Trial reportPloS one2021
Assessment of dispersion of airborne particles of oral/nasal fluid by high flow nasal cannula therapy.
Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Generation of Aerosols by Noninvasive Respiratory Support Modalities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled it
- Novel co-axial, disposable, low-cost 3D printed videolaryngoscopes for patients with COVID-19: a manikin study.European journal of anaesthesiology and intensive care · 2023Article
- Can nonvolatile tastants be smelled during food oral processing?Chemical senses · 2023Article
- Application of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in COVID-19: A Narrative Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Oral Lesions Associated with COVID-19 and the Participation of the Buccal Cavity as a Key Player for Establishment of Immunity against SARS-CoV-2.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics and Clonal Spread in COVID-19-Positive Patients on a Tertiary Hospital Intensive Care Unit, Czech Republic.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Airborne particle dispersion by high flow nasal oxygen: An experimental and CFD analysis.PloS one · 2022Article
- The effect of respiratory activity, non-invasive respiratory support and facemasks on aerosol generation and its relevance to COVID-19.Anaesthesia · 2021Article
- High flow nasal cannula for adult acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the ED setting.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2021Review
- High-Flow Nasal Cannula Treatment in Patients with COVID-19 Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Prospective Cohort Study.Saudi journal of medicine & medical sciencesArticle
- High flow nasal cannula oxygenation in COVID-19 related acute respiratory distress syndrome: a safe way to avoid endotracheal intubation?Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNasal High Flow (NHF) therapy delivers flows of heated humidified gases up to 60 LPM (litres per minute) via a nasal cannula. Particles of oral/nasal fluid released by patients undergoing NHF therapy may pose a cross-infection risk, which is a potential concern for treating COVID-19 patients.
methodsLiquid particles within the exhaled breath of healthy participants were measured with two protocols: (1) high speed camera imaging and counting exhaled particles under high magnification (6 participants) and (2) measuring the deposition of a chemical marker (riboflavin-5-monophosphate) at a distance of 100 and 500 mm on filter papers through which air was drawn (10 participants). The filter papers were assayed with HPLC. Breathing conditions tested included quiet (resting) breathing and vigorous breathing (which here means nasal snorting, voluntary coughing and voluntary sneezing). Unsupported (natural) breathing and NHF at 30 and 60 LPM were compared.
resultsImaging: During quiet breathing, no particles were recorded with unsupported breathing or 30 LPM NHF (detection limit for single particles 33 μm). Particles were detected from 2 of 6 participants at 60 LPM quiet breathing at approximately 10% of the rate caused by unsupported vigorous breathing. Unsupported vigorous breathing released the greatest numbers of particles. Vigorous breathing with NHF at 60 LPM, released half the number of particles compared to vigorous breathing without NHF.Chemical marker tests: No oral/nasal fluid was detected in quiet breathing without NHF (detection limit 0.28 μL/m3). In quiet breathing with NHF at 60 LPM, small quantities were detected in 4 out of 29 quiet breathing tests, not exceeding 17 μL/m3. Vigorous breathing released 200-1000 times more fluid than the quiet breathing with NHF. The quantities detected in vigorous breathing were similar whether using NHF or not.
conclusionDuring quiet breathing, 60 LPM NHF therapy may cause oral/nasal fluid to be released as particles, at levels of tens of μL per cubic metre of air. Vigorous breathing (snort, cough or sneeze) releases 200 to 1000 times more oral/nasal fluid than quiet breathing (p < 0.001 with both imaging and chemical marker methods). During vigorous breathing, 60 LPM NHF therapy caused no statistically significant difference in the quantity of oral/nasal fluid released compared to unsupported breathing. NHF use does not increase the risk of dispersing infectious aerosols above the risk of unsupported vigorous breathing. Standard infection prevention and control measures should apply when dealing with a patient who has an acute respiratory infection, independent of which, if any, respiratory support is being used. CLINICAL
trial registrationACTRN12614000924651.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.