Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2021
The effect of an air purifier on aerosol generation measurements during clinical motility testing.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Verbeure Wout, Geeraerts Annelies, Huang I-Hsuan, Timmermans Lien, Tóth Joran, Geysen Hannelore, Cools Louise, Carbone Florencia, Schol Jolien, Devriese Herman, Haesaerts Rico, Mori Hideki, Vanuytsel Tim, Tack Jan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Aerosol spread is key to interpret the risk of viral contamination during clinical procedures such as esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM). Installing an air purifier seems a legitimate strategy, but this has recently been questioned.
METHODS: Patients undergoing an HRM procedure at the Leuven University Hospital were included in this clinical study. All subjects had to wear a surgical mask which was only lowered beneath the nose during the placement and removal of the nasogastric catheter. The number of aerosol particles was measured by a Lasair® II Particle Counter to obtain data about different particles sizes: 0.3; 0.5; 1.0; 3.0; 5.0; and 10.0 µm. Measurements were done immediately before the placement and the removal of the HRM catheter, and one and 5 min after. A portable air purifier with high-efficiency particle air filters was installed in the hospital room.
KEY RESULTS: Thirteen patients underwent a manometry examination. The amount of 0.3 µm-sized particles was unaffected during the whole procedure. The larger particle sizes (1.0; 3.0; 5.0; and 10.0 µm) decreased when the catheter was positioned, but not 0.5 µm. During the HRM measurements itself, these numbers decreased further. Yet, 1 min after catheter removal a significant elevation of particles was seen, which did not recover within 5 min.
CONCLUSIONS & INTERFERENCES: Based on this study, there is no evidence that filtration systems reduce aerosol particles properly during a clinical investigation.
METHODS: Patients undergoing an HRM procedure at the Leuven University Hospital were included in this clinical study. All subjects had to wear a surgical mask which was only lowered beneath the nose during the placement and removal of the nasogastric catheter. The number of aerosol particles was measured by a Lasair® II Particle Counter to obtain data about different particles sizes: 0.3; 0.5; 1.0; 3.0; 5.0; and 10.0 µm. Measurements were done immediately before the placement and the removal of the HRM catheter, and one and 5 min after. A portable air purifier with high-efficiency particle air filters was installed in the hospital room.
KEY RESULTS: Thirteen patients underwent a manometry examination. The amount of 0.3 µm-sized particles was unaffected during the whole procedure. The larger particle sizes (1.0; 3.0; 5.0; and 10.0 µm) decreased when the catheter was positioned, but not 0.5 µm. During the HRM measurements itself, these numbers decreased further. Yet, 1 min after catheter removal a significant elevation of particles was seen, which did not recover within 5 min.
CONCLUSIONS & INTERFERENCES: Based on this study, there is no evidence that filtration systems reduce aerosol particles properly during a clinical investigation.