12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Staff safety during emergency airway management for COVID-19 in Hong Kong

      letter

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Medical professionals caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at high risk of contracting the infection. 1 Aerosol-generating procedures, such as non-invasive ventilation (NIV), high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), bag-mask ventilation, and intubation are of particularly high risk. 2 We hereby describe the approach of our local intensive care unit (North District Hospital, Sheung Shui, Hong Kong) to managing the risks to health-care staff, while maintaining optimal and high-quality care. All medical personnel involved in the management of patients with suspected COVID-19 must adhere to airborne precautions, hand hygiene, and donning of personal protective equipment. All aerosol-generating procedures should be done in an airborne infection isolation room. Double-gloving, as a standard practice at our unit, might provide extra protection and minimise spreading via fomite contamination to the surrounding equipment after intubation. 3 An experiment with a mannikin showed that NIV or HFNC, when well applied with an optimal fit, only lead to minimal dispersion of exhaled air. 4 However, the specific NIV and HFNC models and modes tested in the study are not universally used across all hospitals. Therefore, to avoid confusion and potential harm, we do not recommend using NIV or HFNC until the patient is cleared of COVID-19. Airway devices providing 6 L/min or more of oxygen are considered high-flow 5 and we discourage their use if an airborne infection isolation room is unavailable. We recommend that endotracheal intubation is done by an expert specialised in the procedure, and early intubation should be considered in a patient with deteriorating respiratory condition. For all cases, backup airway plans should be ready. We recommend avoiding bag mask ventilation for as long as possible; and optimising preoxygenation with non-aerosol-generating means. Methods include the bed-up-head-elevated position, airway manoeuvres, use of a positive end expiratory pressure valve, and airway adjuncts. If manual bagging is required, we suggest gentle ventilation via a supraglottic device instead of bag mask ventilation. Although no robust evidence is available to show that the use of supraglottic devices are less aerosol-generating than BMV, the devices are easy to insert and can achieve sufficient seal pressure. They also help to spare manpower and thus reduce staff exposure. Furthermore, many newer generation supraglottic devices provide a conduit for unassisted intubation. To monitor the pattern of ventilation, a continuous waveform capnography monitoring device should be used; an advantage of this being that a correct waveform accurately reflects correct endotracheal tube placement. Furthermore, physiologically, it might give clues on the adequacy of the seal when using supraglottic devices. Rapid sequence induction is the technique of choice for emergency intubation. Some operators prefer rocuronium over suxamethonium for its longer half-life, which effectively prevents coughing or vomiting that might occur when the shorter acting muscle relaxant subsides after an unsuccessful first attempt. When rocuronium is used, a full 1·2 mg/kg intravenous dose should be administered to achieve a similar onset time to suxamethonium. Once an endotracheal tube is inserted, its cuff should be inflated immediately to avoid leakage. The endotracheal tube should be connected to the ventilator via a filter and a waveform capnography monitoring device, with ventilation only started after pilot balloon inflation is confirmed. The capnography monitoring device waveform can subsequently confirm the correct positioning of the endotracheal tube. Only then should the physician exclude bronchial intubation by five-point auscultation. © 2020 Conceptual Images/Science Photo Library 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

          Related collections

          Most cited references2

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Protecting health-care workers from subclinical coronavirus infection

          Health-care workers face an elevated risk of exposure to infectious diseases, including the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) in China. It is imperative to ensure the safety of health-care workers not only to safeguard continuous patient care but also to ensure they do not transmit the virus. COVID-19 can spread via cough or respiratory droplets, contact with bodily fluids, or from contaminated surfaces. 1 According to recent guidelines from the China National Health Commission, pneumonia caused by COVID-19 was included as a Group B infectious disease, which is in the same category as other infectious viruses such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). However, current guidelines suggest ensuring protective measures for all health-care workers similar to those indicated for Group A infections—a category reserved for highly infectious pathogens, such as cholera and plague. 2 WHO confirmed 8098 cases and 774 (9·6%) deaths during the SARS outbreak in 2002, of which health-care workers accounted for 1707 (21%) cases. Recent evidence suggests that even someone who is non-symptomatic can spread COVID-19 with high efficiency, and conventional measures of protection, such as face masks, provide insufficient protection. A boy aged 10 years who was infected with COVID-19 had no symptoms but had visible changes in lung imaging and blood markers of disease. 1 Another patient undergoing surgery in a hospital in Wuhan infected 14 health-care workers even before fever onset. 3 Additionally, a medical expert, who visited Wuhan to investigate the COVID-19 outbreak, after returning to Beijing, initially exhibited conjunctivitis of the lower left eyelid before the appearance of catarrhal symptoms and fever. 4 The individual tested positive for COVID-19, suggesting its tropism to non-respiratory mucosal surfaces, thus limiting the effectiveness of face masks. A patient who travelled from Shanghai to attend a meeting in Germany was subclinical until on the flight back to China. However, two of this patient's close contacts and another two patients attending the meeting without close contact were found to be infected with COVID-19. 5 This recent case shows that not only can subclinical patients transmit the virus effectively but patients can also shed high amounts of the virus and infect others even after recovery from the acute illness. These findings warrant aggressive measures (such as N95 masks, goggles, and protective gowns) to ensure the safety of health-care workers during this COVID-19 outbreak, as well as future outbreaks, especially in the initial stages where limited information about the transmission and infective potency of the virus is available.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of single- versus double-gloving on virus transfer to health care workers’ skin and clothing during removal of personal protective equipment

            Background The removal of personal protective equipment (PPE) after patient care may result in transfer of virus to hands and clothing of health care workers (HCWs). The risk of transfer can be modeled using harmless viruses to obtain quantitative data. To determine whether double-gloving reduces virus transfer to HCWs’ hands and clothing during removal of contaminated PPE, we conducted a human challenge study using bacteriophages to compare the frequency and quantity of virus transfer to hands and clothes during PPE removal with single-gloving and double-gloving technique. Methods Each experiment had a double-gloving phase and a single-gloving phase. Participants donned PPE (ie, contact isolation gown, N95 respirator, eye protection, latex gloves). The gown, respirator, eye protection, and dominant glove were contaminated with bacteriophage. Participants then removed the PPE, and their hands, face, and scrubs were sampled for virus. Results Transfer of virus to hands during PPE removal was significantly more frequent with single-gloving than with double-gloving. Transfer to scrubs was similar during single-gloving and double-gloving. The amount of virus transfer to hands ranged from 0.15 to 2.5 log10 most probable number. Significantly more virus was transferred to participants’ hands after single-gloving than after double-gloving. Conclusions Our comparison of double-gloving and single-gloving using a simulation system with MS2 and a most-probable number method suggests that double gloving can reduce the risk of viral contamination of HCWs’ hands during PPE removal. If incorporated into practice when full PPE is worn, this practice may reduce the risk of viral contamination of HCWs’ hands during PPE removal. The use of double gloves should be explored in larger controlled studies.
              Bookmark

              Author and article information

              Contributors
              Journal
              Lancet Respir Med
              Lancet Respir Med
              The Lancet. Respiratory Medicine
              Elsevier Ltd.
              2213-2600
              2213-2619
              24 February 2020
              April 2020
              24 February 2020
              : 8
              : 4
              : e19
              Affiliations
              [a ]Intensive Care Unit, North District Hospital, Sheung Shui, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China
              Article
              S2213-2600(20)30084-9
              10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30084-9
              7128208
              32105633
              1b2f9fce-f525-40b0-84ef-5cd0e4b3f7dd
              © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

              Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

              History
              Categories
              Article

              Comments

              Comment on this article