Clinical characterization of respiratory large droplet production during common airway procedures using high-speed imaging

  1. S. K. Mueller
  2. R. Veltrup
  3. B. Jakubaß
  4. S. Kniesburges
  5. M. J. Huebner
  6. J. S. Kempfle
  7. S. Dittrich
  8. H. Iro
  9. M. Döllinger

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a significant number of healthcare workers have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, there remains little knowledge regarding large droplet dissemination during airway management procedures in real life settings. 12 different airway management procedures were investigated during routine clinical care. A high-speed video camera (1000 frames/second) was for imaging. Quantitative droplet characteristics as size, distance traveled, and velocity were computed. Droplets were detected in 8/12 procedures. The droplet trajectories could be divided into two distinctive patterns (type 1/2). Type 1 represented a ballistic trajectory with higher speed large droplets whereas type 2 represented a random trajectory of slower particles that persisted longer in air. The use of tracheal cannula filters reduced the amount of droplets. Respiratory droplet patterns generated during airway management procedures follow two distinctive trajectories based on the influence of aerodynamic forces. Speaking and coughing produce more droplets than non-invasive ventilation therapy confirming these behaviors as exposure risks. Even large droplets may exhibit patterns resembling the fluid dynamics smaller airborne aerosols that follow the airflow convectively and may place the healthcare provider at risk.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1038/s41598-021-89760-w
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.01.20144386: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: All experimental protocols as well as the study design were approved by the ethics committee of the Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (No 167_20B).
    Consent: Informed consent was obtained from all participants for participation in the study.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variableA total of n=8 patients (6 males, 2 females) were included.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Image Processing and Quantification techniques: A software script specially designed for evaluating the recorded video data was implemented in MATLAB.
    MATLAB
    suggested: (MATLAB, RRID:SCR_001622)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.07.01.20144386v1 on medRxiv