Directorate of Army Health, Army Headquarters, Canberra, Australia.
Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Australia.
Anaesth Intensive Care. 2021 May;49(3):190-197. doi: 10.1177/0310057X20984787. Epub 2021 May 3.
Air-purifying full-face masks, such as military chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear masks, might offer superior protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 compared to disposable polypropylene P2 or N95 masks. In addition, disposable masks are in short supply, while military chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear masks can be disinfected then reused. It is unknown whether such masks might be appropriate for civilians with minimal training in their use. Accordingly, we compared the Australian Defence Force in-service chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear Low Burden Mask (AirBoss Defense, Newmarket, Canada) with polypropylene N95 masks and non-occlusive glasses worn during simulated tasks performed by civilian clinicians in an Australian tertiary referral hospital intensive care unit. After brief training in the use of the Low Burden Mask, participants undertook a simulated cardiac arrest scenario. Previous training with polypropylene N95 masks had been provided. Evaluation of 10 characteristics of each mask type were recorded, and time to mask application was assessed. Thirty-three participants tested the Low Burden Mask, and 28 evaluated polypropylene N95 masks and glasses. The Low Burden Mask was donned more quickly: mean time 7.0 (standard deviation 2.1) versus 18.3 (standard deviation 6.7) seconds; = 0.0076. The Low Burden Mask was rated significantly higher in eight of the 10 assessed criteria, including ease of donning, comfort (initially and over a prolonged period), fogging, seal, safety while removing, confidence in protection, and overall. Visibility and communication ability were rated equally highly for both systems. We conclude that this air-purifying full-face mask is acceptable to clinicians in a civilian intensive care unit. It enhances staff confidence, reduces waste, and is likely to be a lower logistical burden during a prolonged pandemic. Formal testing of effectiveness is warranted.
空气净化全面罩，例如军用化学-生物-放射性-核（CBRN）面具，与一次性聚丙稀 P2 或 N95 口罩相比，可能对严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒 2 （SARS-CoV-2）提供更好的保护。此外，一次性口罩供应短缺，而军用 CBRN 面具可以消毒后重复使用。目前尚不清楚经过最少培训的平民是否适合使用此类口罩。因此，我们比较了在役的澳大利亚国防军化学-生物-放射性-核低负担面具（AirBoss Defense，加拿大纽马克特）与聚丙稀 N95 口罩和非闭塞性眼镜，由在澳大利亚三级转诊医院重症监护病房工作的平民临床医生模拟进行任务时佩戴。在接受使用低负担面具的简短培训后，参与者进行了模拟心脏骤停场景。之前已经提供了使用聚丙稀 N95 口罩的培训。记录了每种口罩类型的 10 个特征的评估，并评估了口罩佩戴时间。33 名参与者测试了低负担面具，28 名参与者评估了聚丙稀 N95 口罩和眼镜。低负担面具佩戴更快：平均时间为 7.0（标准差 2.1）秒与 18.3（标准差 6.7）秒； = 0.0076。在评估的 10 个标准中，低负担面具在 8 个标准中得分明显更高，包括佩戴方便、舒适性（最初和长时间佩戴）、起雾、密封、去除时的安全性、防护信心和整体。两个系统的可视性和通讯能力的评分都很高。我们得出结论，这种空气净化全面罩在民用重症监护病房的临床医生中是可以接受的。它增强了工作人员的信心，减少了浪费，并且在长时间的大流行期间可能具有较低的后勤负担。有必要对其有效性进行正式测试。
