Use of Powered Air-Purifying Respirator(PAPR) by healthcare workers for preventing highly infectious viral diseases -a systematic review of evidence

Description of the Devices

Two major international testing and classification bodies of respiratory protection include the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and European Norms (EN). Air- purifying particulate respirators function by removing aerosols (droplets and solid particles) from the air through the use of filters, cartridges or canisters. Air-purifying respirators fall into one of four different classifications (Table 2): 1. Filtering Facepiece Respirator (FFR), 2. Elastomeric Half facepiece Respirator, 3. Elastomeric Full Facepiece Respirator, and 4. Powered Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR). The two major testing institutions (NIOSH and EN) employ different test protocols for evaluation of air-purifying particulate respirators as well as having different nomenclatures (Table 2). In the US, respiratory filtration levels are determined according to Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) standard 29 CFR 1910.134 “Respiratory Protection” (13). Meanwhile, the EN requires 94 and 99% efficiencies for FFRs, class P2 (FFP2) and class P3 (FFP3), respectively (14). In Europe respirators are tested against the relevant European Standard and are approved to the PPE Directive 89/686/EEC or the replacement PPE Regulation (EU)2016/425 (15).

The assigned protection factor (APF) of a respirator denotes the level of protection that the respirator is expected to provide to users who are properly fitted and trained. The APF is the ratio of pollutant outside the device (environment) to that inside the device (inhaled component). For example, an APF of 10” means that a user could expect to inhale no more than one tenth of the airborne contaminant present”. Airborne level protection includes: helmets, covers, hoods; FFP3 or FFP2/N95 masks, googles or face shields (if no helmets).

PAPRs can be described as respirators that protect the user by filtering out contaminants in the air and use a battery-operated blower to provide the user with clean air through a tight-fitting respirator, a loose-fitting hood, or a helmet. There is a wide heterogeneity of the available PAPR devices. Traditional PAPRs used in healthcare settings have a full-face piece and loose-fitting hoods, attached to waist mounted belt batteries. PAPRs use high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters and provide a higher level of protection than disposable respirators. High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters have a similar filtration as P100 (i.e., they filter at least 99.97% of particles 0.3 μm in diameter and are oil proof (9). PAPR’s are considered more protective in terms of the level of respiratory protection due to the higher efficiency of their filtration pieces as well as the maintenance of outward positive pressure. PAPRs are specified for high-hazard procedures because they can offer assigned APFs ranging from 25 to 1,000, which reduce the risk more than the protection factors provided by N95 respirators. The improved protection is largely provided by the positive pressure in the head covering or facepiece (Table 2). The hoods of PAPRs can provide splash protection and some degree of eye protection (14, 16). If HCWs are provided with sufficient comfortable and well-fitting respiratory protection, it is likely that compliance with preventive programs will be increased (17).

How the intervention might work

In the first instance, relevant individual institutions need to safeguard an HCW respiratory compliance program. Appropriate choice of the level of respiratory protection needs to be made within this program.

There is significant heterogeneity of international recommendations with regards to appropriate respiratory protection for HCWs when performing AGPs in suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients is notable. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) prevention and Centre for Disease Control (CDC) USA recommend use of an least N95/FFP2 and higher level of protection (18) (7); Public Health England recommends FFP3 level respiratory protection in addition to standard PPE (19); The Communicable Disease Network Australia (CDNA) recommends FFP2/N95 mask; With regards to the use of PAPR CDNA recommends that if a healthcare worker is required to remain in the room for longer periods of time (greater than one hour), the use of PAPR may be considered for additional comfort and visibility (20).

Why it is important to do this review

Evidence guided practice for the respiratory component of personal protective equipment is limited. With the high rate of HCW infection during the SARS-COV-1 epidemic in Toronto, PAPR use became embedded in respiratory protocols (21) (22). Limited information exists for use of one type of facial protection (e.g. FFP3) over another (e.g. FFP2/N95). High filtration pieces appear to have a protective advantage in laboratory settings (23). However, this does not translate to firm findings of greater healthcare workers protection in field studies (24). Increased layers and technical challenges of personal protective equipment can lead to increased complexity of patient care (25). During outbreaks such as the current global pandemic, early recommendations are often based on precautionary principles. It is uncertain what level of respiratory protection is required routinely for aerosol generating procedures (AGP’s) in highly infectious viral diseases as evidenced by heterogenous international recommendations. In 2005, Yassi et al identified recommended level of respiratory protection as a critical gap in societal understanding of viral pandemic management (26). There are known logistical advantages and disadvantages to PAPR technology (see Table 4).

We aim to summarize and critically appraise current evidence of the effectiveness of PAPR for preventing nosocomial infection in health care staff exposed to respiratory/body fluids contaminated with highly infectious viral diseases such as SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-1, MERS and Ebola. In particular, we will try and address current questions identified from the COVID-19 epidemic, that include to what effect PAPR as part of respiratory protection versus another (e.g.N95/P2) has on HCW infection rates and contamination.

Eligibility criteria Types of studies

We included randomized controlled trials which compared different types of PAPR, whether reusable or disposable, for prevention of HCW infection. We included observational studies, defined as studies that follow HCWs over time and that compare the effect of PAPR. We included simulation studies of PAPR technology or alternative respiratory equipment for donning and doffing procedures. In order to maximize study capture, we have chosen a broad range of applicable methodological approaches. Our full eligibility criteria are listed in Table 5.

Types of participants

For simulation studies, we included any type of participants (volunteers or HCW) using PAPR or alternative respiratory equipment as part of a protective PPE program. For field studies, we planned to include any HCW exposed to body fluids from patients contaminated with Ebola, MERS, SARS-Cov-1 or SARS-Cov-2.

Types of interventions

We included studies that evaluated the effectiveness of any type of Purified Airflow Respirator (PAPR), whether disposable or recyclable against suitable face respirators such as N95/FFP2 or any other respiratory protection used. We excluded hybrid PAPR devices due to potential for confounding.

Types of outcome measures

Information sources and literature searches

We searched the following electronic databases: MEDLINE via Ovid SP; EMBASE via Ovid SP; and Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL). In addition, we sought information from grey literature through the following specific search engines: Google Scholar, OpenGrey, and GreyNet (29-31). We developed a search strategy for Medline via Ovid (Appendix 1) and adapted it for other databases. We searched all databases from their inception to the present time. We conducted the original search for studies in May 2020. Due to the dynamic nature of the current pandemic, we repeated our searches in June 2020. We limited our search to English language studies. We did this in order to facilitate the efficiency of the search, bearing in mind that language limitation is unlikely to result in publication bias(32)

Study Selection

Titles and abstracts of articles returned from initial searches were screened by two reviewer’s (AL) and (AS) based on the eligibility criteria outlined above. Full texts of potential eligible studies were examined for suitability. References of all considered articles were hand-searched to identify any other potentially eligible studies. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. The results of the data search were presented in a PRISMA flow diagram indicating the number of studies retrieved, screened and excluded as per exclusion criteria (see Figure 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

PRISMA Flow Diagram

Data extraction, management, analysis and presentation

Data were extracted from each study including publication details, study characteristics, participant characteristics, type of procedure, intervention and comparator characteristics, and outcomes. For randomized controlled trials, one author (AL) extracted the information on the methodological quality of studies including random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other bias (33). For non- randomized studies data were collected on all applicable elements other than random sequence generation and allocation concealment.

Risk of Bias in Individual Studies

Risk of bias in randomized controlled studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (34). We used the ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions) tool to assess the risk of bias in non-randomized studies (35). We rated each potential source of bias as high, low or unclear. We considered blinding separately for different key outcomes where necessary. We used the risk of bias assessment in individual studies to inform our assessment of study limitations across the body of evidence.

Data Synthesis

We planned to systematically describe the data from each study. We planned to generate Evidence Profile table across each predetermined primary and secondary outcome. We planned to pool data from studies judged to be clinically homogeneous using Review Manager Web Software (36). Due to the heterogeneity of data, quantitative synthesis was not possible.

Measures of treatment effect

Data ascertained were heterogenous both in terms of study design and interventions undertake. As such, we were unable to estimate treatment effects. We described the included studies in the ‘Characteristics of included studies’ table.

Confidence in cumulative evidence

Quality of evidence was classified according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system into one of four categories: high, moderate, low, and very low (37). Evidence based on randomized controlled trials was considered as high quality unless confidence in the evidence was decreased due to study limitations, the inconsistency of results, indirectness of evidence, imprecision, and reporting biases. Observational studies were considered low quality; however, they were graded higher if the treatment effect observed was very large or if there was evidence of a dose-response relationship (38, 39). We have presented Evidence Profile (EP) tables in the Appendix section.

Results of the search

Our search resulted in 690 references without duplicates for screening (Prisma diagram, Figure 1). Title and abstract screening excluded further 499 studies. We screened the remainder of full text studies. We attained further 18 full text studies through grey literature searches. We included 10 full text studies.

Included studies

We included ten eligible studies. Please see characteristics of included studies (Appendix 2). Five of these studies were simulation studies. Two of the studies were randomized controlled trials. A single study was a randomized controlled trial in a simulation setting (40). A single study was an observational case series of healthcare workers (airway proceduralist only) managing patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in China at the start of 2020 (41). Two were observational studies with control group cohorts (42) (43). One observational simulation study was a case series without a control group (44).

Characteristics of participants

In the simulation studies, researchers included 195 participants. Two of the observational simulation studies were cross over studies and therefore control participants were also intervention participants (43) (42, 45-48).

There were 153 participants in the randomized simulation studies. However, 24 of these acted as doffing observers in Andonian et al study (49). There were 1920 on-field healthcare workers performing intubations in two observational studies (41) (50).

Interventions and comparisons

We identified a large prospective observational cohort study of healthcare workers utilizing a range of respiratory equipment including PAPR devices. The investigators reported that PAPRs (43.4%) were used more commonly in the United States of America (USA) than the United Kingdom (UK). In the UK participants more frequently used FFP3/N100 respirator masks (89.3%). The investigators did not report a significant difference in the primary endpoint rates in these two countries as determined by PPE use (50). We identified a single retrospective observational case series which retrospectively assessed the rates of cross infection in airway proceduralists. In both groups, HCWs utilized droplet precautions with either PAPR (n=50); goggles, FFP2/N95 mask with a face shield (n=22) or goggles, FFP/N95 with a full hood without positive pressure (n=130) (41).

A single randomized controlled trial evaluated the effectiveness of training programs on contamination of personal protective equipment incorporating PAPR (49). A single observational study evaluated attitudes and practices towards a novel PAPR equipment (44). A single observational study compared the effectiveness of different equipment including PAPR on donning and doffing (42). A single observational study evaluated the effectiveness of different respiratory ensembles on temperature of skin and eye dryness (43). A single simulation randomized prospective trial evaluated the PAPR versus E-RCP (40). Three randomized simulation cross over trials evaluated the impact of respiratory equipment including use of PAPR on self-reported wearer comfort measures (45, 47, 48) Appendix 2 (Characteristics of included studies).

Outcomes

We identified a single prospective observational international multicenter cohort study (El-Boghdadly 2020) reporting the rates of assumed cross-infection with SARS-CoV-2 of healthcare personnel managing the airway. We identified a single observational case series (Yao 2020) which assessed the rates of cross infection in anesthesiologists. In both groups, HCWs utilized droplet precautions with either PAPR (n=50); goggles, FFP2/N95 mask with a face shield (n=22) or goggles, FFP/N95 with a full hood without positive pressure (n=130) (41). We identified no studies assessing the efficacy of PAPR technology compared to alternative respirator/ facepiece during care for patients with SARS- Cov-1, Ebola or MERS;

We identified a single randomized cross-over trial (Zamora et al, 2006) which evaluated contamination of skin or clothing measured with any type of test material to visualize contamination (40); Identified study used fluorescein staining to measure contamination. 26% of participants were contaminated in the PAPR group compared to 96% of contaminated participants in the E-RCP (enhanced respiratory controlled protection) group. We identified a single observational study (42). In a single study (Chughtai et al, 2018) which evaluating the risk of contamination with different PPE and Respiratory Equipment, no participants using PAPR were contaminated. All participants using N95 were contaminated. We found no studies which assessed compliance with guidance on selection of type and use of PPE measured with e.g. observation checklist. We found three observational studies which evaluated the level of wearer comfort, visibility and audibility with using the PAPR over alternative respiratory protection (Chughtai et al, 2018, Chughtai et al 2020, Powell 2017) (42-44).

Three simulation cross-over randomized trials studied the use of PAPR versus APR, with the outcomes of wearer comfort as measured by user rating of mobility, ease of communication, ease of breathing and heat perception (38, 45, 47, 48). We identified no studies which evaluated costs of resource use including maintenance and cleaning of equipment. We identified a single randomized trial which evaluated the utility of training on donning and doffing of personal protective equipment including PAPR (Andonian et al 2019) (49). Structured training using a PAPR decreased the likelihood of self- contamination from 100% to 86%.

Risk of Bias

We produced a Risk of Bias Summary and a Risk of Bias Graph for individual randomized and observational studies (Figure 2) (Figure 3). For non-randomized studies (NRS), we identified a high risk of bias across the confounding, selection bias and blinding of outcome assessment across objective and subjective domains. For NRS studies, we identified unclear risk of bias across the blinding performance bias and detection bias, objective outcomes. We used the risk of bias of individual studies to inform our assessment of bias across outcomes. Randomized controlled studies had an unclear risk of bias across a number of domains including allocation concealment, blinding of objective outcome assessment and blinding of participants and personnel.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Risk of Bias Summary

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Risk of Bias Graph

Data Synthesis

We summarized our findings in Evidence Profile (Appendix 3) tables across pre-determined primary and secondary outcomes using the GRADEpro software (51). We performed a narrative synthesis of the data.

Data collected were not suitable for a meta-analysis due to inherent heterogeneity. There was no difference in the primary endpoint of COVID-19 infection in respective observational studies in the airway proceduralists utilizing PAPR versus other protective respiratory equipment (50). In the prospective observational study, primary endpoint was defined as incidence of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis or new symptoms requiring self-isolation or hospitalization after a tracheal intubation episode. The overall incidence of the primary endpoint was 10.7% over a median follow-up of 32 days. Most participants were diagnosed through reported symptomatic self-isolation 144 (8.4%). The risk of the primary endpoint varied by country and was higher in females. The risk of COVID outcome was not associated with respiratory protection program use or use of PAPR (50). Investigators did not report the exact number of users protected by PAPR devices. Consequently, we did not construct an EP table for this primary outcome. In the second observational study, there were no airway proceduralists who were cross-infected in either cohort.The rate of healthcare worker infection was significantly different in the two studies, 10.7% versus 0%. Contamination of skin or clothing measured with any type of test material yielded lower risk of contamination in simulation studies. Evidence base for this outcome was low (40, 42).

There was moderate quality of evidence with regards to lower risk of heat build-up in users with PAPR technology (47) (45). There was moderate quality of evidence that visibility was improved in PAPR in comparison with APR (45). There was consistent moderate quality of evidence of decreased user rating of mobility and audibility with the use of PAPR (45, 47, 48). In a single cohort observational study all participants using N95 reported discomfort (42). Powell et al noted a lower temperature measurement in subjects using PAPR (43). This did not translate to a self-reported greater level of comfort in this study.

Participants in a randomized study rated the ease of breathing with the PAPR system significantly better than with the APR (48).