Search

Maintaining an ample supply of personal protective equipment continues to be a challenge for the healthcare industry, especially during emergency situations and times of strain on the supply chain. Most critically, healthcare workers exposed to potential airborne hazards require sufficient respiratory protection. Respirators are the only type of personal protective equipment able to provide adequate respiratory protection. However, their ability to shield hazards depends on design, material, proper fit, and environmental conditions. As a result, not all respirators may be adequate for all scenarios. Additionally, factors including user comfort, ease of use, and cost contribute to respirator effectiveness. Therefore, a careful consideration of these parameters is essential for ensuring respiratory protection for those working in the healthcare industry. Here respirator design and material characteristics are reviewed, as well as properties of airborne hazards and potential filtration mechanisms, regulatory standards of governmental agencies, respirator efficacy in the clinical setting, attitude of healthcare personnel toward respiratory protection, and environmental and economic considerations of respirator manufacturing and distribution.

Cancer patients undergoing therapeutic radiation routinely develop injury of the adjacent gastrointestinal (GI) tract mucosa due to treatment. To reduce radiation dose to critical GI structures including the rectum and oral mucosa, 3D-printed GI radioprotective devices composed of high-Z materials are generated from patient CT scans. In a radiation proctitis rat model, a significant reduction in crypt injury is demonstrated with the device compared to without (p < 0.0087). Optimal device placement for radiation attenuation is further confirmed in a swine model. Dosimetric modeling in oral cavity cancer patients demonstrates a 30% radiation dose reduction to the normal buccal mucosa and a 15.2% dose reduction in the rectum for prostate cancer patients with the radioprotectant material in place compared to without. Finally, it is found that the rectal radioprotectant device is more cost-effective compared to a hydrogel rectal spacer. Taken together, these data suggest that personalized radioprotectant devices may be used to reduce GI tissue injury in cancer patients undergoing therapeutic radiation.

Objectives To compare the impact of respirator extended use and reuse strategies with regard to cost and sustainability during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design Cost analysis. Setting USA. Participants All healthcare workers within the USA. Interventions Not applicable. Main outcome measures A model was developed to estimate usage, costs and waste incurred by several respirator usage strategies over the first 6 months of the pandemic in the USA. This model assumed universal masking of all healthcare workers. Estimates were taken from the literature, government databases and commercially available data from approved vendors. Results A new N95 respirator per patient encounter would require 7.41 billion respirators, cost $6.38 billion and generate 84.0 million kg of waste in the USA over 6 months. One respirator per day per healthcare worker would require 3.29 billion respirators, cost $2.83 billion and generate 37.22 million kg of waste. Decontamination by ultraviolet germicidal irradiation would require 1.64 billion respirators, cost $1.41 billion and accumulate 18.61 million kg of waste. H₂O₂ vapour decontamination would require 1.15 billion respirators, cost $1.65 billion and produce 13.03 million kg of waste. One reusable respirator with daily disposable filters would require 18 million respirators, cost $1.24 billion and generate 15.73 million kg of waste. Pairing a reusable respirator with H₂O₂ vapour-decontaminated filters would reduce cost to $831 million and generate 1.58 million kg of waste. The use of one surgical mask per healthcare worker per day would require 3.29 billion masks, cost $460 million and generate 27.92 million kg of waste. Conclusions Decontamination and reusable respirator-based strategies decreased the number of respirators used, costs and waste generated compared with single-use or daily extended-use of disposable respirators. Future development of low-cost, simple technologies to enable respirator and/or filter decontamination is needed to f

N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFR) and surgical masks are essential in reducing airborne disease transmission, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, currently available FFR's and masks have major limitations, including masking facial features, waste, and integrity after decontamination. In a multi-institutional trial, we evaluated a transparent, elastomeric, adaptable, long-lasting (TEAL) respirator to evaluate success of qualitative fit test with user experience and biometric evaluation of temperature, respiratory rate, and fit of respirator using a novel sensor. There was a 100% successful fit test among participants, with feedback demonstrating excellent or good fit (90% of participants), breathability (77.5%), and filter exchange (95%). Biometric testing demonstrated significant differences between exhalation and inhalation pressures among a poorly fitting respirator, well-fitting respirator, and the occlusion of one filter of the respirator. We have designed and evaluated a transparent elastomeric respirator and a novel biometric feedback system that could be implemented in the hospital setting., NIH(Grants K23DA044874, R44DA051106), NIH (Grants K23DA044874, R44DA051106, 5T32DK007191-4)

Objective: To develop and test a new reusable, sterilisable N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR)-comparable face mask, known as the Injection Molded Autoclavable, Scalable, Conformable (iMASC) system, given the dire need for personal protective equipment within healthcare settings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: Single-arm feasibility study. Emergency department and outpatient oncology clinic. Participants: Healthcare workers who have previously undergone N95 fit testing. Fit testing of new iMASC system. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Primary outcome is success of fit testing using an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-approved testing method, and secondary outcomes are user experience with fit, breathability and filter replacement. Results: Twenty-four subjects were recruited to undergo fit testing, and the average age of subjects was 41 years (range of 21–65 years) with an average body mass index of 26.5 kg/m2. The breakdown of participants by profession was 46% nurses (n=11), 21% attending physicians (n=5), 21% resident physicians (n=5) and 12% technicians (n=3). Of these participants, four did not perform the fit testing due to the inability to detect saccharin solution on premask placement sensitivity test, lack of time and inability to place mask over hair. All participants (n=20) who performed the fit test were successfully fitted for the iMASC system using an OSHA-approved testing method. User experience with the iMASC system, as evaluated using a Likert scale with a score of 1 indicating excellent and a score of 5 indicating very poor, demonstrated an average fit score of 1.75, breathability of 1.6, and ease of replacing the filter on the mask was scored on average as 2.05. Conclusions: The iMASC system was shown to successfully fit multiple different face sizes and shapes using an OSHA-approved testing method. These data support further certification testing needed for use in the healthcare setting.

Sean C Blackwell,1 Erin M Sullivan,2 Allison A Petrilla,2 Xian Shen,2 Kathleen A Troeger,3 James D Byrne4 1Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston, TX, USA; 2Avalere Health, LLC, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Washington, DC, USA; 3Hologic, Inc., Outcomes Research, Marlborough, MA, USA; 4Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, CA, USA Objectives: To identify pregnant health plan members triaged through the emergency department (ED), including labor and delivery (ELD) units, with symptoms of preterm labor (PTL), and evaluate the use of fetal fibronectin (fFN) testing; and to calculate the rate of hospitalization and timing of delivery in relation to the ED visit. Methods: Retrospective cohort study using Medical Outcomes Research for Effectiveness and Economics Registry®, a national multipayer claims database. A cohort of pregnant women evaluated in an ELD with a diagnosis of PTL from June 2012 through November 2015 was identified. The proportion of women with PTL who received fFN testing was calculated.Results: A total of 23,062 patients met the criteria for inclusion in the study. The rate of fFN testing prior to delivery was 12.0%. Of the 23,062 patients included in the analysis, 75.9% were discharged home. Of those who were discharged from the emergency room, one in five went on to deliver within 3 days and almost 96% of this group was not screened for the presence of fFN. Of the remaining 24.1% of patients admitted to the hospital, 91.3% delivered during their stay. In a sensitivity analysis, the percentage of women who delivered within 3 days of the ELD encounter was lower for women who received fFN testing only (6.6%) versus those who had a history of transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) only (21.6%). Furthermore, the rate of delivery within 3 days was lowest among patients who had both fFN testing and TVUS (4.7%).Conclusion: The