This study was conducted to assess the feasibility of extended use of N95 masks in our hospital during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We also studied the use pattern, user satisfaction, and issues faced during extended use of the mask.

This cross-sectional study was conducted among health-care providers in a large tertiary care teaching hospital in northern India from April 1 to May 31, 2020. A list was prepared from the institute’s register, and participants were chosen by random sampling. The data collected from the physical forms were transferred to excel sheets.

A total of 1121 responses were received. The most common problem stated with reuse of N95 masks was loss of fit followed by damage to the slings, highlighted by 44.6% and 44.4% of the participants, respectively. A total of 476 (42.5%) participants responded that they would prefer “cup-shaped N95 mask with respirator”. The median scores regarding the satisfaction with the quality of masks and their fit was also 4 each.

It was concluded that the extended use of N95 masks was acceptable, with more than 96% of the participants using these masks.

Chemical-biological-radio-nuclear (CBRN) gas masks are the standard means for protecting the general population from inhalation of toxic industrial compounds (TICs), for example after industrial accidents or terrorist attacks. However, such gas masks would not protect patients on home mechanical ventilation, as ventilator airflow would bypass the CBRN filter. We therefore evaluated in vivo the safety of adding a standard-issue CBRN filter to the air-outflow port of a home ventilator, as a method for providing TIC protection to such patients.

Eight adult patients were included in the study. All had been on stable, chronic ventilation via a tracheostomy for at least 3 months before the study. Each patient was ventilated for a period of 1 hour with a standard-issue CBRN filter canister attached to the air-outflow port of their ventilator. Physiological and airflow measurements were made before, during, and after using the filter, and the patients reported their subjective sensation of ventilation continuously during the trial.

For all patients, and throughout the entire study, no deterioration in any of the measured physiological parameters and no changes in measured airflow parameters were detected. All patients felt no subjective difference in the sensation of ventilation with the CBRN filter canister in situ, as compared with ventilation without it. This was true even for those patients who were breathing spontaneously and thus activating the ventilator’s trigger/sensitivity function. No technical malfunctions of the ventilators occurred after addition of the CBRN filter canister to the air-outflow ports of the ventilators.

A CBRN filter canister can be added to the air-outflow port of chronically ventilated patients, without causing an objective or subjective deterioration in the quality of the patients’ mechanical ventilation. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2018;12:739-743)

Emergency pediatric life support (EPLS) of children infected with transmissible respiratory diseases requires adequate respiratory protection for medical first responders. Conventional air-purifying respirators (APR) and modern loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirator-hoods (PAPR-hood) may have a different impact during pediatric resuscitation and therefore require evaluation.

This study investigated the influence of APRs and PAPR-hoods during simulated pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Study design was a randomized, controlled, crossover study. Sixteen paramedics carried out a standardized EPLS scenario inside an ambulance, either unprotected (control) or wearing a conventional APR or a PAPR-hood. Treatment times and wearer comfort were determined and compared.

All paramedics completed the treatment objectives of the study arms without adverse events. Study subjects reported that communication, dexterity and mobility were significantly better in the APR group, whereas the heat-build-up was significantly less in the PAPR-hood group. Treatment times compared to the control group did not significantly differ for the APR group but did with the PAPR-hood group (261±12 seconds for the controls, 275±9 seconds for the conventional APR and 286±13 seconds for the PAPR-hood group, P < .05.

APRs showed a trend to better treatment times compared to PAPR-hoods during simulated pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Study participants rated mobility, ease of communication and dexterity with the tight-fitting APR system significantly better compared to the loose-fitting PAPR-hood.

SchumacherJ, GraySA, MichelS, AlcockR, BrinkerA. Respiratory Protection During Simulated Emergency Pediatric Life Support: A Randomized, Controlled, Crossover Study. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2013;28(1):1-6.