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 Ch...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery 2021-01, Vol.164 (1), p.74-81, Article 0194599820942500
Hauptverfasser: Blood, Timothy C., Perkins, Jonathan N., Wistermayer, Paul R., Krivda, Joseph S., Fisher, Nathan T., Riley, Charles A., Ruhl, Douglas S., Hong, Steven S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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.
ISSN:0194-5998
1097-6817
1097-6817
DOI:10.1177/0194599820942500