract:Although the pandemic seems to have receded from our daily lives, the imperative to reflect on its lessons and ready ourselves for future challenges, especially as medical professionals, remains paramount. One such lesson involves the utilization of airborne isolation tools. During the early stages of the pandemic, significant concerns surrounded airborne transmission and the heightened risk of exposure to contagious aerosols expelled from patients during intubation given its direct contact with the airway and patient secretions.1 Various measures were implemented to protect clinicians while caring for patients with COVID-19,2 including the invention of an intubation box, a transparent plastic enclosure placed over patients during the procedure featuring apertures for clinicians to access the airway.3,4 The intention behind this innovation was to contain patient secretions and large aerosol particles generated by coughing, often induced by intubation, thereby mitigating the risk of transmission to clinicians. Despite receiving an emergency authorization from the FDA, the intubation box encountered challenges in clinical application, including hindering clinicians' maneuverability during intubation and resulting in higher failure rates and more attempts, even among experienced practitioners.5,6 Consequently, clinicians ... Correspondence: Jie Li PhD RRT RRT-ACCS RRT-NPS FAARC, 600 S Paulina Street, Suite 765, Chicago IL 60612. E-mail: Jie_Li{at}rush.edu

respiratory system,critical care medicine
Effectiveness of a novel semi‐closed barrier device with a personalized exhaust in cough aerosol simulation according to particle counts and visualization of particles

Ryohei Matsui,Hiroshi Sasano,Takafumi Azami,Hisako Yano,Hiromi Yoshikawa,Yota Yamagishi,Takahiro Goshima,Yuka Miyazaki,Kazunori Imai,Marechika Tsubouchi,Yoichi Matsuo,Shuji Takiguchi,Tomonori Hattori

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12988

IF: 6.5539

2022-02-01

Indoor Air

Abstract:Oxygen therapy is an essential treatment for patients with coronavirus disease 2019, although there is a risk of aerosolization of additional viral droplets occurring during this treatment that poses a danger to healthcare professionals. High-flow oxygen through nasal cannula (HFNC) is a vital treatment bridging low-flow oxygen therapy with tracheal intubation. Although many barrier devices (including devices without negative pressure in the barrier) have been reported in the literature, few barrier devices are suitable for HFNC and aerosol infection control procedures during HFNC have not yet been established. Hence, we built a single cough simulator model to examine the effectiveness of three protective measures (a semi-closed barrier device, a personalized exhaust, and surgical masks) administered in isolation as well as in combination using particle counter measurements and laser sheet visualization. We found that the addition of a personalized exhaust to a semi-closed barrier device reduced aerosol leakage during HFNC without negative pressure. This novel combination may thus reduce aerosol exposure during oxygen therapy, enhance the protection of healthcare workers, and likely reduce nosocomial infection risk.

engineering, environmental,public, environmental & occupational health,construction & building technology
Expert Recommendations for Tracheal Intubation in Critically Ill Patients with Noval Coronavirus Disease 2019

Mingzhang Zuo,Yuguang Huang,Wuhua Ma,Zhanggang Xue,Jiaqiang Zhang,Yahong Gong,Lu Che

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24920/003724

2020-01-01

Chinese Medical Sciences Journal

Abstract:Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), is a highly contagious disease. It firstly appeared in Wuhan, Hubei province of China in December 2019. During the next two months, it moved rapidly throughout China. Most of the infected patients have mild symptoms including fever, fatigue and cough, but in severe cases, patients can progress rapidly and develop into acute respiratory distress syndrome, septic shock, metabolic acidosis and coagulopathy. The new coronavirus was reported to spread via droplets, contact and natural aerosols from human to human. Therefore, aerosol-producing procedures such as endotracheal intubation may put the anesthesiologists at high risk of nosocomial infections. In fact, SARS-CoV-2 infection of anesthesiologists after endotracheal intubation for confirmed COVID-19 patients have been reported in hospitals in Wuhan. The expert panel of airway management in Chinese Society of Anaesthesiology has deliberated and drafted this recommendation, by which we hope to guide the performance of endotracheal intubation by frontline anesthesiologists and critical care physicians. During the airway management, enhanced droplet/airborne personal protective equitment (PPE) should be applied to the health care providers. A good airway assessment before airway intervention is of vital importance. For patients with normal airway, awake intubation should be avoided, and modified rapid sequence induction is strongly recommended. Sufficient muscle relaxant should be assured before intubation. For patients with difficult airway, good preparation of airway devices and detailed intubation plans should be made.
Application of a protective sleeve is associated with decreased occupational anxiety during endotracheal intubation: a randomized controlled trial

Chaojin Chen,Ning Shen,Liubing Chen,Tongsen Luo,Tianyou Lu,Dezhao Liu,Qi Zhang,Ziqing Hei

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-021-01467-7

IF: 2.376

2021-01-01

BMC Anesthesiology

Abstract:Background The high risk of cross-infection during tracheal intubation has caused excessive occupational anxiety for anaesthesiologists amid the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Currently, there is no effective way to attenuate their anxiety in clinical practice. We found that anaesthesiologist with better protective equipment might experience decreased levels of anxiety during intubation. Methods In this study, 60 patients who underwent intubation and extubation in the operating room were enrolled, and then randomized 1:1 to either wear protective sleeves (protective sleeve group) or not (control group). Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to measure the anxiety level of anaesthesiologists during intubation. The respiratory droplets of patients on the sleeve, and the anaesthesiologists’ perception including the patient’s oral malodour, exertion, satisfaction degree, waist discomfort and shoulder discomfort were recorded. The patients’ anxiety, oppressed feelings and hypoxia and postoperative complications were all measured and recorded. Results Compared with the control group, the anaesthesiologists in protective sleeve group achieved lower anxiety scores and better satisfaction degrees during the process of intubation and extubation (all P < 0.05). Respiratory droplets were observed only on the inner side, but not the external side, of the protective sleeves ( P < 0.001). The incidence of the anaesthesiologists’ perception of patients’ oral malodour was significantly lower in the protective sleeve group ( P = 0.02) and no patients developed hypoxemia or intubation-related complications in the protective sleeve group. Conclusion Using protective devices for intubation might eliminate droplet transmission from patients to anaesthesiologists, while also decreasing their anxiety in a controlled operating room environment. Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial. no. ChiCTR2000030705 . Registry at www.chictr.org.cn on 10/03/2020.
Emergency tracheal intubation in 202 patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: lessons learnt and international expert recommendations

Wenlong Yao,Tingting Wang,Bailin Jiang,Feng Gao,Li Wang,Hongbo Zheng,Weimin Xiao,Shanglong Yao,Wei Mei,Xiangdong Chen,Ailin Luo,Liang Sun,Tim Cook,Elizabeth Behringer,Johannes M Huitink,David T Wong,Meghan Lane-Fall,Alistair F McNarry,Barry McGuire,Andrew Higgs,Amit Shah,Anil Patel,Mingzhang Zuo,Wuhua Ma,Zhanggang Xue,Li-Ming Zhang,Wenxian Li,Yong Wang,Carin Hagberg,Ellen P O'Sullivan,Lee A Fleisher,Huafeng Wei,collaborators,Zhiyong Peng,Hansheng Liang,Koji Nishikawa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2020.03.026

Abstract:Tracheal intubation in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients creates a risk to physiologically compromised patients and to attending healthcare providers. Clinical information on airway management and expert recommendations in these patients are urgently needed. By analysing a two-centre retrospective observational case series from Wuhan, China, a panel of international airway management experts discussed the results and formulated consensus recommendations for the management of tracheal intubation in COVID-19 patients. Of 202 COVID-19 patients undergoing emergency tracheal intubation, most were males (n=136; 67.3%) and aged 65 yr or more (n=128; 63.4%). Most patients (n=152; 75.2%) were hypoxaemic (Sao2 <90%) before intubation. Personal protective equipment was worn by all intubating healthcare workers. Rapid sequence induction (RSI) or modified RSI was used with an intubation success rate of 89.1% on the first attempt and 100% overall. Hypoxaemia (Sao2 <90%) was common during intubation (n=148; 73.3%). Hypotension (arterial pressure <90/60 mm Hg) occurred in 36 (17.8%) patients during and 45 (22.3%) after intubation with cardiac arrest in four (2.0%). Pneumothorax occurred in 12 (5.9%) patients and death within 24 h in 21 (10.4%). Up to 14 days post-procedure, there was no evidence of cross infection in the anaesthesiologists who intubated the COVID-19 patients. Based on clinical information and expert recommendation, we propose detailed planning, strategy, and methods for tracheal intubation in COVID-19 patients.
In vitro model for investigating aerosol dispersion in a simulated COVID-19 patient during high-flow nasal cannula treatment

James A. McGrath,Andrew O’Sullivan,Mary Joyce,Miriam A. Byrne,Jie Li,James B. Fink,Ronan MacLoughlin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.1002659

IF: 3.9

2022-12-01

Frontiers in Medicine

Abstract:The use of high-flow nasal cannula in the treatment of COVID-19 infected patients has proven to be a valuable treatment option to improve oxygenation. Early in the pandemic, there were concerns for the degree of risk of disease transmission to health care workers utilizing these treatments that are considered aerosol generating procedures. This study developed an in vitro model to examine the release of simulated patient-derived bioaerosol with and without high-flow nasal cannula at gas flow rates of 30 and 50 L/min. Aerosol dispersion was evaluated at 30 and 90 cm distances. Reduction of transmission risk was assessed using a surgical facemask on the manikin. Results indicated that the use of a facemask facilitated a 94–95% reduction in exhaled aerosol concentration at 30 cm and 22–60% reduction for 90 cm distance across both gas flow rates. This bench study confirms that this in vitro model can be used as a tool to assess the risk of disease transmission during aerosol generating procedures in a simulated patient and to test factors to mitigate the risk.

medicine, general & internal
Aerosol generating procedures, dysphagia assessment and COVID‐19: A rapid review

Lee Bolton,Claire Mills,Sarah Wallace,Marian C. Brady,College of Speech and Language Therapists COVID‐19 Advisory Group,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12544

2020-06-01

Abstract:<header class="article-table-caption"><span class="table-caption__label">Table 1. </span>Aerosol‐generating procedures (AGPs) by policy document </header><table class="table article-section__table"><thead><tr><th class="bottom-bordered-cell right-bordered-cell left-aligned">Procedure</th><th class="bottom-bordered-cell center-aligned">UK Public Health England (COVID‐19 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), <span><a class="bibLink tab-link" href="#jlcd12544-bib-0007">2020</a></span>) and Health Protection Scotland (2019) (Aerosol Generating Procedures (AGPs), <span><a class="bibLink tab-link" href="#jlcd12544-bib-0002">2019</a></span>) </th><th class="bottom-bordered-cell center-aligned">New Zealand Ministry of Health (COVID‐19 Questions and Answers for Primary Health Care Workers, <span><a class="bibLink tab-link" href="#jlcd12544-bib-0042">2020</a></span>) </th><th class="bottom-bordered-cell center-aligned">Australian Government Department of Health (Interim Recommendations for the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) during Hospital Care of People with Coronavirus Disease (COVID‐19), <span><a class="bibLink tab-link" href="#jlcd12544-bib-0041">2020</a></span>) </th><th class="bottom-bordered-cell center-aligned">Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control FAQs for COVID‐19, <span><a class="bibLink tab-link" href="#jlcd12544-bib-0012">2020</a></span>) </th><th class="bottom-bordered-cell center-aligned">WHO IPC precaution recommendations (Modes of Transmission of Virus Causing COVID‐19: Implications for IPC Precaution Recommendations, <span><a class="bibLink tab-link" href="#jlcd12544-bib-0025">2020</a></span>) </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td class="right-bordered-cell left-aligned">Intubation and extubation</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Intubation only</td><td class="center-aligned">Intubation only</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Intubation only</td></tr><tr><td class="right-bordered-cell left-aligned">Manual ventilation</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td></tr><tr><td class="right-bordered-cell left-aligned">Open suctioning</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td></tr><tr><td class="right-bordered-cell left-aligned">Tracheostomy and tracheostomy procedures</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td></tr><tr><td class="right-bordered-cell left-aligned">Bronchoscopy</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td></tr><tr><td class="right-bordered-cell left-aligned">Upper ENT airway procedures that involve suctioning</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td></tr><tr><td class="right-bordered-cell left-aligned">Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy where there is open suctioning of the upper respiratory tract</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td></tr><tr><td class="right-bordered-cell left-aligned">Cardiopulmonary resuscitation</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td></tr><tr><td class="right-bordered-cell left-aligned">Surgery and post‐mortem procedures involving high‐speed devices</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td></tr><tr><td class="right-bordered-cell left-aligned">Some dental procedures (e.g., drilling)</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td></tr><tr><td class="right-bordered-cell left-aligned">Non‐invasive ventilation, e.g., bi‐level positive airway pressure and continuous positive airway pressure</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td></tr><tr><td class="right-bordered-cell left-aligned">Disconnecting the patient from the ventilator</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td></tr><tr><td class="right-bordered-cell left-aligned">High‐frequency oscillating ventilation</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td></tr><tr><td class="right-bordered-cell left-aligned">Induction of sputum</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td><td class="center-aligned">Yes</td></tr><tr><td class="right-bordered-cell left-aligned">High‐flow nasal oxygen</td><td class="center-aligned">Added i <p>-Abstract Truncated-</p>

rehabilitation,audiology & speech-language pathology,linguistics
Application of Plastic Sheet Barrier and Video Intubating Stylet to Protect Tracheal Intubators During Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Taiwan Experience

Hsiang-Ning Luk,Yao-Lin Yang,Ching-Hsuan Huang,I-Min Su,Phil B. Tsai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963689720987527

2021-01-01

Cell Transplantation

Abstract:Since its outbreak in China, the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused worldwide disaster. Globally, there have been 71,581,532 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 1,618,374 deaths, reported to World Health Organization (data retrieved on December 16, 2020). Currently, no treatment modalities for COVID-19 (e.g., vaccines or antiviral drugs) with confirmed efficacy and safety are available. Although the possibilities and relevant challenges of some alternatives (e.g., use of stem cells as immunomodulators) have been proposed, the personal protective equipment is still the only way to protect and lower infection rates of COVID-19 among healthcare workers and airway managers (intubators). In this article, we described the combined use of a plastic sheet as a barrier with the intubating stylet for tracheal intubation in patients needing mechanical ventilation. Although conventional or video-assisted laryngoscopy is more popular and familiar to other groups around the world, we believe that the video-assisted intubating stylet technique is much easier to learn and master. Advantages of the video stylet include the creation of greater working distance between intubator and patient, less airway stimulation, and less pharyngeal space needed for endotracheal tube advancement. All the above features make this technique reliable and superior to other devices, especially when a difficult airway is encountered in COVID scenario. Meanwhile, we proposed the use of a flexible and transparent plastic sheet to serve as a barrier against aerosol and droplet spread during airway management. We demonstrated that the use of a plastic sheet would not interfere or hinder the intubator’s maneuvers during endotracheal intubation. Moreover, we demonstrated that the plastic sheet was effective in preventing the spread of mist and water spray in simulation models with a mannequin. In our experience, we found that this technique most effectively protected the intubator and other operating room personnel from infection during the COVID-19 pandemic.

medicine, research & experimental,transplantation,cell & tissue engineering
Abstract No.: ABS0125: Study of airway management in 50 COVID positive patients in ICU

Mahendi Mehta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5049.340674

2022-01-01

Indian Journal of Anaesthesia

Abstract:Background & Aims: The aim was to successfully perform airway management by securing definite airway via endotracheal tube in emergency or semi- emergency situation in first attempt without causing any trauma to the patient. Methods: In our ICU, tracheal intubation was done for patients with COVID-19 which was based on clinical criteria as per the institute protocol. Intubation was performed by an expert in airway management using method of rapid sequence intubation anddirect laryngoscope. Propofol or etomidate were used as induction agent and succinylcholine or rocuronium as musclerelaxant, according to the patient profile. Intubation box, acrylic face shield and personal protective equipment were also used for safety. Various pathological factors also contribute to difficulty in airway management such as edema and ulceration ofepiglottis and vocal cords. Results: Despite a multitude of technical and pathological factors contributing to difficult airway management,in this study of total 50 patients, 45 patients were intubated successfully in the first attempt, 4 patients were intubated in second attempt and 1 patient was intubated after 3 attempts using bougie with some trauma to the patient. All the intubations were performed using direct laryngoscope and rapid sequence intubation by an expert airway manager. JOURNAL/ijana/04.03/01762628-202203001-00081/inline-graphic1/v/2022-09-30T091728Z/r/image-tiff Conclusion: Therefore, to conclude, in the majority of the COVID 19 ICU patients, airway management was done successfully in the first attempt in emergency situation by the expert airway manager.
Optimizing intubation technique using a single-use video laryngoscope: A comparative study in a simulation model

Hui-Chin Chen,Jui-Fang Liu,Miao-Ching Chi,Hsiu-Lan Cheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000038946

IF: 1.6

2024-07-13

Medicine

Abstract:Tracheal intubation poses a high risk of infection to medical staff due to Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) highly infectious nature. To mitigate this risk, various medical devices, including video laryngoscopy, have been developed to assist intubation. This study compared conventional laryngoscopy (Macintosh) and disposable video laryngoscopes (Medcaptain VS-10s and Honestmc Laryngoscope_LA10000) in terms of their use and operation processes. We designed a questionnaire to assess the operator perception of performing intubation with the devices, and statistical analysis was performed on 50 clinical staff members from 2 hospitals who had performed intubation or had learned intubation techniques. The primary outcomes were time to glottic visualization, intubation time, intubation success rate, distance between the operator and training model, and time from glottic visualization to tube insertion. The secondary outcomes were as follows: overall laryngoscope quality, operative feel, maneuverability, ease of use, and video quality. This study showed that video laryngoscopes were superior to conventional laryngoscopes in terms of quality, operative feel, and ease of use. When LA10000 was employed, the intubation success rate was higher, and the operator risk of infection was lower because of the greater distance from the training model. However, the use of video laryngoscopes requires appropriate education and training use of the devices. This study also demonstrated that when participants viewed a simple operation video prior to using video laryngoscopes, tube insertion time was shorter. Overall, video laryngoscopy can provide a safer and more convenient option for clinical medical personnel during pandemics.

medicine, general & internal
Design and quantitative evaluation of ‘Aerosol Bio-Containment Device (ABCD)’ for reducing aerosol exposure during infectious aerosol-generating events

Elizabeth Kahle,Heather Smith,Michael S. Waring,L. James Lo,Michael A. Kohanski,Ian M. Marcus,Kara L. Spiller,Sharon L. Walker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272716

IF: 3.7

2023-01-06

PLoS ONE

Abstract:The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic renewed interest in infectious aerosols and reducing risk of airborne respiratory pathogen transmission, prompting development of devices to protect healthcare workers during airway procedures. However, there are no standard methods for assessing the efficacy of particle containment with these protective devices. We designed and built an aerosol bio-containment device (ABCD) to contain and remove aerosol via an external suction system and tested the aerosol containment of the device in an environmental chamber using a novel, quantitative assessment method. The ABCD exhibited a strong ability to control aerosol exposure in experimental and computational fluid dynamic (CFD) simulated scenarios with appropriate suction use and maintenance of device seals. Using a log-risk-reduction framework, we assessed device containment efficacy and showed that, when combined with other protective equipment, the ABCD can significantly reduce airborne clinical exposure. We propose this type of quantitative analysis serves as a basis for rating efficacy of aerosol protective enclosures.

multidisciplinary sciences
Comparing the effectiveness of negative-pressure barrier devices in providing air clearance to prevent aerosol transmission

Tzu-Yao Hung,Wei-Lun Chen,Yung-Cheng Su,Chih-Chieh Wu,Tzu-Yao Chueh,Hsin-Ling Chen,Shih-Cheng Hu,Tee Lin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250213

IF: 3.7

2021-04-21

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Purpose To investigate the effectiveness of aerosol clearance using an aerosol box, aerosol bag, wall suction, and a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter evacuator to prevent aerosol transmission. Methods The flow field was visualized using three protective device settings (an aerosol box, and an aerosol bag with and without sealed working channels) and four suction settings (no suction, wall suction, and a HEPA filter evacuator at flow rates of 415 liters per minute [LPM] and 530 LPM). All 12 subgroups were compared with a no intervention group. The primary outcome, aerosol concentration, was measured at the head, trunk, and foot of a mannequin. Results The mean aerosol concentration was reduced at the head ( p < 0.001) but increased at the feet ( p = 0.005) with an aerosol box compared with no intervention. Non-sealed aerosol bags increased exposure at the head and trunk (both, p < 0.001). Sealed aerosol bags reduced aerosol concentration at the head, trunk, and foot of the mannequin ( p < 0.001). A sealed aerosol bag alone, with wall suction, or with a HEPA filter evacuator reduced the aerosol concentration at the head by 7.15%, 36.61%, and 84.70%, respectively (99.9% confidence interval [CI]: -4.51–18.81, 27.48–45.73, and 78.99–90.40); trunk by 70.95%, 73.99%, and 91.59%, respectively (99.9% CI: 59.83–82.07, 52.64–95.33, and 87.51–95.66); and feet by 69.16%, 75.57%, and 92.30%, respectively (99.9% CI: 63.18–75.15, 69.76–81.37, and 88.18–96.42), compared with an aerosol box alone. Conclusions As aerosols spread, an airtight container with sealed working channels is effective when combined with suction devices.

multidisciplinary sciences

Site-directed mutagenesis of ribosomal RNA. Construction and characterization of deletion mutants.

An overview of COVID-19 aerosol box for preventing droplet and aerosol contaminations in healthcare providers performing airway intubation

Aerosol containment device for airway management of patients with COVID-19: a narrative review

PCR analysis of the STR HUMF13A01 in a population sample of central Italy.

One beta hairpin after the other: exploring mechanical unfolding pathways of the transmembrane beta-barrel protein OmpG.

A quantitative evaluation of aerosol generation during tracheal intubation and extubation

Anaesthesia Practice in the First Wave of the COVID-19 Outbreak in the United States: a Population-Based Cohort Study.

The efferent projections of the rat lateral habenular nucleus revealed by the PHA-L anterograde tracing method

Aerosol box for protection during airway manipulation in covid-19 patients

Balancing Act: Evaluating the Need for Airborne Isolation Tools—Sometimes More Is Less

Effectiveness of a novel semi‐closed barrier device with a personalized exhaust in cough aerosol simulation according to particle counts and visualization of particles

Expert Recommendations for Tracheal Intubation in Critically Ill Patients with Noval Coronavirus Disease 2019

Application of a protective sleeve is associated with decreased occupational anxiety during endotracheal intubation: a randomized controlled trial

Emergency tracheal intubation in 202 patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: lessons learnt and international expert recommendations

In vitro model for investigating aerosol dispersion in a simulated COVID-19 patient during high-flow nasal cannula treatment

Aerosol generating procedures, dysphagia assessment and COVID‐19: A rapid review

Application of Plastic Sheet Barrier and Video Intubating Stylet to Protect Tracheal Intubators During Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Taiwan Experience

Abstract No.: ABS0125: Study of airway management in 50 COVID positive patients in ICU

Optimizing intubation technique using a single-use video laryngoscope: A comparative study in a simulation model

Design and quantitative evaluation of ‘Aerosol Bio-Containment Device (ABCD)’ for reducing aerosol exposure during infectious aerosol-generating events

Comparing the effectiveness of negative-pressure barrier devices in providing air clearance to prevent aerosol transmission