Respirators provide protection from airborne particles, and the N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) is the most commonly used type in health care. Recent FFR shortages have led to increased interest in reusable elastomeric half-mask respirators (EHMRs),1,2 which have a flexible interface and larger straps than FFRs. Data from simulation and industrial settings suggests that EMHRs may provide higher respiratory protection than FFRs.3 Case reports in previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus pandemics have suggested transmission during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) despite FFR use,4 and simulation studies have demonstrated an unacceptable leak during CPR in up to 40% FFR users.5 Owing to shortages of FFR models, individuals who could not be fit in an available FFR model were fit for an EMHR. We assessed whether EHMRs provide improved fit during simulated CPR compared with FFRs.
Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates
JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC
CME Disclosure Statement: Unless noted, all individuals in control of content reported no relevant financial relationships. If applicable, all relevant financial relationships have been mitigated.
Accepted for Publication: January 21, 2021.
Published: March 16, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.1564
Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Barros AJ et al. JAMA Network Open.
Corresponding Author: Andrew J. Barros, MD, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Virginia School of Medicine, PO Box 800546, Charlottesville, VA 22908-0546 (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Author Contributions: Drs Barros and Enfield had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Concept and design: All authors.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Barros, Sifri, Bell, Enfield.
Drafting of the manuscript: Barros, Enfield.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Sifri, Bell, Eby, Enfield.
Statistical analysis: Barros.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Barros, Eby, Enfield.
Supervision: Barros, Sifri, Bell, Enfield.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Sifri reported receiving grants from University of Virginia Global Infectious Disease Institute outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.
Additional Contributions: We thank the staff in the UVA Health special pathogen units for their participation in the study. Amy Warren, MS (Clinical Trials Office, School of Medicine, University of Virginia), assisted with preparing the trial protocol for institutional review board submission and was not compensated for this work.
Credit Designation Statement: The American Medical Association designates this Journal-based CME activity activity for a maximum of 1.00 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to:
It is the CME activity provider's responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting MOC credit.
You currently have no searches saved.
You currently have no courses saved.