Cargando…
Comparing the protective performances of 3 types of N95 filtering facepiece respirators during chest compressions: A randomized simulation study
OBJECTIVE: Healthcare providers in emergency departments should wear respirators for infection protection. However, the wearer's vigorous movements during cardiopulmonary resuscitation may affect the protective performance of the respirator. Herein, we aimed to assess the effects of chest compr...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer Health
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5662401/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29049235 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000008308 |
_version_ | 1783274636565282816 |
---|---|
author | Shin, Hyungoo Oh, Jaehoon Lim, Tae Ho Kang, Hyunggoo Song, Yeongtak Lee, Sanghyun |
author_facet | Shin, Hyungoo Oh, Jaehoon Lim, Tae Ho Kang, Hyunggoo Song, Yeongtak Lee, Sanghyun |
author_sort | Shin, Hyungoo |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Healthcare providers in emergency departments should wear respirators for infection protection. However, the wearer's vigorous movements during cardiopulmonary resuscitation may affect the protective performance of the respirator. Herein, we aimed to assess the effects of chest compressions (CCs) on the protective performance of respirators. METHODS: This crossover study evaluated 30 healthcare providers from 1 emergency department who performed CC with real-time feedback. The first, second, and third groups started with a cup-type, fold-type, and valve-type respirator, respectively, after which the respirators were randomized for each group. The fit factors were measured using a quantitative fit testing device before and during the CC in each experiment. The protection rate was defined as the proportion of respirators achieving a fit factor ≥100. RESULTS: The fold-type respirator had a significantly greater protection rate at baseline (100.0% ± 0.0%) compared to the cup-type (73.6% ± 39.6%, P = .003) and valve-type respirators (87.5% ± 30.3%, P = .012). During the CC, the fit factor values significantly decreased for the cup-type (44.9% ± 42.8%, P < .001) and valve-type respirators (59.5% ± 41.7%, P = .002), but not for the fold-type respirator (93.2% ± 21.7%, P = .095). CONCLUSIONS: The protective performances of respirators may be influenced by CC. Healthcare providers should identify the respirator that provides the best fit for their intended tasks. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5662401 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer Health |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56624012017-11-21 Comparing the protective performances of 3 types of N95 filtering facepiece respirators during chest compressions: A randomized simulation study Shin, Hyungoo Oh, Jaehoon Lim, Tae Ho Kang, Hyunggoo Song, Yeongtak Lee, Sanghyun Medicine (Baltimore) 3900 OBJECTIVE: Healthcare providers in emergency departments should wear respirators for infection protection. However, the wearer's vigorous movements during cardiopulmonary resuscitation may affect the protective performance of the respirator. Herein, we aimed to assess the effects of chest compressions (CCs) on the protective performance of respirators. METHODS: This crossover study evaluated 30 healthcare providers from 1 emergency department who performed CC with real-time feedback. The first, second, and third groups started with a cup-type, fold-type, and valve-type respirator, respectively, after which the respirators were randomized for each group. The fit factors were measured using a quantitative fit testing device before and during the CC in each experiment. The protection rate was defined as the proportion of respirators achieving a fit factor ≥100. RESULTS: The fold-type respirator had a significantly greater protection rate at baseline (100.0% ± 0.0%) compared to the cup-type (73.6% ± 39.6%, P = .003) and valve-type respirators (87.5% ± 30.3%, P = .012). During the CC, the fit factor values significantly decreased for the cup-type (44.9% ± 42.8%, P < .001) and valve-type respirators (59.5% ± 41.7%, P = .002), but not for the fold-type respirator (93.2% ± 21.7%, P = .095). CONCLUSIONS: The protective performances of respirators may be influenced by CC. Healthcare providers should identify the respirator that provides the best fit for their intended tasks. Wolters Kluwer Health 2017-10-20 /pmc/articles/PMC5662401/ /pubmed/29049235 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000008308 Text en Copyright © 2017 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
spellingShingle | 3900 Shin, Hyungoo Oh, Jaehoon Lim, Tae Ho Kang, Hyunggoo Song, Yeongtak Lee, Sanghyun Comparing the protective performances of 3 types of N95 filtering facepiece respirators during chest compressions: A randomized simulation study |
title | Comparing the protective performances of 3 types of N95 filtering facepiece respirators during chest compressions: A randomized simulation study |
title_full | Comparing the protective performances of 3 types of N95 filtering facepiece respirators during chest compressions: A randomized simulation study |
title_fullStr | Comparing the protective performances of 3 types of N95 filtering facepiece respirators during chest compressions: A randomized simulation study |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparing the protective performances of 3 types of N95 filtering facepiece respirators during chest compressions: A randomized simulation study |
title_short | Comparing the protective performances of 3 types of N95 filtering facepiece respirators during chest compressions: A randomized simulation study |
title_sort | comparing the protective performances of 3 types of n95 filtering facepiece respirators during chest compressions: a randomized simulation study |
topic | 3900 |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5662401/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29049235 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000008308 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT shinhyungoo comparingtheprotectiveperformancesof3typesofn95filteringfacepiecerespiratorsduringchestcompressionsarandomizedsimulationstudy AT ohjaehoon comparingtheprotectiveperformancesof3typesofn95filteringfacepiecerespiratorsduringchestcompressionsarandomizedsimulationstudy AT limtaeho comparingtheprotectiveperformancesof3typesofn95filteringfacepiecerespiratorsduringchestcompressionsarandomizedsimulationstudy AT kanghyunggoo comparingtheprotectiveperformancesof3typesofn95filteringfacepiecerespiratorsduringchestcompressionsarandomizedsimulationstudy AT songyeongtak comparingtheprotectiveperformancesof3typesofn95filteringfacepiecerespiratorsduringchestcompressionsarandomizedsimulationstudy AT leesanghyun comparingtheprotectiveperformancesof3typesofn95filteringfacepiecerespiratorsduringchestcompressionsarandomizedsimulationstudy |