Cargando…

COVID-19 Airway Management Isolation Chamber

OBJECTIVE: During the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), health care workers are innovating patient care and safety measures. Unfortunately, many of these are not properly tested for efficacy. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of the novel COVID-19 Airway Management Isolation C...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Blood, Timothy C., Perkins, Jonathan N., Wistermayer, Paul R., Krivda, Joseph S., Fisher, Nathan T., Riley, Charles A., Ruhl, Douglas S., Hong, Steven S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7361124/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32662735
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0194599820942500
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: During the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), health care workers are innovating patient care and safety measures. Unfortunately, many of these are not properly tested for efficacy. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of the novel COVID-19 Airway Management Isolation Chamber (CAMIC) to contain and evacuate particulate. STUDY DESIGN: Multi-institutional proof-of-concept study. SETTING: Two academic institutions: Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) and Madigan Army Medical Center (MAMC). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Smoke, saline nebulizer, and simulated working port models were developed to assess the efficacy of the CAMIC to contain and remove ultrafine particles. Particulate counts were collected at set time intervals inside and outside the system. RESULTS: With the CAMIC on, smoke particulate counts inside the chamber significantly decreased over time: r(18) = −0.88, P < .001, WRNMMC; r(18) = −0.91, P < .001, MAMC. Similarly, saline nebulizer particulate counts inside the chamber significantly decreased over time: r(23) = −0.82, P < .001, WRNMMC; r(23) = −0.70, P < .001, MAMC. In the working port model, particulate counts inside the chamber significantly decreased over time: r(23) = −0.95, P < .001, WRNMMC; r(23) = −0.85, P < .001, MAMC. No significant leak was detected in the smoke, saline nebulizer, or working port model when the CAMIC was turned on. CONCLUSIONS: The CAMIC system appears to provide a barrier that actively removes particles from within the chamber and limits egress. Further studies are necessary to determine clinical applicability. The CAMIC may serve as an adjunct to improve health care worker safety and patient outcomes.