Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Nebuliser Type Influences Both Patient-Derived Bioaerosol Emissions and Ventilation Parameters during Mechanical Ventilation

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          COVID-19 may lead to serious respiratory complications which may necessitate ventilatory support. There is concern surrounding potential release of patient-derived bioaerosol during nebuliser drug refill, which could impact the health of caregivers. Consequently, mesh nebulisers have been recommended by various clinical practice guidelines. Currently, there is a lack of empirical data describing the potential for release of patient-derived bioaerosol during drug refill. This study examined the release of simulated patient-derived bioaerosol, and the effect on positive end expiratory pressure during nebuliser refill during mechanical ventilation of a simulated patient. During jet nebuliser refill, the positive end expiratory pressure decreased from 4.5 to 0 cm H 2O. No loss in pressure was noted during vibrating mesh nebuliser refill. A median particle number concentration of 710 particles cm −3 above ambient was detected when refilling the jet nebuliser in comparison to no increase above ambient detected when using the vibrating mesh nebuliser. The jet nebuliser with the endotracheal tube clamped resulted in 60 particles cm −3 above ambient levels. This study confirms that choice of nebuliser impacts both the potential for patient-derived bioaerosol release and the ability to maintain ventilator circuit pressures and validates the recommended use of mesh nebulisers during mechanical ventilation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

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

          Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China

          Summary Background A recent cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China, was caused by a novel betacoronavirus, the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). We report the epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics and treatment and clinical outcomes of these patients. Methods All patients with suspected 2019-nCoV were admitted to a designated hospital in Wuhan. We prospectively collected and analysed data on patients with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection by real-time RT-PCR and next-generation sequencing. Data were obtained with standardised data collection forms shared by WHO and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium from electronic medical records. Researchers also directly communicated with patients or their families to ascertain epidemiological and symptom data. Outcomes were also compared between patients who had been admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and those who had not. Findings By Jan 2, 2020, 41 admitted hospital patients had been identified as having laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection. Most of the infected patients were men (30 [73%] of 41); less than half had underlying diseases (13 [32%]), including diabetes (eight [20%]), hypertension (six [15%]), and cardiovascular disease (six [15%]). Median age was 49·0 years (IQR 41·0–58·0). 27 (66%) of 41 patients had been exposed to Huanan seafood market. One family cluster was found. Common symptoms at onset of illness were fever (40 [98%] of 41 patients), cough (31 [76%]), and myalgia or fatigue (18 [44%]); less common symptoms were sputum production (11 [28%] of 39), headache (three [8%] of 38), haemoptysis (two [5%] of 39), and diarrhoea (one [3%] of 38). Dyspnoea developed in 22 (55%) of 40 patients (median time from illness onset to dyspnoea 8·0 days [IQR 5·0–13·0]). 26 (63%) of 41 patients had lymphopenia. All 41 patients had pneumonia with abnormal findings on chest CT. Complications included acute respiratory distress syndrome (12 [29%]), RNAaemia (six [15%]), acute cardiac injury (five [12%]) and secondary infection (four [10%]). 13 (32%) patients were admitted to an ICU and six (15%) died. Compared with non-ICU patients, ICU patients had higher plasma levels of IL2, IL7, IL10, GSCF, IP10, MCP1, MIP1A, and TNFα. Interpretation The 2019-nCoV infection caused clusters of severe respiratory illness similar to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and was associated with ICU admission and high mortality. Major gaps in our knowledge of the origin, epidemiology, duration of human transmission, and clinical spectrum of disease need fulfilment by future studies. Funding Ministry of Science and Technology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, and Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Surviving Sepsis Campaign: guidelines on the management of critically ill adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

            Background The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. Methods We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. Results The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy. Conclusion The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-020-06022-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Case characteristics, resource use, and outcomes of 10 021 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 920 German hospitals: an observational study

              Summary Background Nationwide, unbiased, and unselected data of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 are scarce. Our aim was to provide a detailed account of case characteristics, resource use, and outcomes of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in Germany, where the health-care system has not been overwhelmed by the pandemic. Methods In this observational study, adult patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, who were admitted to hospital in Germany between Feb 26 and April 19, 2020, and for whom a complete hospital course was available (ie, the patient was discharged or died in hospital) were included in the study cohort. Claims data from the German Local Health Care Funds were analysed. The data set included detailed information on patient characteristics, duration of hospital stay, type and duration of ventilation, and survival status. Patients with adjacent completed hospital stays were grouped into one case. Patients were grouped according to whether or not they had received any form of mechanical ventilation. To account for comorbidities, we used the Charlson comorbidity index. Findings Of 10 021 hospitalised patients being treated in 920 different hospitals, 1727 (17%) received mechanical ventilation (of whom 422 [24%] were aged 18–59 years, 382 [22%] were aged 60–69 years, 535 [31%] were aged 70–79 years, and 388 [23%] were aged ≥80 years). The median age was 72 years (IQR 57–82). Men and women were equally represented in the non-ventilated group, whereas twice as many men than women were in the ventilated group. The likelihood of being ventilated was 12% for women (580 of 4822) and 22% for men (1147 of 5199). The most common comorbidities were hypertension (5575 [56%] of 10 021), diabetes (2791 [28%]), cardiac arrhythmia (2699 [27%]), renal failure (2287 [23%]), heart failure (1963 [20%]), and chronic pulmonary disease (1358 [14%]). Dialysis was required in 599 (6%) of all patients and in 469 (27%) of 1727 ventilated patients. The Charlson comorbidity index was 0 for 3237 (39%) of 8294 patients without ventilation, but only 374 (22%) of 1727 ventilated patients. The mean duration of ventilation was 13·5 days (SD 12·1). In-hospital mortality was 22% overall (2229 of 10 021), with wide variation between patients without ventilation (1323 [16%] of 8294) and with ventilation (906 [53%] of 1727; 65 [45%] of 145 for non-invasive ventilation only, 70 [50%] of 141 for non-invasive ventilation failure, and 696 [53%] of 1318 for invasive mechanical ventilation). In-hospital mortality in ventilated patients requiring dialysis was 73% (342 of 469). In-hospital mortality for patients with ventilation by age ranged from 28% (117 of 422) in patients aged 18–59 years to 72% (280 of 388) in patients aged 80 years or older. Interpretation In the German health-care system, in which hospital capacities have not been overwhelmed by the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality has been high for patients receiving mechanical ventilation, particularly for patients aged 80 years or older and those requiring dialysis, and has been considerably lower for patients younger than 60 years. Funding None.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Pharmaceutics
                Pharmaceutics
                pharmaceutics
                Pharmaceutics
                MDPI
                1999-4923
                02 February 2021
                February 2021
                : 13
                : 2
                : 199
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Aerogen Limited, Galway Business Park, H91 HE94 Galway, Ireland; mmacgiollaeain@ 123456aerogen.com (M.M.G.E.); aosullivan@ 123456aerogen.com (A.O.); rmacloughlin@ 123456aerogen.com (R.M.)
                [2 ]School of Physics & Ryan Institute’s Centre for Climate and Air Pollution Studies, National University of Ireland Galway, H91 CF50 Galway, Ireland; james.a.mcgrath@ 123456nuigalway.ie (J.A.M.); Miriam.byrne@ 123456nuigalway.ie (M.B.)
                [3 ]School of Pharmacy & Biomolecular Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, D02 YN77 Dublin, Ireland
                [4 ]School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Trinity College, D02 PN40 Dublin, Ireland
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: mjoyce@ 123456aerogen.com
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9832-370X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5434-1260
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3164-1607
                Article
                pharmaceutics-13-00199
                10.3390/pharmaceutics13020199
                7912998
                33540764
                a6388bc2-38a5-4865-92a7-e614eb5aa0fa
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 12 January 2021
                : 30 January 2021
                Categories
                Article

                covid-19,bioaerosol,vibrating mesh nebuliser,jet nebuliser,mechanical ventilation,dispersion,aerosol generating procedure,exposure,infectious disease

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content575

                Cited by14

                Most referenced authors2,019