Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=32838373
&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215
Reducing aerosol dispersion by high flow therapy in COVID-19: High resolution
computational fluid dynamics simulations of particle behavior during high
velocity nasal insufflation with a simple surgical mask
#MMPMID32838373
Leonard S
; Strasser W
; Whittle JS
; Volakis LI
; DeBellis RJ
; Prichard R
; Atwood CW Jr
; Dungan GC 2nd
J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open
2020[Aug]; 1
(4
): 578-591
PMID32838373
show ga
OBJECTIVE: All respiratory care represents some risk of becoming an
aerosol-generating procedure (AGP) during COVID-19 patient management. Personal
protective equipment (PPE) and environmental control/engineering is advised. High
velocity nasal insufflation (HVNI) and high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) deliver
high flow oxygen (HFO) therapy, established as a competent means of supporting
oxygenation for acute respiratory distress patients, including that precipitated
by COVID-19. Although unlikely to present a disproportionate particle dispersal
risk, AGP from HFO continues to be a concern. Previously, we published a
preliminary model. Here, we present a subsequent highresolution simulation
(higher complexity/reliability) to provide a more accurate and precise particle
characterization on the effect of surgical masks on patients during HVNI,
low-flow oxygen therapy (LFO2), and tidal breathing. METHODS: This in silico
modeling study of HVNI, LFO2, and tidal breathing presents ANSYS fluent
computational fluid dynamics simulations that evaluate the effect of Type I
surgical mask use over patient face on particle/droplet behavior. RESULTS: This
in silico modeling simulation study of HVNI (40 L min(-1)) with a simulated
surgical mask suggests 88.8% capture of exhaled particulate mass in the mask,
compared to 77.4% in LFO2 (6 L min(-1)) capture, with particle distribution
escaping to the room (> 1 m from face) lower for HVNI+Mask versus LFO2+Mask
(8.23% vs 17.2%). The overwhelming proportion of particulate escape was
associated with mask-fit designed model gaps. Particle dispersion was associated
with lower velocity. CONCLUSIONS: These simulations suggest employing a surgical
mask over the HVNI interface may be useful in reduction of particulate mass
distribution associated with AGPs.