36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
3 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      “Double-surgical-mask-with-slit” method: reducing exposure to aerosol generation at upper gastrointestinal endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic

      letter

      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

          The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the risk of spread of disease through infected aerosols. Thus, as any endoscopic procedure involving the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract is recognized as an aerosol-generating procedure, it mandates the use of full personal protective equipment 1 . As aerosols may remain airborne within the endoscopy room for hours, several novel devices have been proposed for their further containment 2 3 . In order to reduce environmental contamination with potentially infective aerosols, we developed a simple and inexpensive double surgical mask with a slit to be used for patient wear during endoscopy procedures involving the upper GI tract. This method uses two disposable surgical masks, taped over each other. Scissors are used to cut a narrow slit of length 1.2 cm that will just allow snug passage of the endoscope ( Fig. 1 ). The double mask is then worn by the patient, covering the mouthguard and oxygen delivery cannulas. Despite its snug fit, the narrow slit still allows easy passage of the endoscope ( Fig. 2 ) and any required suction of the oral cavity, while the double mask itself (and its curtain-like slit) minimizes any “leakage” of generated aerosols. Fig. 1  Mitigation of aerosol infection risk during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: simple construction of the “double surgical mask with slit.” a Two individual universal surgical masks. b The masks are taped together to form a double surgical mask. c A narrow slit (length 1.2 cm) is cut through the double mask, using scissors. Fig. 2  The “double surgical mask with slit” being used in clinical practice during anterograde double-balloon enteroscopy. Surgical mask use appears to truncate the “shotgun effect” of how aerosols travel through the air at the point of generation 4 . We have drawn on this principle to adapt these universally available and inexpensive materials to reduce exposure to potentially infective aerosols during endoscopic procedures involving the upper GI tract. Although we appreciate that studies to quantify any mitigation of aerosol risk would be required, from our experience, this simple method could be widely applied in routine clinical practice, as also discussed recently at the international webinar “COVID-19 in endoscopy: time to move forward?” hosted by the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) 5 .

          Related collections

          Most cited references4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          ESGE and ESGENA Position Statement on gastrointestinal endoscopy and the COVID-19 pandemic

          We are currently living in the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic that imposes a significant stress on health care providers and facilities. Europe is severely affected with an exponential increase in incident infections and deaths. The clinical manifestations of COVID-19 can be subtle, encompassing a broad spectrum from asymptomatic mild disease to severe respiratory illness. Health care professionals in endoscopy units are at increased risk of infection from COVID-19. Infection prevention and control has been shown to be dramatically effective in assuring the safety of both health care professionals and patients. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy ( www.esge.com ) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates ( www.esgena.org ) are joining forces to provide guidance during this pandemic to help assure the highest level of endoscopy care and protection against COVID-19 for both patients and endoscopy unit personnel. This guidance is based upon the best available evidence regarding assessment of risk during the current status of the pandemic and a consensus on which procedures to perform and the priorities on resumption. We appreciate the gaps in knowledge and evidence, especially on the proper strategy(ies) for the resumption of normal endoscopy practice during the upcoming phases and end of the pandemic and therefore a list of potential research questions is presented. New evidence may result in an updated statement.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A RAPID SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE EFFICACY OF FACE MASKS AND RESPIRATORS AGAINST CORONAVIRUSES AND OTHER RESPIRATORY TRANSMISSIBLE VIRUSES FOR THE COMMUNITY, HEALTHCARE WORKERS AND SICK PATIENTS

            Background The pandemic of COVID-19 is growing, and a shortage of masks and respirators has been reported globally. Policies of health organizations for healthcare workers are inconsistent, with a change in policy in the US for universal face mask use. The aim of this study was to review the evidence around the efficacy of masks and respirators for healthcare workers, sick patients and the general public. Methods A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials on use of respiratory protection by healthcare workers, sick patients and community members was conducted. Articles were searched on Medline and Embase using key search terms. Results A total of 19 randomised controlled trials were included in this study – 8 in community settings, 6 in healthcare settings and 5 as source control. Most of these randomised controlled trials used different interventions and outcome measures. In the community, masks appeared to be more effective than hand hygiene alone, and both together are more protective. Randomised controlled trials in health care workers showed that respirators, if worn continually during a shift, were effective but not if worn intermittently. Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective. When used by sick patients randomised controlled trials suggested protection of well contacts. Conclusion The study suggests that community mask use by well people could be beneficial, particularly for COVID-19, where transmission may be pre-symptomatic. The studies of masks as source control also suggest a benefit, and may be important during the COVID-19 pandemic in universal community face mask use as well as in health care settings. Trials in healthcare workers support the use of respirators continuously during a shift. This may prevent health worker infections and deaths from COVID-19, as aerosolisation in the hospital setting has been documented.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Endoscopic shield: barrier enclosure during the endoscopy to prevent aerosol droplets during the COVID-19 pandemic

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Endoscopy
                Endoscopy
                10.1055/s-00000012
                Endoscopy
                Georg Thieme Verlag KG (Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany )
                0013-726X
                1438-8812
                October 2020
                23 September 2020
                : 52
                : 10
                : 928-929
                Affiliations
                Royal Free Unit for Endoscopy, The Royal Free Hospital and University College London (UCL) Institute for Liver and Digestive Health, London, UK
                Author notes
                Corresponding author E.J. Despott, MD FRCP FASGE MD(Res) The Royal Free Hospital and UCL Institute for Liver and Digestive Health Pond StreetLondon NW3 2QGUnited Kingdom+44-20-74315261 edespott@ 123456doctors.org.uk
                Article
                10.1055/a-1198-5471
                7516391
                32967022
                c209ca86-3f98-4c1e-810b-67c50ab5df8f
                Copyright @ 2020

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic or until permissions are revoked in writing. Upon expiration of these permissions, PMC is granted a perpetual license to make this article available via PMC and Europe PMC, consistent with existing copyright protections.

                History
                Categories
                Letter to the editor

                Comments

                Comment on this article