Patel, Bhavesh

Abstract Background: Elastomeric respirators are reusable and reliable protection from infectious aerosol particles such as SARS-CoV-2. There is a lack of safety data for use in sterile fields limiting application to operating room settings where high-risk aerosol generating procedures are performed. We hypothesized an equivalent reduction in sterile field contamination would be achieved using an elastomeric respirator covered by a surgical mask as compared to a standard surgical mask or N95.Methods: Randomized controlled crossover experiment with repeat measurement comparing microbial and aerosol contamination of operating room surfaces for elastomeric respirators, elastomeric respirators covered by a surgical mask, N95, surgical mask, and no mask. 80 experiments were performed by participants with randomized order and balanced crossover to all masking groups (n=16 per masking group). Participants executed droplet and aerosol generating procedures while wearing: (Group 1) elastomeric respirator with mask, (Group 2) elastomeric respirator only, (Group 3) N95, and (Group 4) surgical mask. Positive control was established with the participant unmasked (Group 5). Contamination was measured by microbial growth on settling plates and optical particle counters (0.2+ and 2 um+ particles).Results: There was a reduction in microbial contamination at the sterile field (p<0.001) for all masks (Groups 1-4) compared to unmasked (Group 5). The mean colony forming units (CFU) at the sterile field was 0 CFUs for elastomeric respirator (+/- mask), N95, and surgical mask versus unmasked growing 1.875 CFUs. Compared to the unmasked control, the elastomeric respirator (+/- mask), N95, and surgical masks all resulted in a -0.75 difference in contamination (95% CI -0.91 to -0.48, p < 0.001). No significant difference in contamination between the elastomeric respirator (+/- mask) and a surgical mask was detected. No significant difference in particle counts (0.2 µm+ and 2.0 µm+) between the elastomeric respirator (+/- mask) and a standard surgical mask.Conclusion and Relevance: Elastomeric respirators with or without mitigation are as effective as a surgical mask and N95 for reducing contamination at the sterile field in an operating room. Consideration should be given to expanding the use of elastomeric respirators to operating rooms during high-risk aerosol generating procedures.

Objective: Many patients are admitted to the ICU at or near the end of their lives. Consequently, the increasingly common debate regarding physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia holds implications for the practice of critical care medicine. The objective of this article is to explore core ethical issues related to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia from the perspective of healthcare professionals and ethicists on both sides of the debate. Synthesis: We identified four issues highlighting the key areas of ethical tension central to evaluating physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in medical practice: 1) the benefit or harm of death itself, 2) the relationship between physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia and withholding or withdrawing life support, 3) the morality of a physician deliberately causing death, and 4) the management of conscientious objection related to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in the critical care setting. We present areas of common ground and important unresolved differences. Conclusions: We reached differing positions on the first three core ethical questions and achieved unanimity on how critical care clinicians should manage conscientious objections related to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. The alternative positions presented in this article may serve to promote open and informed dialogue within the critical care community.

Background Septic shock is associated with vasopressin deficiency and a hypersensitivity to its exogenous administration. The goal of the current study was to determine whether short-term vasopressin infusion in patients experiencing severe septic shock has a vasopressor sparing effect while maintaining hemodynamic stability and adequate end-organ perfusion. Methods Patients experiencing septic shock that required high-dose vasopressor support were randomized to a double-blinded 4-h infusion of either norepinephrine (n = 11) or vasopressin (n = 13), and open-label vasopressors were titrated to maintain blood pressure. To assess end-organ perfusion, urine output and creatinine clearance, gastric mucosal carbon dioxide tension, and electrocardiogram ST segment position were measured. Results Patients randomized to norepinephrine went from a median prestudy norepinephrine infusion of 20.0 microg/min to a blinded infusion of 17.0 mug/min at 4 h, whereas those randomized to vasopressin went from a median prestudy norepinephrine infusion of 25.0 microg/min to 5.3 microg/min at 4 h (P < 0.001). Mean arterial pressure and cardiac index were maintained in both groups. Urine output did not change in the norepinephrine group (median, 25 to 15 ml/h) but increased substantially in the vasopressin group (median, 32.5 to 65 ml/h; P < 0.05). Similarly, creatinine clearance did not change in the norepinephrine group but increased by 75% in the vasopressin group (P < 0.05). Gastric mucosal carbon dioxide tension and electrocardiogram ST segments did not change significantly in either group. Conclusions The authors conclude that short-term vasopressin infusion spared conventional vasopressor use and improved some measures of renal function in patients with severe septic shock.