Comparing aerosol exposure and prevention strategies during bystander, pre- hospital, and inpatient cardiopulmonary resuscitation

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2721191/v1

Background To evaluate aerosol exposure risk and prevention strategies during bystander, pre-hospital, and inpatient cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Methods This study compared hands-only CPR, CPR with a surgical or N95 mask, and CPR with a non-rebreather mask at 15 L/min. 30:2 compression-ventilation ratio CPR was tested with face-mask ventilation (FMV), FMV with a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter; supraglottic airway (SGA), SGA with a surgical mask, SGA with a HEPA filter, or SGA with both. Continuous CPR was tested with an endotracheal tube (ET), ET with a surgical mask, a HEPA filter, or both. Aerosol concentration at the head, trunk, and feet of the mannequin were measured to evaluate exposure to CPR personnel.

Results Hands-only CPR with a surgical or N95 face mask coverings and ET tube ventilation CPR with filters showed the lowest aerosol exposure among all study groups, including CPR with NRM oxygenation, FMV, and SGA ventilation. NRM had a mask effect and reduced aerosol exposure at the head, trunk, and feet of the mannequin. FMV with filters during 30:2 CPR reduced aerosol exposure at the head and trunk, but increased at the feet of the mannequin. A tightly-sealed SGA when used with a HEPA filter, reduced aerosol exposure by 21.00%-63.14% compared with a loose-fitting one.

Conclusion Hands-only CPR with a proper fit surgical or N95 face mask coverings is as safe as ET tube ventilation CPR with filters, compared with CPR with NRM, FMV, and SGA. FMV or tight-sealed SGA ventilation with filters prolonged the duration to achieve estimated infective dose of SARS-CoV-2 2.4-2.5 times longer than hands-on CPR only. However, a loose-fitting SGA is not protective at all to chest compressor or health workers standing at the foot side of the victim, so should be used with caution even when using with HEPA filters.

Health sciences/Health care

Health sciences/Diseases/Infectious diseases

Aerosol transmission is one of the major transmission routes of COVID-19. Current aerosol prevention strategies were not evaluated for their efficacy in reducing aerosol exposure for the participants of CPR, including the bystander, pre-hospital, and in-hospital settings. The risk of transmission reduces the willingness of bystander CPR during the pandemic.

What this study adds –

The study evaluated the quantitative evidence of aerosol concentration with a standardized design for 10 minutes CPR. The aerosol concentrations at the head, at the trunk, and at the feet of the mannequin were measured, which reflected the aerosol exposure to the airway management; chest compression or defibrillation; giving medication or leading the resuscitation team.

How this study might affect research, practice or policy –

The aerosol is extremely sensitive to flow. Sealing the masks or airway devices to the victim's airway is essential to prevent aerosol dispersion. Proper fitting mask coverings in the bystander setting are equally effective to the endotracheal tube ventilation with HEPA filters in the in-hospital setting. However, face-mask ventilation and supraglottic airway ventilation connected to HEPA filters need to be tightly sealed to prevent aerosol transmission at all times or may jeopardize the safety of the chest compressors and the person who give medication or lead the resuscitation team at the victim’s foot side.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a single-stranded RNA virus, first reported in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 that quickly spread across the globe. The virus infected more than 60 billion people worldwide and from September 2020 to present has led to over 6.4 million deaths.¹ In addition, an estimated 14.9 million excess deaths occurred during 2020 and 2021.² Multiple waves during the pandemic caused by different variants of SARS-CoV-2 has placed severe resource constraints on health care systems.³ During the pandemic period, higher rates of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA),^4–6 less bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation,^4,6−9 and lower rates of initial shockable rhythm,^{4–6, 9} delays in resuscitation,^4,6,8,9 and lower survival rates of OHCA patients with return of spontaneous circulation before admission^{4–7, 9} were observed in the pre-hospital setting. In the inpatient setting during the pandemic, a higher incidence of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) and lower rates of shockable rhythm^10,11 was observed, but overall survival was similar to pre-pandemic levels or lower, depending on the regional hospital burden.^10–11

Early cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation improve survival in OHCA.¹² One review reported decreased rates of bystander CPR in Europe after the start of the pandemic but no significant differences in the US.^9,13 The concern of COVID transmission reduced the willingness of bystanders to administer CPR.^9,13,14 COVID is most commonly transmitted through droplets, aerosols (diameter of ≤ 5 µm), and fomites.^15–17 Several essential procedures during outpatient and inpatient resuscitation are considered aerosol generating procedures: chest compression, pre-oxygenation, and manual ventilation.^16,18,19

The main risk during CPR is the constant chest compression expelling the viral aerosols from the airway system of the cardiac arrest victim with COVID-19. The dispersion of aerosols during each chest compression is not much compared with active breathing, however, 100–120 compressions per minute is far more than the respiration rate of a human. The longer the duration of CPR, the higher concentration of aerosol exposure would be resulted. A passive reverse flow was detectable during each chest compression and the mean volume was 7.5 to 41.5mL.^20–22 Consensus statements from multiple committees agree on using lower aerosolization risk strategies during chest compressions: cover the victim’s mouth with a face mask or cloth during basic life support; use a non-rebreather mask for adult CPR before advanced airway placement; avoid poor-fitting bag mask ventilation; use only experienced airway staff to administer supraglottic airway (SGA) or endotracheal tube (ET) in order to maintain the airway, and do so earlier in the resuscitation; connect a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter securely to the mask, SGA, or ET before there is any chance for passive exhaled breath from the victim during CPR.^23–26

Mostafa et al. tested second-generation SGAs in another simulation study using powder which glows under ultraviolet light²⁷. They concluded ET with a HEPA filter was effective in reducing aerosol dispersion, but SGAs with a HEPA filter were still aerosol-generating, regardless of the type of SGA.²⁸ Although these visualization studies are impressive, the real-world aerosol concentration and potential for exposure at the head (ventilation personnel), the trunk (chest compression personnel), and the assistant at the feet during CPR remain unknown.

Aerosol investigation during CPR is morally controversial. Smith et al. had studied dynamic modeling of exhaled respiratory droplets via tracer gas of 1% glycerol to evaluate the aerosol transmission²⁹. We adopted this model and conducted this investigation to evaluate the effectiveness of current strategies to reduce aerosol transmission during CPR.

Study design and setting

This simulation study was exempted from the Taipei City Hospital Research Ethics Committee. The study was conducted at the resuscitation room of Taipei City Hospital, ZhongXing branch, Taipei, Taiwan. The room temperature was 21.1 ± 0.2℃. The relative humidity was 38.1 ± 2.0%. A high-fidelity simulation mannequin (Airway Management Trainer, Laerdal®, Norway) was used, and its airway was connected to a smoke particle generator (MPL-I003, Tong-Da industry company, Taiwan). A pump system controlled by a central processing unit provided both continuous and compression-ventilation ratios of 30:2 (Fig. 1A, 1B, and 1C). The 30:2 mode provides 30 times reversed flow with the same exhaled amount and rate as the continuous mode (23.1 mL exhalation and 110 times per minute) but a pause of 8 seconds allows two 500 mL ventilations to compress into the mannequin’s airway to simulate synchronized CPR (Fig. 1A). Atomized poly-alpha-olefin, with a diameter of 0.5–0.7µm, was used as a tracer aerosol gas and was measured at the head, trunk, and feet around the mannequin with a light-scattering photometer at a sampling rate of 28.3 L/min over 10 minutes. The mouth of the mannequin was defined as upstream (100%), and three locations, defined as downstream (head, trunk, and feet), were monitored for aerosol concentrations (Fig. 1B).

Glycerol was used as a tracer gas during the large-scale particle image velocimetry (PIV) and recorded using a high-sensitivity camera (ORCA-Flash 4.0 V2 digital CMOS camera, Hamamatsu Co., Japan) to identify the direction of the airflow in the space^19,29 (Fig. 2). Both aerosol concentration and PIV results were reviewed for consistency of airflow movement in the space.

Interventions

The reference setting was continuous CPR mode with no face covering to simulate hands-only CPR before the COVID era. Six 30:2 compression-ventilation ratio settings and seven continuous CPR settings were tested: face mask ventilation (FMV); FMV with HEPA filter; supraglottic airway (SGA), SGA with face covering, SGA with HEPA filter, SGA with face covering and HEPA filter; continuous CPR with surgical mask covering, continuous CPR with N95 mask covering, non-rebreather mask at 15 L/min with face covering, continuous CPR with endotracheal intubation, continuous CPR with ET with face covering, continuous CPR with ET with HEPA filter, and continuous CPR with ET with face covering and HEPA filter. 30:2 compression-ventilation ratio CPR was tested again with a loose-fitting SGA (1mm away from the proper SGA position) with HEPA filter, a loose-fitting SGA with face covering and HEPA filter. In total, fifteen test groups were measured and compared with the reference setting for aerosol exposure.

Measurements

The particle in velocity visualization flow field in the resuscitation room was recorded using a high sensitivity camera under a green laser radiation plane and was analyzed for flow direction and presented as vector graphs.

Next, aerosol concentrations at the head, trunk, and feet of the mannequin were measured continuously over 10 minutes with the thirteen intervention subgroups and compared to the reference group. Between measurements, detection began only after the aerosol concentration fell below the baseline (50 ppm).

Outcomes

The primary outcome was the aerosol concentration at the head, trunk, and feet of the mannequin. The visualized particle in velocity was also analyzed to trace the airflow movement in the space. The estimated accumulation time to achieve the number of particles to infect an individual (Nf) was calculated to be more conceptualized to realize the study result.

Analysis

Analyses were performed using the SAS System for Unix, version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and STATA software, version 15.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). The mean percentage differences were evaluated using Student’s t tests among each setting of CPR. In total 48 comparisons —16×3 possibilities—were analyzed involving one reference group of hands-only CPR and thirteen experiment groups at the head, trunk, and feet around the mannequin. We used the Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple testing issues and address the multiple comparisons problem. The confidence interval was adjusted to 99.9% because the pairwise comparisons were large. We measured each study group and the reference group 1500 times for a duration of 10 minutes at the mannequin’s head, trunk, and feet to evaluate aerosol exposure.

The mean ± standard deviations (SD) of the aerosol concentration for the reference group at the head, trunk, and feet were 2257.37 ± 3970.83, 874.82 ± 1508.90, 744.43 ± 363.80 ppm, respectively. All subgroups with face coverings or airway devices reduced the aerosol exposure at the head (Table 1). During the hands-only continuous CPR, aerosol concentrations were prominently reduced with the proper-fitting surgical mask and N95 mask at the head, compared to the reference group without a face covering, with means ± SD of 396.21 ± 547.46, 375.30 ± 263.07 at the head; 399.01 ± 154.76, 190.84 ± 76.38 at the trunk, 402.66 ± 173.49, 296.50 ± 308.56 ppm at the feet. Hands-only CPR with NRM at a flow rate of 15L/min revealed mask effect and reduced aerosol exposure at the head, trunk, and feet around the mannequin (785.39 ± 516.95, 623.79 ± 270.98, and 508.93 ± 196.91 ppm, respectively) (Table 1).

Table 1

Aerosol concentrations in a 10 minutes period were measured at the head, trunk, and feet of the mannequin to evaluate aerosol exposure for personnel who manage the airway, conduct chest compressions and defibrillation, and give intravenous medications or lead the CPR. The number of measurements for each group were 1500 times. To translate the study result, the estimated accumulation time needs to achieve the number of particles to infect an individual (Nf) was calculated for each CPR subgroup at the head, trunk, and foot of the mannequin. The individual who participated the CPR was assumed to breath at a minute ventilation at 8L/min (tidal volume 0.5L x 16 inhalations/min). The emission rate of the alive patient with COVID-19 may range from 1,000-100,000 particles/min. The reversed exhaled flow for a minute of CPR was 23.1mL x 110 times/minute, which was 2.54 L/min, equaled to 31.76% of an individual who breaths at 8L/min. The table was schemed at the emission rate of 317.6 (1,000 x 31.76%) particles/min. The Nf of SARS-CoV-1 was 10 ~ 100 particles. The Nf of SARS-CoV-2 was unknown, however, was thought to be more efficient, thus caused the worldwide pandemic. CPR: cardiopulmonary compression; ET: endotracheal; NRM: non-rebreather mask; HEPA: high efficiency particulate air; FMV: face mask ventilation; SGA: supraglottic airway; *: poor-sealed SGA; CI: confidence interval. The reference group was hands-only continuous CPR.
		NRM at 15L/min	Surgical mask	N95 mask	HEPA Filter	FMV	SGA	Mean (ppm)		Standard Deviation	99.9% CI of			Nf = 10 (min)	Nf = 20 (min)	Nf = 100 (min)
		NRM at 15L/min	Surgical mask	N95 mask	HEPA Filter	FMV	SGA	Mean (ppm)		Standard Deviation	Mean Difference			Nf = 10 (min)	Nf = 20 (min)	Nf = 100 (min)
	Hands-only continuous CPR							2257.37	±	3970.83	Reference			1.74	3.49	17.43
			✓					396.21	±	547.46	1519.95	-	2202.36	9.93	19.87	99.33
H				✓				375.26	±	263.07	1543.34	-	2220.88	10.49	20.97	104.87
		✓						785.39	±	516.95	1131.12	-	1812.85	5.01	10.02	50.11
	Compression-ventilation 30:2 CPR					✓		972.56	±	411.34	944.98	-	1624.64	4.05	8.09	40.46
E					✓	✓		702.58	±	365.6	1215.34	-	1894.24	5.60	11.20	56.01
							✓	926.73	±	404.22	990.87	-	1670.41	4.25	8.49	42.47
			✓				✓	942.29	±	421.6	975.16	-	1654.99	4.18	8.35	41.76
A					✓		*	908.76	±	409.39	1008.80	-	1688.42	4.33	8.66	43.31
			✓		✓		*	1020.16	±	765.11	893.00	-	1581.41	3.86	7.72	38.58
					✓		✓	717.89	±	1717.68	1171.37	-	1907.59	5.48	10.96	54.82
D			✓		✓		✓	696.41	±	1138.84	1209.40	-	1912.52	5.65	11.30	56.51
	ET tube with Continuous CPR							780.26	±	320.79	1137.98	-	1816.24	5.04	10.09	50.44
			✓					805.48	±	359.06	1112.49	-	1791.29	4.89	9.77	48.86
					✓			324.30	±	157.79	1594.775	-	2271.37	12.14	24.27	121.35
			✓		✓			213.31	±	108.00	1705.90	-	2382.22	18.45	36.90	184.49
	Hands-only continuous CPR							874.82	±	1508.90	Reference			4.50	9.00	44.99
T			✓					399.01	±	154.76	346.70	-	604.93	9.86	19.73	98.63
				✓				190.84	±	76.38	555.37	-	812.59	20.62	41.24	206.21
		✓						623.79	±	270.98	120.55	-	381.53	6.31	12.62	63.09
R	Compression-ventilation 30:2 CPR					✓		942.76	±	384.95	-200.46	-	64.60	4.17	8.35	41.74
					✓	✓		732.05	±	350.33	10.93	-	274.61	5.38	10.75	53.76
							✓	749.36	±	341.98	-6.23	-	257.14	5.25	10.50	52.52
U			✓				✓	961.31	±	634.39	-225.76	-	52.78	4.09	8.19	40.94
					✓		*	880.15	±	339.51	-136.97	-	126.31	4.47	8.94	44.71
			✓		✓		*	981.86	±	776.33	-251.40	-	37.32	4.01	8.02	40.08
N					✓		✓	479.07	±	979.05	242.75	-	548.74	8.21	16.43	82.15
			✓		✓		✓	385.67	±	243	359.06	-	619.24	10.20	20.41	102.04
	ET tube with Continuous CPR							767.18	±	328.17	-23.79	-	239.07	5.13	10.26	51.30
K			✓					768.19	±	319.26	-24.64	-	237.91	5.12	10.25	51.23
					✓			300.96	±	142.8	444.84	-	702.88	13.08	26.15	130.76
			✓		✓			354.97	±	156.96	390.71	-	649.00	11.09	22.17	110.87
	Hands-only continuous CPR							744.43	±	363.80	Reference			5.29	10.57	52.86
			✓					402.66	±	173.49	307.48	-	376.06	9.77	19.55	97.74
F				✓				296.50	±	308.56	407.37	-	488.51	13.27	26.55	132.73
		✓						508.93	±	196.91	200.31	-	270.70	7.73	15.47	77.33
	Compression-ventilation 30:2 CPR					✓		1182.33	±	933.32	-523.13	-	-352.66	3.33	6.66	33.29
E					✓	✓		851.00	±	395.31	-152.26	-	-60.88	4.62	9.25	46.24
							✓	1295.03	±	775.04	-623.44	-	-477.76	3.04	6.08	30.39
			✓				✓	1307.24	±	804.83	-637.95	-	-487.66	3.01	6.02	30.10
E					✓		*	1300.08	±	679.48	-621.21	-	-490.08	3.03	6.05	30.27
			✓		✓		*	1150.06	±	826.29	-482.44	-	-328.81	3.42	6.84	34.22
					✓		✓	479.26	±	309.01	224.57	-	305.76	8.21	16.42	82.11
T			✓		✓		✓	432.22	±	235.35	275.36	-	349.07	9.11	18.21	91.05
	ET tube with Continuous CPR							1315.7	±	521.18	-625.33	-	-517.21	2.99	5.98	29.91
			✓					1447.51	±	562.61	-760.06	-	-646.09	2.72	5.44	27.19
					✓			348.8	±	229.02	359.07	-	432.20	11.28	22.57	112.83
			✓		✓			375.93	±	236.74	331.59	-	405.43	10.47	20.94	104.69

When comparing the 30:2 compression-ventilation ratio CPR and face mask ventilation with the reference group, the FMV alone increased aerosols at the feet, but decreased aerosols at the head (Table 1). FMV with a HEPA filter showed similar effect but the aerosol concentrations were reduced (FMV values were 972.56 ± 411.34, 942.76 ± 384.95, 1182.33 ± 933.32; FMV + HEPA filter values were 702.58 ± 365.60, 732.05 ± 350.33, 851.00 ± 395.31 ppm). The 30:2 CPR with a loose-fitting SGA and a HEPA filter significantly decreased the aerosol concentration at the head, but increased at the trunk and feet (908.76 ± 409.39, 880.15 ± 339.51, 1300.08 ± 679.48 ppm, respectively). However, 30:2 CPR with a tightly-sealed SGA and a HEPA filter, reduced the aerosol at the head, trunk, and feet, compared with the reference group (717.89 ± 1717.68, 479.07 ± 979.05, 479.26 ± 309.01 ppm, respectively) (Table 1).

When continuous CPR was conducted with ET insertion and compared with the reference group, the ET tube alone or covered with a surgical mask both decreased aerosols at the head, but increased them at the trunk and feet (the means ± SDs were 780.26 ± 320.79 and 805.48 ± 359.06 at the head, 767.18 ± 328.17 and 768.19 ± 319.26 at the trunk, 1315.70 ± 521.18 and 1447.51 ± 562.61 at the feet, respectively). When continuous CPR was performed with ET tube and a HEPA filter, or with a HEPA filter and surgical mask covering, the aerosols at the head, trunk, and feet were all reduced significantly (means ± SDs for ET tube, HEPA filter, and HEPA with surgical mask of 324.30 ± 157.79 and 213.31 ± 108.00 at the head, 300.96 ± 142.80 and 354.97 ± 156.96 at the trunk; 348.80 ± 229.02 and 375.93 ± 236.74 ppm at the feet, respectively) (Table 1).

When evaluating the effectiveness of a surgical mask and N95 mask covering on hands-only CPR, both masks revealed significant reduction at the head, trunk, and feet of the mannequin (Table 1). The average aerosol exposures of face covering with surgical mask and N95 mask were similar to the ET tube with HEPA filter subgroup (Table 1). However, when using surgical mask covering as an adjunct with FMV, SGA, or ET tube insertion, surgical masks cannot decrease the aerosol exposure (Table 2).

Table 2

The aerosol prevention strategies were compared with without for the reduction rate of aerosol exposure. ppm: parts per million; CPR: cardiopulmonary compression; ET: endotracheal tube; Filter: high efficiency particulate air filter; FMV: face mask ventilation; SGA: supraglottic airway; *: loose-fitting SGA; CI: confidence interval.
				Mean (ppm)		Standard Deviation	Mean Difference	Reduction (%)	99.9% CI of Mean Difference			p-value
H E A D	Hands-only CPR		+Surgical Mask	396.21	±	547.46
	Hands-only CPR		+N95	375.26	±	263.07	20.95	5.29%	-30.72	-	72.63	0.182
	30:2 CPR FMV			972.56	±	411.34
	30:2 CPR FMV	+Filter		702.58	±	365.60	269.98	27.76%	223.18	-	316.78	< 0.001
	30:2 CPR SGA			926.73	±	404.22
	30:2 CPR SGA		+Surgical Mask	942.29	±	421.60	-15.57	-1.68%	-65.24	-	34.11	0.302
	30:2 CPR SGA			926.73	±	404.22
	30:2 CPR SGA	+Filter		717.89	±	1717.68	208.84	22.54%	58.65	-	359.03	< 0.001
	30:2 CPR SGA			926.73	±	404.22
	30:2 CPR SGA	+Filter	+Surgical Mask	696.41	±	1138.84	230.32	24.85%	127.49	-	333.15	< 0.001
	30:2 CPR SGA	+Filter		717.89	±	1717.68
	30:2 CPR SGA	+Filter	+Surgical Mask	696.41	±	1138.84	21.48	2.99%	-153.82	-	196.77	0.687
	30:2 CPR SGA*	+Filter		908.76	±	409.39
	30:2 CPR SGA	+Filter		717.89	±	1717.68	190.87	21.00%	40.58	-	341.16	< 0.001
	30:2 CPR SGA*	+Filter	+Surgical Mask	1020.16	±	765.11
	30:2 CPR SGA	+Filter	+Surgical Mask	696.41	±	1138.84	323.75	31.74%	207.06	-	440.45	< 0.001
	Continuous CPR + ET			780.26	±	320.78
	Continuous CPR + ET		+Surgical Mask	805.48	±	359.06	-25.22	-3.23%	-66.17	-	15.73	0.043
	Continuous CPR + ET			780.26	±	320.78
	Continuous CPR + ET	+Filter		324.30	±	157.79	455.96	58.44%	425.55	-	486.38	< 0.001
	Continuous CPR + ET			780.26	±	320.78
	Continuous CPR + ET	+Filter	+Surgical Mask	213.31	±	108.00	566.95	72.66%	538.14	-	595.75	< 0.001
T R U N K	Hands-only CPR		+Surgical Mask	399.01	±	154.76
	Hands-only CPR		+N95	190.84	±	76.38	208.17	52.17%	193.48	-	222.85	< 0.001
	30:2 CPR FMV			942.76	±	384.95
	30:2 CPR FMV	+Filter		732.05	±	350.33	210.71	22.35%	166.44	-	254.98	< 0.001
	30:2 CPR SGA			749.36	±	341.98
	30:2 CPR SGA		+Surgical Mask	961.31	±	634.39	-211.95	-28.28%	-273.26	-	-150.64	< 0.001
	30:2 CPR SGA			749.36	±	341.98
	30:2 CPR SGA	+Filter		479.07	±	979.05	270.29	36.07%	182.04	-	358.54	< 0.001
	30:2 CPR SGA			749.36	±	341.98
	30:2 CPR SGA	+Filter	+Surgical Mask	385.67	±	243.00	363.69	48.53%	328.01	-	399.37	< 0.001
	30:2 CPR SGA	+Filter		479.07	±	979.05
	30:2 CPR SGA	+Filter	+Surgical Mask	385.67	±	243.00	93.40	19.50%	7.54	-	179.25	< 0.001
	30:2 CPR SGA*	+Filter		880.15	±	339.51
	30:2 CPR SGA	+Filter		479.07	±	979.05	401.08	45.57%	312.90	-	489.26	< 0.001
	30:2 CPR SGA*	+Filter	+Surgical Mask	981.86	±	776.33
	30:2 CPR SGA	+Filter	+Surgical Mask	385.67	±	243.00	596.19	60.72%	526.96	-	665.42	< 0.001
	Continuous CPR + ET			767.18	±	328.17
	Continuous CPR + ET		+Surgical Mask	768.19	±	319.26	-1.01	-0.13%	-39.94	-	37.93	0.923
	Continuous CPR + ET			767.18	±	328.17
	Continuous CPR + ET	+Filter		300.96	±	142.80	466.23	60.77%	435.78	-	496.68	< 0.001
	Continuous CPR + ET			767.18	±	328.17
	Continuous CPR + ET	+Filter	+Surgical Mask	354.97	±	156.96	412.21	53.73%	381.27	-	443.16	< 0.001
F E E T	Hands-only CPR		+Surgical Mask	402.67	±	173.49
	Hands-only CPR		+N95	296.50	±	308.56	106.17	26.37%	76.05	-	136.28	< 0.001
	30:2 CPR FMV			1182.33	±	933.32
	30:2 CPR FMV	+Filter		851.00	±	395.31	331.32	28.02%	245.08	-	417.56	< 0.001
	30:2 CPR SGA			1295.03	±	775.04
	30:2 CPR SGA		+Surgical Mask	1307.24	±	804.83	-12.21	-0.94%	-107.23	-	82.82	0.672
	30:2 CPR SGA			1295.03	±	775.04
	30:2 CPR SGA	+Filter		479.26	±	309.01	815.77	62.99%	744.77	-	886.76	< 0.001
	30:2 CPR SGA			1295.03	±	775.04
	30:2 CPR SGA	+Filter	+Surgical Mask	432.22	±	235.35	862.81	66.62%	793.88	-	931.74	< 0.001
	30:2 CPR SGA	+Filter		479.26	±	309.01
	30:2 CPR SGA	+Filter	+Surgical Mask	432.22	±	235.35	47.04	9.82%	14.01	-	80.08	< 0.001
	30:2 CPR SGA*	+Filter		1300.08	±	679.48
	30:2 CPR SGA	+Filter		479.26	±	309.01	820.81	63.14%	757.30	-	884.32	< 0.001
	30:2 CPR SGA*	+Filter	+Surgical Mask	1150.06	±	826.29
	30:2 CPR SGA	+Filter	+Surgical Mask	432.22	±	235.35	717.84	62.42%	644.72	-	790.96	< 0.001
	Continuous CPR + ET			1315.70	±	521.18
	Continuous CPR + ET		+Surgical Mask	1447.51	±	562.61	-131.80	-10.02%	-197.03	-	-66.58	< 0.001
	Continuous CPR + ET			1315.70	±	521.18
	Continuous CPR + ET	+Filter		348.80	±	229.02	966.90	73.49%	918.47	-	1015.34	< 0.001
	Continuous CPR + ET			1315.70	±	521.18
	Continuous CPR + ET	+Filter	+Surgical Mask	375.93	±	236.74	939.78	71.43%	891.08	-	988.48	< 0.001

When evaluating HEPA filter effectiveness with 30:2 CPR and FMV, the HEPA filter reduced aerosol concentration 27.76% at the head, 22.35% at the trunk, and 28.02% at the feet, with p-values all < 0.001 (Table 2). When HEPA filters were used with tightly-sealed SGA during 30:2 CPR compared to without, the HEPA filter reduced aerosol concentration 22.54% at the head, 36.07% at the trunk, and 62.99% at the feet, with p-values all < 0.001 (Table 2). When the HEPA filter was connected to the ET tube during continuous CPR, the HEPA filter decreased aerosols by 58.44% at the head; by 60.77% at the trunk; and by 73.49% at the feet (all p-values < 0.001).

Limitations

The surgical and N95 masks were tested and adequately fit the mannequin’s face before the study. A loose-fitting mask may not generate a similar protective effect.

The aerosol movement is highly influenced by the inconstant air flow and humidity in the outdoor environment. This was an indoor simulation study focused on evaluating the risk and current strategies to minimize aerosol dispersion during adult CPR, which may not be indicative of the outdoor environment. However, 76% of OHCA occurred at home or an indoor environment as the hospital³⁰. We simulated chest compressions on a mannequin using a central processing unit and a closed pump system connected to a smoke generator to create a constant passive exhaled airflow at a rate of 110 times per minute or a 30:2 compression-ventilation ratio CPR.

The SARS-CoV-2 viral aerosols may disperse differently due to differences in indoor and outdoor airflow, the temperature, and the relative humidity. The viability of SARS-CoV-2 may be different depending on the local environment.

Aerosols containing viable virus can spread disease for hours to days, especially in a poor-ventilated space. Consensus statements agree on donning personal protective device and avoiding aerosolization during chest compressions.^23–26 However, few articles have investigated the effectiveness of current guideline in avoiding aerosol transmission. Public concerns about disease transmission during CPR decreased the willingness of bystanders to perform CPR and may have been related to excess mortality during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.^{2,4, 6–9,13,14}

Personnel being in different locations during CPR lasting minutes to hours can expose them to different level of aerosols.¹⁹ According to the present study, the leader or the person administering medication who stands at the feet of the patient may be exposed to more aerosols compared to the airway management personnel and the chest compressor at the head and trunk of the patient during the CPR while applying face mask ventilation (FMV) or a loose-fitting SGA, whether using a face mask, HEPA filter or not (Table 1).

Covering the mannequin’s face with a proper fit surgical mask or N95 mask effectively reduced aerosol exposure at the head of the mannequin during hands-only CPR. These findings are compatible with a simulation and cadaver study conducted by Ott et al.²⁷ The reduction rate, as measured by the mean difference between the intervention and hands-only CPR without a face covering, were 82.45% and 83.38% at the head, 54.39% and 78.19% at the trunk, and 45.91% and 60.17% at the foot (Table 1). However, the protective effect is surprisingly comparable with CPR when used with ET tube ventilation and HEPA filters (Table 1). Non-rebreather mask oxygenation at a flow rate of 15L/min showed a mask effect and reduced the aerosol exposure at the head, trunk, and foot of the mannequin and could be an alternative way if manual ventilation was concerned. This finding is compatible with our previous investigation¹⁹.

During the 30:2 compression-ventilation ratio CPR, using FMV with a HEPA filter continuously placed on the mannequin’s face reduced aerosol concentrations by 27.76% at the head, 22.35% at the trunk, and 28.02% at the feet (all p-values < 0.001) (Table 2). However, using FMV during 30:2 CPR may increase the aerosol exposure to the personnel who standing at the foot side of the mannequin and should wear adequate protective gear (Table 1).

SGA insertion with HEPA filters during CPR with a face covering to minimize aerosol generation was suggested among consensus and two simulation studies.^23–28 However, our results indicated that whether using the surgical mask covering, using the HEPA filter, or both, on 30:2 CPR with a loose-fitting SGA, all settings could not decreased aerosol exposure at the trunk and feet, thus, may increase the risk of infection for the chest compressor and the personnel standing at the foot side(Table 1). We also found significant air leaks under the particle in velocity flow field (Fig. 2). SGA detachment is a risk and, once unveiled, aerosols may be dispersed when the SGA is dragged by the ventilation bag during CPR. This may not be easily detected and could be common in the pre-hospital and in-hospital settings before a definite airway was built. The mask covering or a HEPA filter does not provide any protection if the SGA is not tightly-sealed (Table 2). A properly-fitting SGA should be chosen and kept continuously sealed to the glottis during CPR at all times especially during transportation. When the filter was connected to the ET tube during continuous CPR, it decreased aerosols by 58.44% without mask and 72.66% with a mask at the head; by 60.77% without a mask and 53.73% with a mask at the trunk; by 73.49% without a mask and 71.43% with a mask at the feet (all p-values < 0.001). The face mask covering, when used in combination with oxygenation or ventilation devices, is useless due to loose-fitting (Table 2).

In short, the bioaerosols are sensitive to flow. A tightly-sealed interface between the mask and the victim’s face during the bystander hands-only CPR, or an ET tube with an inflated balloon tightly sealed with the victim’s trachea and connected to HEPA filters in the in-hospital setting, can safely prevent aerosol dispersion compared with NRM oxygenation, FMV, SGA ventilation during CPR (Fig. 3). Using FMV or SGA ventilation in the pre-hospital setting should choose a very proper size and focus on sealing the ventilation device to the victim’s airway and connect to HEPA filters all the time to avoid aerosol dispersion.

Surgical or N95 mask face coverings can significantly reduce aerosol exposure during bystander CPR and is quite safe if the mask is properly fit. The aerosol protective effect of surgical or N95 mask coverings is similar to the ET tube ventilation with HEPA filters. The NRM oxygenation at 15 L/min and tightly-sealed FMV with filters to the patient’s face during CPR can be an effective alternative strategy. The chest compressor and the personnel standing at the victim’s feet are at a greater risk of exposure if the SGA is not tightly-sealed during 30:2 CPR, even when using HEPA filters. Keeping the SGA tightly sealed at all times is essential to avoid aerosol dispersion. Current strategies to minimize aerosol dispersion during CPR is promising. More education is necessary to reassure the public.

Dataset statement:

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary files.

Statement:

No human subjects were involved in this study. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. No need for informed consent due to no human subjects were involved. This simulation study was exempted from the Taipei City Hospital Research Ethics Committee (TCHIRB-11112002-W).

Disclosure of funding:

No external funding nor competing interests declared except Taipei City Government Health Care Department and the National Science and Technology Council.

Conflict of interest:

None

Funding

This work was supported by:

Taipei City Government Health Care Department (Grant number 11101-62-004)

National Science and Technology Council

World Health Organization. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. https://covid19.who.int/. Accessed Nov 29th, 2022.
World Health Organization. 14.9 million excess deaths associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021. 2022; https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2022-14.9-million-excess-deaths-were-associated-with-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-2020-and-2021. Accessed Nov 29th, 2022.
Dutta A. COVID-19 waves: variant dynamics and control. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):9332. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-13371-2
Marijon E, Karam N, Jost D, et al. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest during the COVID-19 pandemic in Paris, France: a population-based, observational study. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5(8):e437-e443. doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30117-1
Lai PH, Lancet EA, Weiden MD, et al. Characteristics Associated With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrests and Resuscitations During the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic in New York City. JAMA Cardiol. 2020;5(10):1154–1163. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2488
Damjanovic D, Pooth JS, Steger R, et al. Observational study on implications of the COVID-19-pandemic for cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: qualitative and quantitative insights from a model region in Germany. BMC Emerg Med. 2022;22(1):85. doi:10.1186/s12873-022-00628-2
Rosell Ortiz F, Fernandez Del Valle P, Knox EC, et al. Influence of the Covid-19 pandemic on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. A Spanish nationwide prospective cohort study. Resuscitation. 2020;157:230–240. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.09.037
Ball J, Nehme Z, Bernard S, Stub D, Stephenson M, Smith K. Collateral damage: Hidden impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest system-of-care. Resuscitation. 2020;156:157–163. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.09.017
Scquizzato T, Landoni G, Paoli A, et al. Effects of COVID-19 pandemic on out-of-hospital cardiac arrests: A systematic review. Resuscitation. 2020;157:241–247. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.10.020
Roedl K, Soffker G, Fischer D, et al. Effects of COVID-19 on in-hospital cardiac arrest: incidence, causes, and outcome - a retrospective cohort study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2021;29(1):30. doi:10.1186/s13049-021-00846-w
Edwards JM, Nolan JP, Soar J, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on in-hospital cardiac arrests in the UK. Resuscitation. 2022;173:4–11. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2022.02.007
Bharmal M, DiGrande K, Patel A, Shavelle DM, Bosson N. Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic on Cardiac Arrest and Emergency Care. Cardiol Clin. 2022;40(3):355–364. doi:10.1016/j.ccl.2022.03.009
Kovach CP, Perman SM. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiac arrest systems of care. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2021;27(3):239–245. doi:10.1097/MCC.0000000000000817
Brady WJ, Chavez S, Gottlieb M, et al. Clinical update on COVID-19 for the emergency clinician: Cardiac arrest in the out-of-hospital and in-hospital settings. Am J Emerg Med. 2022;57:114–123. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2022.04.031
Wang CC, Prather KA, Sznitman J, et al. Airborne transmission of respiratory viruses. Science. 2021;373(6558). doi:10.1126/science.abd9149
Pasnick S, Carlos WG, Dela Cruz CS, Gross JE, Garrison G, Jamil S. SARS-CoV-2 Transmission and the Risk of Aerosol-Generating Procedures. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202(4):P13-P14. doi:10.1164/rccm.2024P13
Eiche T, Kuster M. Aerosol Release by Healthy People during Speaking: Possible Contribution to the Transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(23). doi:10.3390/ijerph17239088
Jackson T, Deibert D, Wyatt G, et al. Classification of aerosol-generating procedures: a rapid systematic review. BMJ Open Respir Res. 2020;7(1). doi:10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000730
Hung TY, Chen WL, Su YC, et al. The Aerosol-Generating Effect Among Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation, High-Flow Nasal Cannula, Nonrebreather Mask, Nasal Cannula, and Ventilator-Assisted Preoxygenation. Ann Emerg Med. 2022;80(1):22–34. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2022.02.015
McDannold R, Bobrow BJ, Chikani V, Silver A, Spaite DW, Vadeboncoeur T. Quantification of ventilation volumes produced by compressions during emergency department cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Am J Emerg Med. 2018;36(9):1640–1644. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2018.06.057
Vanwulpen M, Wolfskeil M, Duchatelet C, Hachimi-Idrissi S. Do manual chest compressions provide substantial ventilation during prehospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation? Am J Emerg Med. 2021;39:129–131. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2020.09.037
Deakin CD, O'Neill JF, Tabor T. Does compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation generate adequate passive ventilation during cardiac arrest? Resuscitation. 2007;75(1):53–59. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.04.002
Brown E, Chan LM. Should chest compressions be considered an aerosol-generating procedure? A literature review in response to recent guidelines on personal protective equipment for patients with suspected COVID-19. Clin Med (Lond). 2020;20(5):e154-e159. doi:10.7861/clinmed.2020-0258
Edelson DP, Sasson C, Chan PS, et al. Interim Guidance for Basic and Advanced Life Support in Adults, Children, and Neonates With Suspected or Confirmed COVID-19: From the Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation Adult and Pediatric Task Forces of the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2020;141(25):e933-e943. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047463
Nolan JP, Monsieurs KG, Bossaert L, et al. European Resuscitation Council COVID-19 guidelines executive summary. Resuscitation. 2020;153:45–55. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.06.001
Craig S, Cubitt M, Jaison A, et al. Management of adult cardiac arrest in the COVID-19 era: consensus statement from the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine. Med J Aust. 2020;213(3):126–133. doi:10.5694/mja2.50699
Ott M, Milazzo A, Liebau S, et al. Exploration of strategies to reduce aerosol-spread during chest compressions: A simulation and cadaver model. Resuscitation. 2020;152:192–198. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.05.012
Somri M, Gaitini L, Gat M, Sonallah M, Paz A, Gomez-Rios MA. Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Do supraglottic airways protect against aerosol-generation? Resuscitation. 2020;157:123–125. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.10.013
Smith SH, Somsen GA, van Rijn C, et al. Aerosol persistence in relation to possible transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Phys Fluids (1994). 2020;32(10):107108. doi:10.1063/5.0027844
Dicker, Bridget & Todd, Verity & Tunnage, Bronwyn. (2018). St John Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Registry 2017/2018 Annual Report. 10.13140/RG.2.2.18378.52165.

No competing interests reported.

aerosolconcentration.xlsx

Comparing aerosol exposure and prevention strategies during bystander, pre- hospital, and inpatient cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

What is already known on this topic

Background

METHODS

Study design and setting

Interventions

Measurements

Outcomes

Analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1