2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Health effects of filtering facepiece respirators: Systematic review of pulmonary and cardiovascular effects

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) were introduced to protect the wearer by removing small particles from inspired air. FFRs are now also used to reduce the spread of transmissible agents from the wearer and are worn outside traditional healthcare and other workplaces. The COVID‐19 pandemic increased concerns about potential adverse effects on wearers. A PUBMED query retrieved articles through June 2022. Abstracts and selected full‐text articles were systematically reviewed by the authors. This article focuses upon cardiopulmonary physiologic effects (e.g., ventilation, CO 2 elimination, oxygen uptake, and respiratory control) with emphasis upon current and potential research methods as well as summarizing results. 1985 records were identified, of which only 26% were published before 2020. FFR effects on CO 2 elimination appear more likely to be significant than effects on oxygenation or cardiovascular function. While FFRs appear well tolerated by healthy persons, more research is needed for those with pulmonary or cardiac disorders, and for children. Many traditional pulmonary exercise study methods require special care when applied to filtering facepiece respirators. Studying additional parameters may explain the paradox of many subjective discomfort reports despite very limited physiologic effects.

          Related collections

          Most cited references64

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          An Overview of Heart Rate Variability Metrics and Norms

          Healthy biological systems exhibit complex patterns of variability that can be described by mathematical chaos. Heart rate variability (HRV) consists of changes in the time intervals between consecutive heartbeats called interbeat intervals (IBIs). A healthy heart is not a metronome. The oscillations of a healthy heart are complex and constantly changing, which allow the cardiovascular system to rapidly adjust to sudden physical and psychological challenges to homeostasis. This article briefly reviews current perspectives on the mechanisms that generate 24 h, short-term (~5 min), and ultra-short-term (<5 min) HRV, the importance of HRV, and its implications for health and performance. The authors provide an overview of widely-used HRV time-domain, frequency-domain, and non-linear metrics. Time-domain indices quantify the amount of HRV observed during monitoring periods that may range from ~2 min to 24 h. Frequency-domain values calculate the absolute or relative amount of signal energy within component bands. Non-linear measurements quantify the unpredictability and complexity of a series of IBIs. The authors survey published normative values for clinical, healthy, and optimal performance populations. They stress the importance of measurement context, including recording period length, subject age, and sex, on baseline HRV values. They caution that 24 h, short-term, and ultra-short-term normative values are not interchangeable. They encourage professionals to supplement published norms with findings from their own specialized populations. Finally, the authors provide an overview of HRV assessment strategies for clinical and optimal performance interventions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Technical standards for respiratory oscillometry

            Oscillometry (also known as the forced oscillation technique) measures the mechanical properties of the respiratory system (upper and intrathoracic airways, lung tissue and chest wall) during quiet tidal breathing, by the application of an oscillating pressure signal (input or forcing signal), most commonly at the mouth. With increased clinical and research use, it is critical that all technical details of the hardware design, signal processing and analyses, and testing protocols are transparent and clearly reported to allow standardisation, comparison and replication of clinical and research studies. Because of this need, an update of the 2003 European Respiratory Society (ERS) technical standards document was produced by an ERS task force of experts who are active in clinical oscillometry research. The aim of the task force was to provide technical recommendations regarding oscillometry measurement including hardware, software, testing protocols and quality control. The main changes in this update, compared with the 2003 ERS task force document are 1) new quality control procedures which reflect use of “within-breath” analysis, and methods of handling artefacts; 2) recommendation to disclose signal processing, quality control, artefact handling and breathing protocols ( e.g. number and duration of acquisitions) in reports and publications to allow comparability and replication between devices and laboratories; 3) a summary review of new data to support threshold values for bronchodilator and bronchial challenge tests; and 4) updated list of predicted impedance values in adults and children.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Effects of surgical and FFP2/N95 face masks on cardiopulmonary exercise capacity

              Background Due to the SARS-CoV2 pandemic, medical face masks are widely recommended for a large number of individuals and long durations. The effect of wearing a surgical and a FFP2/N95 face mask on cardiopulmonary exercise capacity has not been systematically reported. Methods This prospective cross-over study quantitated the effects of wearing no mask (nm), a surgical mask (sm) and a FFP2/N95 mask (ffpm) in 12 healthy males (age 38.1 ± 6.2 years, BMI 24.5 ± 2.0 kg/m2). The 36 tests were performed in randomized order. The cardiopulmonary and metabolic responses were monitored by ergo-spirometry and impedance cardiography. Ten domains of comfort/discomfort of wearing a mask were assessed by questionnaire. Results The pulmonary function parameters were significantly lower with mask (forced expiratory volume: 5.6 ± 1.0 vs 5.3 ± 0.8 vs 6.1 ± 1.0 l/s with sm, ffpm and nm, respectively; p = 0.001; peak expiratory flow: 8.7 ± 1.4 vs 7.5 ± 1.1 vs 9.7 ± 1.6 l/s; p < 0.001). The maximum power was 269 ± 45, 263 ± 42 and 277 ± 46 W with sm, ffpm and nm, respectively; p = 0.002; the ventilation was significantly reduced with both face masks (131 ± 28 vs 114 ± 23 vs 99 ± 19 l/m; p < 0.001). Peak blood lactate response was reduced with mask. Cardiac output was similar with and without mask. Participants reported consistent and marked discomfort wearing the masks, especially ffpm. Conclusion Ventilation, cardiopulmonary exercise capacity and comfort are reduced by surgical masks and highly impaired by FFP2/N95 face masks in healthy individuals. These data are important for recommendations on wearing face masks at work or during physical exercise.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                pharber@arizona.edu
                Journal
                Am J Ind Med
                Am J Ind Med
                10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0274
                AJIM
                American Journal of Industrial Medicine
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0271-3586
                1097-0274
                11 January 2023
                11 January 2023
                : 10.1002/ajim.23450
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] University of Arizona‐Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health Tucson Arizona USA
                [ 2 ] Harvard Medical School and Mount Auburn Hospital Cambridge Massachusetts USA
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence Philip Harber, MD, MPH, 1656 E Mabel St, Rm 112, University of Arizona‐College of Public Health, Tucson, AZ, 85724 USA.

                Email: pharber@ 123456arizona.edu

                Article
                AJIM23450
                10.1002/ajim.23450
                9878161
                36464991
                36fcd8b8-f13d-4662-b54d-78e3708c1348
                © 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

                This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.

                History
                : 28 November 2022
                : 18 August 2022
                : 29 November 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 3, Pages: 18, Words: 10210
                Categories
                Review Article
                Review Article
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                corrected-proof
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.2.4 mode:remove_FC converted:26.01.2023

                ffr,filtering facepiece respirator,mask,n95,pulmonary,respirator,respiratory protective device

                Comments

                Comment on this article