A comparison of different types of hazardous material respirators available to anesthesiologists.

Keith A. Candiotti, Yiliam Rodriguez, Ilya Shekhter, Catalina Castillo-Pedraza, Lisa Forman Rosen, Kristopher Arheart, David J. Birnbach

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Despite anesthesiology personnel involvement in initial treatment of patients exposed to potentially lethal agents, less than 40 percent of US anesthesiology training programs conduct training to manage these patients.(1) No previous studies have evaluated performance of anesthesiologists wearing protective gear. The authors compared the performance of anesthesiologists intubating a high-fidelity mannequin while wearing either a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) or a negative pressure respirator (NPR). Twenty participants practiced intubations on a high-fidelity simulator until comfortable. Each subject performed 10 repetitions, initially without any gear, then while wearing a protective suit, gloves, and respirator. The order of gear use was randomized and all subjects used both devices. Time for task completion were recorded, and at the end of the trial, subjects were asked to rate their comfort with the equipment. After controlling for other variables, overall statistically slower total performance times were observed with use of the PAPR when compared to the control arm and use of the NPR (p 5 0.01 and p < 0.007, respectively). Of the total 90 intubations, only one proved to be esophageal and initially undetected. The use of an NPR or PAPR does not preclude an anesthesiologist from successfully intubating, but practice is necessary. The slightly better performance with the NPR is weighed against the improved comfort of the PAPR and the fact that PAPR users could wear eyeglasses. Neither type of gear allowed the users to auscultate the lung fields to confirm correct endotracheal tube placement.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)313-319
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican journal of disaster medicine
Volume7
Issue number4
StatePublished - Sep 1 2012

Fingerprint

Respiratory Protective Devices
Negative-Pressure Ventilators
Hazardous Substances
Mechanical Ventilators
Anesthesiology
Intubation
Protective Gloves
Manikins
Equipment and Supplies
Anesthesiologists
Education
Lung

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

A comparison of different types of hazardous material respirators available to anesthesiologists. / Candiotti, Keith A.; Rodriguez, Yiliam; Shekhter, Ilya; Castillo-Pedraza, Catalina; Rosen, Lisa Forman; Arheart, Kristopher; Birnbach, David J.

In: American journal of disaster medicine, Vol. 7, No. 4, 01.09.2012, p. 313-319.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Candiotti, Keith A. ; Rodriguez, Yiliam ; Shekhter, Ilya ; Castillo-Pedraza, Catalina ; Rosen, Lisa Forman ; Arheart, Kristopher ; Birnbach, David J. / A comparison of different types of hazardous material respirators available to anesthesiologists. In: American journal of disaster medicine. 2012 ; Vol. 7, No. 4. pp. 313-319.
@article{42fcf4e905c5411ba4c7200c487e7946,
title = "A comparison of different types of hazardous material respirators available to anesthesiologists.",
abstract = "Despite anesthesiology personnel involvement in initial treatment of patients exposed to potentially lethal agents, less than 40 percent of US anesthesiology training programs conduct training to manage these patients.(1) No previous studies have evaluated performance of anesthesiologists wearing protective gear. The authors compared the performance of anesthesiologists intubating a high-fidelity mannequin while wearing either a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) or a negative pressure respirator (NPR). Twenty participants practiced intubations on a high-fidelity simulator until comfortable. Each subject performed 10 repetitions, initially without any gear, then while wearing a protective suit, gloves, and respirator. The order of gear use was randomized and all subjects used both devices. Time for task completion were recorded, and at the end of the trial, subjects were asked to rate their comfort with the equipment. After controlling for other variables, overall statistically slower total performance times were observed with use of the PAPR when compared to the control arm and use of the NPR (p 5 0.01 and p < 0.007, respectively). Of the total 90 intubations, only one proved to be esophageal and initially undetected. The use of an NPR or PAPR does not preclude an anesthesiologist from successfully intubating, but practice is necessary. The slightly better performance with the NPR is weighed against the improved comfort of the PAPR and the fact that PAPR users could wear eyeglasses. Neither type of gear allowed the users to auscultate the lung fields to confirm correct endotracheal tube placement.",
author = "Candiotti, {Keith A.} and Yiliam Rodriguez and Ilya Shekhter and Catalina Castillo-Pedraza and Rosen, {Lisa Forman} and Kristopher Arheart and Birnbach, {David J.}",
year = "2012",
month = "9",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "313--319",
journal = "American journal of disaster medicine",
issn = "1932-149X",
publisher = "Prime National Publishing Corp.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of different types of hazardous material respirators available to anesthesiologists.

AU - Candiotti, Keith A.

AU - Rodriguez, Yiliam

AU - Shekhter, Ilya

AU - Castillo-Pedraza, Catalina

AU - Rosen, Lisa Forman

AU - Arheart, Kristopher

AU - Birnbach, David J.

PY - 2012/9/1

Y1 - 2012/9/1

N2 - Despite anesthesiology personnel involvement in initial treatment of patients exposed to potentially lethal agents, less than 40 percent of US anesthesiology training programs conduct training to manage these patients.(1) No previous studies have evaluated performance of anesthesiologists wearing protective gear. The authors compared the performance of anesthesiologists intubating a high-fidelity mannequin while wearing either a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) or a negative pressure respirator (NPR). Twenty participants practiced intubations on a high-fidelity simulator until comfortable. Each subject performed 10 repetitions, initially without any gear, then while wearing a protective suit, gloves, and respirator. The order of gear use was randomized and all subjects used both devices. Time for task completion were recorded, and at the end of the trial, subjects were asked to rate their comfort with the equipment. After controlling for other variables, overall statistically slower total performance times were observed with use of the PAPR when compared to the control arm and use of the NPR (p 5 0.01 and p < 0.007, respectively). Of the total 90 intubations, only one proved to be esophageal and initially undetected. The use of an NPR or PAPR does not preclude an anesthesiologist from successfully intubating, but practice is necessary. The slightly better performance with the NPR is weighed against the improved comfort of the PAPR and the fact that PAPR users could wear eyeglasses. Neither type of gear allowed the users to auscultate the lung fields to confirm correct endotracheal tube placement.

AB - Despite anesthesiology personnel involvement in initial treatment of patients exposed to potentially lethal agents, less than 40 percent of US anesthesiology training programs conduct training to manage these patients.(1) No previous studies have evaluated performance of anesthesiologists wearing protective gear. The authors compared the performance of anesthesiologists intubating a high-fidelity mannequin while wearing either a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) or a negative pressure respirator (NPR). Twenty participants practiced intubations on a high-fidelity simulator until comfortable. Each subject performed 10 repetitions, initially without any gear, then while wearing a protective suit, gloves, and respirator. The order of gear use was randomized and all subjects used both devices. Time for task completion were recorded, and at the end of the trial, subjects were asked to rate their comfort with the equipment. After controlling for other variables, overall statistically slower total performance times were observed with use of the PAPR when compared to the control arm and use of the NPR (p 5 0.01 and p < 0.007, respectively). Of the total 90 intubations, only one proved to be esophageal and initially undetected. The use of an NPR or PAPR does not preclude an anesthesiologist from successfully intubating, but practice is necessary. The slightly better performance with the NPR is weighed against the improved comfort of the PAPR and the fact that PAPR users could wear eyeglasses. Neither type of gear allowed the users to auscultate the lung fields to confirm correct endotracheal tube placement.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84874433138&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84874433138&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 23264279

AN - SCOPUS:84874433138

VL - 7

SP - 313

EP - 319

JO - American journal of disaster medicine

JF - American journal of disaster medicine

SN - 1932-149X

IS - 4

ER -