Comparison of intubation devices in level C personal protective equipment: A cadaveric study

Endotracheal Intubation Using C-MAC Video Laryngoscope vs. Direct Laryngoscope While Wearing Personal Protective Equipment

This study sought to determine whether the C-MAC video laryngoscope (VL) performed better than a direct laryngoscope (DL) when attempting endotracheal intubation (ETI) in the emergency department (ED) while wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). This was a retrospective single-center observational study conducted in an academic ED between February 2020 and March 2022. All emergency medical personnel who participated in any ETI procedure were required to wear PPE. The patients were divided into the C-MAC VL group and the DL group based on the device used during the first ETI attempt. The primary outcome measure was the first-pass success (FPS) rate. A multiple logistic regression was used to determine the factors associated with FPS. Of the 756 eligible patients, 650 were assigned to the C-MAC group and 106 to the DL group. The overall FPS rate was 83.5% (n = 631/756). The C-MAC group had a significantly higher FPS rate than the DL group (85.7% vs. 69.8%, p < 0.001). In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, C-MAC use was significantly associated with an increased FPS rate (adjusted odds ratio, 2.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.69−4.08; p < 0.001). In this study, we found that the FPS rate of ETI was significantly higher when the C-MAC VL was used than when a DL was used by emergency physicians constrained by cumbersome PPE.

Maintaining Prehospital Intubation Success with COVID-19 Personal Protective Precautions

Background:

Tracheal intubation is a high-risk intervention for exposure to airborne infective pathogens, including the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). During the recent pandemic, personal protective equipment (PPE) was essential to protect staff during intubation but is recognized to make the practical conduct of anesthesia and intubation more difficult. In the early phase of the coronavirus pandemic, some simple alterations were made to the emergency anesthesia standard operating procedure (SOP) of a prehospital critical care service to attempt to maintain high intubation success rates despite the challenges posed by wearing PPE. This retrospective observational cohort study aims to compare first-pass intubation success rates before and after the introduction of PPE and an altered SOP.

Methodology:

A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted from January 1, 2019 through August 30, 2021. The retrospective analysis used prospectively collected data using prehospital electronic patient records. Anonymized data were held in Excel (v16.54) and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (v28). Patient inclusion criteria were those of all ages who received a primary tracheal intubation attempt outside the hospital by critical care teams. March 27, 2020 was the date from which the SOP changed to mandatory COVID-19 SOP including Level 3 PPE – this date is used to separate the cohort groups.

Results:

Data were analyzed from 1,266 patients who received primary intubations by the service. The overall first-pass intubation success rate was 89.7% and the overall intubation success rate was 99.9%. There was no statistically significant difference in first-pass success rate between the two groups: 90.3% in the pre-COVID-19 group (n = 546) and 89.3% in the COVID-19 group (n = 720); Pearson chi-square 0.329; P = .566. In addition, there was no statistical difference in overall intubation success rate between groups: 99.8% in the pre-COVID-19 group and 100.0% in the COVID-19 group; Pearson chi-square 1.32; P = .251.

Non-drug-assisted intubations were more than twice as likely to require multiple attempts in both the pre-COVID-19 group (n = 546; OR = 2.15; 95% CI, 1.19-3.90; P = .01) and in the COVID-19 group (n = 720; OR = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.1; P = <.001).

Conclusion:

This study presents simple changes to a prehospital intubation SOP in response to COVID-19 which included mandatory use of PPE, the first intubator always being the most experienced clinician, and routine first use of video laryngoscopy (VL). These changes allowed protection of the clinical team while successfully maintaining the first-pass and overall success rates for prehospital tracheal intubation.

Airway Management of Patients with Suspected or Confirmed COVID-19: Survey Results from Physicians from 19 Countries in Latin America

Airway management during the COVID-19 pandemic has been one of the most challenging aspects of care that anesthesiologists and intensivists face. This study was conducted to evaluate the management of tracheal intubation in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. This is a cross-sectional and international multicenter study based on a 37-item questionnaire. The survey was available to physicians who had performed intubations and tracheostomies in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and had provided informed consent to participate. The primary outcome is the preference to use a specific device for tracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes are clinical practice variables, use of video laryngoscopes, difficult airway management, and safety features to prevent cross-infection. This study included 2411 physicians who performed an average of 11.90 and 20.67 tracheal intubations in patients diagnosed or suspected of having COVID-19 disease, respectively. Physicians were mainly from the specialties of Anesthesiology (61.2%) and Intensive Care (7.4%). COVID-19 infection diagnosed by positive PCR or serology in physicians participating in intubation in this study was 15.1%. Respondents considered preoxygenation for more than three minutes very useful (75.7%). The preferred device for tracheal intubation was the video laryngoscope (64.8%). However, the direct laryngoscope (57.9%) was the most commonly used, followed by the video laryngoscope (37.5%). The preferred device to facilitate intubation was the Eschmann guide (34.2%). Percutaneous tracheostomy was the preferred technique (39.5%) over the open tracheostomy (22%). The predicted or unpredicted difficult airway management in these patients was preferably performed with a video laryngoscope (61.7% or 63.7, respectively). Intubation was mostly performed by two or more expert airway physicians (61.6%). The use of personal protective equipment increased the practitioners’ discomfort during intubation maneuvers. The video laryngoscope is the preferred device for intubating patients with COVID-19, combined with the Eschmann guide, flexible stylet within the endotracheal tube, or Frova guide to facilitate intubation. The sub-analysis of the two groups of physicians by the level of intubation experience showed a higher use of the video laryngoscope (63.4%) in the experts group and no significant differences between the two groups in terms of cross-infection rates in physicians, in their preference for the use of the video laryngoscope or in the number of intubations performed in confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients.

Educational suitability of new channel-type video-laryngoscope with AI-based glottis guidance system for novices wearing personal-protective-equipment

The aim of this study was to determine which of 4 laryngoscopes, including A-LRYNGO, a newly developed channel-type video-laryngoscope with an embedded artificial intelligence-based glottis guidance system, is appropriate for tracheal intubation training in novice medical students wearing personal protective equipment (PPE).Thirty healthy senior medical school student volunteers were recruited. The participants underwent 2 tests with 4 laryngoscopes: Macintosh, McGrath, Pentax Airway-Scope and A-LRYNGO. The first test was conducted just after a lecture without any hands-on workshop. The second test was conducted after a one-on-one hands-on workshop. In each test, we measured the time required for tracheal intubation, intubation success rate, etc, and asked all participants to complete a short questionnaire.The time to completely insert the endotracheal tube with the Macintosh laryngoscope did not change significantly (P = .177), but the remaining outcomes significantly improved after the hands-on workshop (all P < .05). Despite being novice practitioners with no intubation experience and wearing PPE, the, 2 channel-type video-laryngoscopes were associated with good intubation-related performance before the hands-on workshop (all P < .001). A-LRYNGO's artificial intelligence-based glottis guidance system showed 93.1% accuracy, but 20.7% of trials were guided by the vocal folds.To prepare to manage the airway of critically ill patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, a channel-type video-laryngoscope is appropriate for tracheal intubation training for novice practitioners wearing PPE.

Airway management of COVID-19 patients: A survey on the experience of 1125 physicians in Spain

BACKGROUND

We explored the experience of clinicians from the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology (SEDAR) in airway management of COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

An software-based survey including a 32-item questionnaire was conducted from April 18 to May 17, 2020. Participants who have been involved in tracheal intubations in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection were included anonymously after obtaining their informed consent. The primary outcome was the preferred airway device for tracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes included the variations in clinical practice including the preferred video laryngoscope, plans for difficult airway management, and personal protective equipment.

RESULTS

1125 physicians completed the questionnaire with a response rate of 40,9%. Most participants worked in public hospitals and were anesthesiologists. The preferred device for intubation was the video laryngoscope (5.1/6), with the type of device in decreasing order as follows: Glidescope, C-MAC, Airtraq, McGrath and King Vision. The most frequently used device for intubation was the video laryngoscope (70,5%), using them in descending order as follow: the Airtraq, C-MAC, Glidescope, McGrath and King Vision. Discomfort of intubating wearing personal protective equipment and the frequency of breaching a security step was statistically significant, increasing the risk of cross infection between patients and healthcare workers. The opinion of senior doctors differed from younger physicians in the type of video-laryngoscope used, the number of experts involved in tracheal intubation and the reason that caused more stress during the airway management.

CONCLUSIONS

Most physicians preferred using a video-laryngoscope with remote monitor and disposable Macintosh blade, using the Frova guide.

Direct vs. Video-Laryngoscopy for Intubation by Paramedics of Simulated COVID-19 Patients under Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Randomized Crossover Trial

A safe way of securing the airway with an endotracheal tube is one of the priorities of an advanced cardiovascular life support algorithm for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to compare intubation success rates (ISR) and intubation time (IT) of different laryngoscopes for simulated COVID-19 patients under cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, crossover trial. Fifty four active paramedics performed endotracheal intubation with a Macintosh direct laryngoscope (MAC) and McGrath videolaryngoscope (McGrath) with and without personal protective equipment (PPE). Without PPE, ISRs were 87% and 98% for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p = 0.32). ITs were 22.5 s (IQR: 19–26) and 19.5 s (IQR: 17–21) for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p = 0.005). With PPE, first-pass ISR were 30% and 89% with MAC and McGrath, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall success rates were 83% vs. 100% (p = 0.002). Median ITs were 34.0 s (IQR: 29.5–38.5) and 24.8 s (IQR: 21–29) for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the McGrath videolaryngoscope appears to possess significant advantages over the Macintosh direct laryngoscope when used by paramedics in suspected or confirmed COVID-19 intubation scenarios.

Impact of Personal Protective Equipment on Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation in Coronavirus Pandemic

Background and Objectives: This retrospective study evaluated the clinical impact of enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) on the clinical outcomes in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Moreover, by focusing on the use of a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR), we investigated the medical personnel’s perceptions of wearing PAPR during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Materials and Methods: According to the arrival time at the emergency department, the patients were categorized into a conventional PPE group (1 August 2019 to 20 January 2020) and an enhanced PPE group (21 January 2020, to 31 August 2020). The primary outcomes of this analysis were the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate. Additionally, subjective perception of the medical staff regarding the effect of wearing enhanced PPE during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was evaluated by conducting a survey. Results: This study included 130 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, with 73 and 57 patients in the conventional and enhanced PPE groups, respectively. The median time intervals to first intubation and to report the first arterial blood gas analysis results were longer in the enhanced PPE group than in the conventional PPE group (3 min vs. 2 min; p = 0.020 and 8 min vs. 3 min; p < 0.001, respectively). However, there were no significant differences in the ROSC rate (odds ratio (OR) = 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38–1.67; p = 0.542) and 1 month survival (OR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.07–2.10; p = 0.266) between the two groups. In total, 67 emergent department (ED) professionals responded to the questionnaire. Although a significant number of respondents experienced inconveniences with PAPR use, they agreed that PAPR was necessary during the CPR procedure for protection and reduction of infection transmission. Conclusion: The use of enhanced PPE, including PAPR, affected the performance of CPR to some extent but did not alter patient outcomes. PAPR use during the resuscitation of OHCA patients might positively impact the psychological stability of the medical staff.

Tracheal intubation while wearing personal protective equipment in simulation studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial-sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Tracheal intubation in patients with coronavirus disease-19 is a high-risk procedure that should be performed with personal protective equipment (PPE). The influence of PPE on operator's performance during tracheal intubation remains unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of simulation studies to evaluate the influence of wearing PPE as compared to standard uniform regarding time-to-intubation (TTI) and success rate. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to device used and operator's experience.

RESULTS

The TTI was prolonged when wearing PPE (eight studies): Standard Mean Difference (SMD) -0.54, 95% Confidence Interval [-0.75, -0.34], p <  0.0001. Subgroup analyses according to device used showed similar findings (direct laryngoscopy, SMD -0.63 [-0.88, -0.38], p < 0.0001; videolaryngoscopy, SMD -0.39 [-0.75, -0.02], p =  0.04). Considering the operator's experience, non-anesthesiologists had prolonged TTI (SMD -0.75 [-0.98, -0.52], p < 0.0001) while the analysis on anesthesiologists did not show significant differences (SMD -0.25 [-0.51, 0.01], p = 0.06). The success rate of tracheal intubation was not influenced by PPE: Risk Ratio (RR) 1.02 [1.00, 1.04]; p = 0.12). Subgroup analyses according to device demonstrated similar results (direct laryngoscopy, RR 1.03 [0.99, 1.07], p = 0.15, videolaryngoscopy, RR 1.01 [0.98, 1.04], p =  0.52). Wearing PPE had a trend towards negative influence on success rate in non-anesthesiologists (RR 1.05 [1.00, 1.10], p = 0.05), but not in anesthesiologists (RR 1.00 [0.98, 1.03], p = 0.84). Trial-sequential analyses for TTI and success rate indicated robustness of both results.

CONCLUSIONS

Under simulated conditions, wearing PPE delays the TTI as compared to dressing standard uniform, with no influence on the success rate. However, certainty of evidence is very low. Performing tracheal intubation with direct laryngoscopy seems influenced to a greater extent as compared to videolaryngoscopy. Similarly, wearing PPE affects more the non-anesthesiologists subgroup as compared to anesthesiologists.

Orotracheal tube versus supraglottic devices in biological, chemical and radiological disasters: meta-analysis in manikin-based studies

OBJECTIVE

To compare the mean time of orotracheal intubation and insertion of supraglottic airway devices, considering healthcare providers wearing waterproof overall, gloves, boots, eye protection and mask at the Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear context in simulation setting.

METHODS

Six databases were searched. The selected studies were put in a pool of results using a random-effects meta-analysis, with standardized mean differences and calculation of 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Nine observational studies were included. Regarding reducing time to provide ventilatory support, subgroup analyses were made. The emergency setting subgroup: -12.97 [-16.11; -9.83]; I2 = 64%. The surgery setting subgroup: -14.96 [-18.65; -11.27]; I2 = 75%. Another analysis was made by reproductive methodology subgroups. Ophir's subgroup: -15.70 [-17.04; -14.37]; I2 = 0%. All meta-analyses had orotracheal tube as comparator.

CONCLUSION

Moderate level of evidence was in favor of insertion of supraglottic devices because of fast application.

The Impact of Personal Protection Equipment on Intubation Times

INTRODUCTION

Hazardous material (HAZMAT) protocols require health care providers to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) when caring for contaminated patients. Multiple levels of PPE exist (level D - level A), providing progressively more protection. Emergent endotracheal intubation (ETI) of victims can become complicated by the cumbersome nature of PPE.

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The null hypothesis was tested that there would be no difference in time to successful ETI between providers in different types of PPE.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial assessed time to ETI with differing levels of PPE. Participants included 18 senior US Emergency Medicine (EM) residents and attendings, and nine US senior Anesthesiology residents. Each individual performed ETI on a mannequin (Laerdal SimMan Essential; Stavanger, Sweden) wearing the following levels of PPE: universal precautions (UP) controls (nitrile gloves and facemask with shield); partial level C (PC; rubber gloves and a passive air-purifying respirator [APR]); and complete level C (CC; passive APR with an anti-chemical suit). Primary outcome measures were the time in seconds (s) to successful intubation: Time 1 (T1) = inflation of the endotracheal tube (ETT) balloon; Time 2 (T2) = first ventilation. Data were reported as medians with Interquartile Ranges (IQR, 25%-75%) or percentages with 95% Confidence Intervals (95%, CI). Group comparisons were analyzed by Fisher's Exact Test or Kruskal-Wallis, as appropriate (alpha = 0.017 [three groups], two-tails). Sample size analysis was based upon the power of 80% to detect a difference of 10 seconds between groups at a P = .017; 27 subjects per group would be needed.

RESULTS

All 27 participants completed the study. At T1, there was no statistically significant difference (P = .27) among UP 18.0s (11.5s-19.0s), PC 21.0s (14.0s-23.5s), or CC 17.0s (13.5s-27.5s). For T2, there was also no significant (P = .25) differences among UP 24.0s (17.5s-27.0s), PC 26.0s (21.0s-32.0s), or CC 24.0s (19.5s-33.5s).

CONCLUSION

There were no statistically significant differences in time to balloon inflation or ventilation. Higher levels of PPE do not appear to increase time to ETI.

Manejo de vía aérea en pacientes COVID-19: una encuesta sobre la experiencia de 1125 médicos en España

Antecedentes

Analizamos la experiencia de médicos de la Sociedad Española de Anestesiología en el manejo de vía aérea de pacientes COVID-19.

Métodos

Se realizó una encuesta que incluía 32 ítems (18 abril-17 mayo de 2020). Participaron de forma anónima tras aceptar el consentimiento informado médicos involucrados en intubaciones traqueales en pacientes COVID-19 confirmados o con sospecha. El resultado principal fue el dispositivo de vía aérea preferido para la intubación traqueal. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron el análisis de la práctica clínica, el videolaringoscopio preferido, manejo de vía aérea difícil y uso de equipo de protección personal.

Resultados

Completaron el cuestionario 1125 médicos (tasa de respuesta del 40,9%) que eran mayoritariamente anestesiólogos y trabajaban en hospitales públicos.

El dispositivo preferido para intubar fue el videolaringoscopio (5,1/6) con el siguiente orden de preferencia: Glidescope, C-MAC, Airtraq, McGrath y King Vision. El dispositivo de intubación más utilizado fue el videolaringoscopio (70,5%) con el siguiente orden decreciente: Airtraq, C-MAC, Glidescope, McGrath y King Vision.

La relación de incomodidad de la intubación con equipo de protección personal y la frecuencia de incumplimiento de un paso de seguridad fue estadísticamente significativa, aumentando el riesgo de infección cruzada. La opinión de los médicos senior difería de los más jóvenes en el videolaringoscopio utilizado, número de expertos involucrados en la intubación traqueal y la razón que provocó más estrés durante el manejo de la vía aérea.

Conclusiones

La mayoría de los médicos prefirieron usar un videolaringoscopio con monitor remoto y hoja Macintosh desechable, usando la guía Frova.

Impact of Personal Protective Equipment on the First-Pass Success of Endotracheal Intubation in the ED: A Propensity-Score-Matching Analysis

Various types and levels of personal protective equipment (PPE) are currently available to protect health-care workers against infectious diseases. However, wearing cumbersome PPE may negatively affect their performance in life-saving procedures. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of wearing extensive PPE, including a powered air-purifying respirator with a loose-fitting hood or an N95 filtering facepiece respirator, on the first-pass success (FPS) rate of endotracheal intubation (ETI) in the emergency department (ED). This study was a single-center, observational before-and-after study of 934 adult (≥18 years old) patients who underwent ETI in the academic ED. The study period was divided into a control period (from 20 January 2019, to 30 September 2019, and from 20 January 2018, to 30 September 2018) and an intervention period (from 20 January 2020, to 30 September 2020). Extensive PPE was not donned during the control period (control group, n = 687) but was donned during the intervention period (PPE group, n = 247). The primary outcome was the FPS rate. We used propensity score matching between the PPE and control groups to reduce potential confounding. Propensity score matching identified 247 cases in the PPE group and 492 cases in the control group. In the matched cohort, no significant difference was found in the FPS rate between the PPE and control groups (83.8% (n = 207) vs. 81.9% (n = 403); p = 0.522). In multivariable analysis, wearing PPE was not associated with the FPS rate (adjusted odds ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.57–1.40; p = 0.629) after adjusting for the level of the intubator (junior resident, senior resident, or emergency medicine (EM) specialist). In conclusion, the FPS rate is not significantly affected by wearing extensive PPE in the ED.

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest treated by emergency medical service teams during COVID-19 pandemic: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a challenge for medical personnel, especially in the current COVID-19 pandemic, where medical personnel should perform resuscitation wearing full personal protective equipment. This study aims were to assess the characteristics and outcomes of adults who suffered an OHCA in the COVID-19 pandemic treated by emergency medical service (EMS) teams.

METHODS

All EMS-attended OHCA adults over than 18 years in the Polish EMS registry were analyzed. The retrospective EMS database was conducted. EMS interventions performed between March 1, and April 30, 2020 were retrospectively screened.

RESULTS

In the study period EMS operated 527 times for OHCA cases. The average age of patients with OHCA was 67.8 years. Statistically significantly more frequently men were involved (64.3%). 298 (56.6%) of all OHCA patients had resuscitation attempted by EMS providers. Among resuscitated patients, 73.8% were cardiac etiology. 9.4% of patients had return of spontaneous circulation, 27.2% of patients were admitted to hospital with ongoing chest compression. In the case of 63.4% cardiopulmonary resuscitation was ineffective and death was determined.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study found that OHCA incidence rate in the Masovian population (central region of Poland) in March-April 2020 period was 12.2/100,000 adult inhabitants. Return of spontaneous circulation in EMS was observed only in 9.4% of resuscitated patients. The presence of shockable rhythms was associated with better prognosis. The prehospital mortality, even though it was high, did not differ from those reported by other studies.

The effects of personal protective equipment on airway management: An in-situ simulation

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organisation on 11th March and has led to over 41,000 deaths in the UK. Public Health England guidance for aerosol generating procedures (AGP) requires the donning of personal protective equipment (PPE). We evaluated airway management skills using an in-situ emergency simulation. The scenarios were video recorded and scored by two independent assessors using a skill specific checklist. A total of 34 airway management procedures were evaluated. The checklist involved 13 steps with a maximum score of 26. The median (IQR [range]) checklist score was 25 (24-25 [20-26]). Four teams failed to intubate the trachea and proceeded to manage the airway using a supraglottic airway device. The mean (SD) intubation time was 47.9 (16.5) seconds and two anaesthetists (7%) required a second attempt. Our results show that airway management can be carried out successfully whilst donned in PPE. However, additional training in using newly introduced devices such as a McGrath® video laryngoscope is of paramount importance.

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing ventilatory support in chemical, biological and radiological emergencies

Objective:

to compare the mean development time of the techniques of direct laryngoscopy and insertion of supraglottic devices; and to evaluate the success rate in the first attempt of these techniques, considering health professionals wearing specific personal protective equipment (waterproof overalls; gloves; boots; eye protection; mask).

Method:

meta-analysis with studies from LILACS, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science. The keywords were the following: personal protective equipment; airway management; intubation; laryngeal masks.

Results:

in the “reduction of the time of the procedures” outcome, the general analysis of the supraglottic devices in comparison with the orotracheal tube initially presented high heterogeneity of the data (I²= 97%). Subgroup analysis had an impact on reducing heterogeneity among the data. The “laryngeal mask as a guide for orotracheal intubation” subgroup showed moderate heterogeneity (I²= 74%). The “2^ndgeneration supraglottic devices” subgroup showed homogeneity (I²= 0%). All the meta-analyses favored supraglottic devices. In the “success in the first attempt” outcome, moderate homogeneity was found (I²= 52%), showing a higher proportion of correct answers for supraglottic devices.

Conclusion:

in the context of chemical, biological or radiological disaster, the insertion of the supraglottic device proved to be faster and more likely to be successful by health professionals. PROSPERO record (CRD42019136139).

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants) coveralls were more difficult to doff than isolation gowns (very low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). According to three studies that tested more recently introduced full-body PPE ensembles, there may be no difference in contamination. Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants), people with a long gown had less contamination than those with a coverall, and coveralls were more difficult to doff (low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort, and may therefore even lead to more contamination. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

BACKGROUND

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Contact precautions by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to remove PPE, and how to make sure HCW use PPE as instructed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate which type of full body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 15 July 2018), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 18 June 2019), Scopus (Scopus 18 June 2019), CINAHL (EBSCOhost 31 July 2018), and OSH-Update (up to 31 December 2018). We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all controlled studies that compared the effects of PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as Ebola or SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that used simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training in PPE use on the same outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We planned to perform meta-analyses but did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies with 1950 participants evaluating 21 interventions. Ten studies are Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), one is a quasi RCT and six have a non-randomised controlled design. Two studies are awaiting assessment.Ten studies compared types of PPE but only six of these reported sufficient data. Six studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated different types of training. Fifteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless viruses. In simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 10% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study HCW were exposed to Ebola and in another to SARS.Evidence for all outcomes is based on single studies and is very low quality.Different types of PPEPPE made of more breathable material may not lead to more contamination spots on the trunk (Mean Difference (MD) 1.60 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.15 to 3.35) than more water repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46; 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5).Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (MD large patches -1.36 95% CI -1.78 to -0.94).The use of a powered air-purifying respirator may protect better than a simple ensemble of PPE without such respirator (Relative Risk (RR) 0.27; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.43).Five different PPE ensembles (such as gown vs. coverall, boots with or without covers, hood vs. cap, length and number of gloves) were evaluated in one study, but there were no event data available for compared groups.Alterations to PPE design may lead to less contamination such as added tabs to grab masks (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31), a sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), or a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55) compared to standard PPE.Different methods of donning and doffing proceduresDouble gloving may lead to less contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78).Following CDC recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (MD small patches -5.44; 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45).Alcohol-based hand rub used during the doffing process may not lead to less contamination than the use of a hypochlorite based solution (MD 4.00; 95% CI 0.47 to 34.24).Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4).Different types of trainingThe use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7).A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70; 95% CI 20.14,41.26) than a traditional lecture.Face to face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.There were no studies on effects of training in the long term or on resource use.The quality of the evidence is very low for all comparisons because of high risk of bias in all studies, indirectness of evidence, and small numbers of participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low quality evidence that more breathable types of PPE may not lead to more contamination, but may have greater user satisfaction. Alterations to PPE, such as tabs to grab may decrease contamination. Double gloving, following CDC doffing guidance, and spoken instructions during doffing may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than video or folder based training. Because data come from single small studies with high risk of bias, we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We still need randomised controlled trials to find out which training works best in the long term. We need better simulation studies conducted with several dozen participants to find out which PPE protects best, and what is the safest way to remove PPE. Consensus on the best way to conduct simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection in the field.