Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34562184›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2022

VACuum INtubation (VACcIN) box restricts the exhaled air dispersion generated by simulated cough: description and simulation-based tests of an innovative aerosolization protective prototype.

Rami Issa, Robert Urbanowicz, Philippe Richebé, Julie Blain, Alexandre Ferreira Benevides, Issam Tanoubi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rami IssaDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine of Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital, CIUSSS de l'Est de l'Ile de Montreal, University of Montreal, 5415 Boulevard de l'Assomption, Montreal, QC, H1T 2M4, Canada.
Robert UrbanowiczDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine of Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital, CIUSSS de l'Est de l'Ile de Montreal, University of Montreal, 5415 Boulevard de l'Assomption, Montreal, QC, H1T 2M4, Canada.
Philippe RichebéDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine of Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital, CIUSSS de l'Est de l'Ile de Montreal, University of Montreal, 5415 Boulevard de l'Assomption, Montreal, QC, H1T 2M4, Canada.
Julie BlainDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine of Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital, CIUSSS de l'Est de l'Ile de Montreal, University of Montreal, 5415 Boulevard de l'Assomption, Montreal, QC, H1T 2M4, Canada.
Alexandre Ferreira BenevidesDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Issam TanoubiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine of Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital, CIUSSS de l'Est de l'Ile de Montreal, University of Montreal, 5415 Boulevard de l'Assomption, Montreal, QC, H1T 2M4, Canada. i.tanoubi@umontreal.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-6123-0956

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused personal protective equipment shortages worldwide and required healthcare workers to develop novel ways of protecting themselves. Anesthesiologists in particular are exposed to increased risks of contamination when performing interventions such as airway manipulations. We developed and tested an aerosolization protective device which contains aerosols around the patient's airway and helps eliminate particles using negative pressure. This intubation box is a polymethyl methacrylate prism with openings for gloves, integrated suction and ventilation connectors. We conducted a randomised controlled series of tests to detect 0.5 µm particles after a simulated cough inside the intubation box, using a high-fidelity simulation mannequin. Setting and main outcome: We measured particle concentrations inside the box with and without suction turned on, in both negative and positive pressure operating rooms. We also obtained particle concentrations outside our box and compared them to non-airtight barrier devices. One minute following simulated cough, the mean number of particles per cubic foot in our box with suction on is around 45% that with the suction off (1,462,373 vs 3,272,080, P < 0.0001) in the negative pressure room, and four times lower than with the suction off (760,380 vs 3,088,700, P < 0.0001) in the positive pressure room. After a simulated cough inside the box, particles can be detected in front of the anesthesiologist's face with a non-airtight device, while none are detected when our box is sealed and its suction turned on. The use of our negative pressure intubation box prevents contamination of surroundings and increases particle elimination, regardless of room pressure.

Indexed as

COVID-19Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-ProfessionalAntigens, BacterialCoughHumansIntubation, IntratrachealPandemicsPolymethyl MethacrylateRespiratory Aerosols and DropletsVacuumAntigens, BacterialPolymethyl MethacrylatevaccinAerosolsCOVID-19Intubation boxParticles

Identifiers

PMID34562184
PMCPMC8475855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.