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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shin, Hyungoo, Oh, Jaehoon, Lim, Tae Ho, Kang, Hyunggoo, Song, Yeongtak, Lee, Sanghyun
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