Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Exhaled gases and the potential for cross-infection via noninvasive ventilation machines

Benjamin Messer, Alison Dawn Armstrong, Nicholas David Lane, Ali Robb, Robert Edward Bullock
ERJ Open Research 2022 8: 00109-2022; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00109-2022
Benjamin Messer
1The North East Assisted Ventilation Service, The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: ben.messer@nhs.net
Alison Dawn Armstrong
1The North East Assisted Ventilation Service, The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicholas David Lane
1The North East Assisted Ventilation Service, The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
2Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nicholas David Lane
Ali Robb
3Newcastle Microbiology and Virology Services, The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert Edward Bullock
1The North East Assisted Ventilation Service, The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Guidelines suggest that exhaled gases do not reach the outlet of noninvasive ventilators in clinical use. In this study, when tidal volumes exceeded 800 mL, exhaled gases did reach the ventilator, leading to a risk of cross-infection between users. https://bit.ly/3EdvtY6

To the Editor:

Use of long-term ventilation (LTV) benefits patients with a diverse range of conditions, including Duchenne muscular dystrophy, motor neurone disease and scoliosis [1]. Patients with pulmonary disease as well as neuromuscular disease can benefit from LTV. COPD patients treated with LTV experience a reduction in hospital admissions and the use of LTV in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients is increasing [2, 3].

Despite improvements in outcomes, patients receiving LTV are at risk of pneumonia, with Pseudomonas aeruginosa commonly isolated [4]. Infections with P. aeruginosa in bronchiectasis, and with P. aeruginosa, Burkholderia cepacia complex and Mycobacterium abscessus complex in CF are associated with worse clinical outcomes [5, 6]. Furthermore, oral options for treatment of P. aeruginosa infections are limited, increasing the likelihood of hospital admissions. These organisms are considered transmissible between patients and can survive for extended periods within the environment [6]. In the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the requirement for respiratory support in an unprecedented number of patients resulted in intense resource pressures, including the re-distribution of LTV-allocated ventilators to the acute wards for treatment. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, all forms of assisted ventilation have been considered aerosol generating, with an associated high risk of transmission of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus through the use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) [7]. However, emerging evidence challenges this, suggesting that assisted ventilation is not associated with increased aerosol production, and may even reduce aerosol [8].

It is recognised that NIV equipment can become infected with potentially pathogenic organisms [9]. However, the only study to investigate the contamination of NIV machines investigated seven machines from CF patients using bacterial filters and did not find evidence of contamination with potentially pathogenic organisms [10].

NIV machines are reused between patients and cannot be sterilised. In the UK, there is a national recommendation that bacterial filters be used between the ventilator outlet and the NIV circuit tubing, for all patients receiving acute NIV [11]. There is no such guidance in LTV. Survey data from the Specialists in Long-term Ventilation at Home (SiLVaH) network suggest that 50% of LTV centres do not use bacterial/viral filters [12].

Most ventilator circuits used for LTV are single-limb circuits. Such circuits require an intentional leak in the circuit through which exhaled gas can escape to allow exhalation and avoid re-breathing carbon dioxide (CO2). This can be achieved in one of three ways: 1) the use of a vented mask, 2) the use of an exhalation port, and 3) the use of an active exhalation valve circuit. It is assumed that the leak/exhalation device prevents exhaled gas reaching the ventilator outlet and therefore there is no risk of contaminating the ventilator and transmitting bacteria or viruses between patients. British Thoracic Society guidance for acute NIV supports this assumption, stating “In most ventilators used for NIV there is no airflow from the patient back into the ventilator” [11].

Irrespective of their underlying disease pathology, patients developing respiratory failure requiring LTV are living with severe illness, often with multimorbidity and frailty. Given the increasing prevalence of LTV and the potential implications of bacterial or viral lower respiratory tract infection or pneumonia in this group of patients, it is critically important that the risks of contamination of NIV machines and the potential transmission of organisms between patients are investigated. The first step in the understanding of this is investigation of gas flow within the NIV circuit. We aimed to assess whether the belief that exhaled gas does not reach the ventilator during treatment with NIV is valid.

We investigated whether exhaled gas reached the ventilator outlet using three noninvasive ventilators and a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine. The machines used were: Vivo 50 (Breas, Gothenburg, Sweden), NIPPY 3+ (Breas, Stratford-upon-Avon, UK), A40 (Philips Respironics, Murrysville, PA, USA) and AirSense CPAP (ResMed Ltd, Bella Vista, Australia).

To establish whether exhaled gas reached the ventilator outlet, we used a side-stream CO2 analyser (Intersurgical, Wokingham, UK) attached to a 23G needle placed into the ventilator tubing (Armstrong Medical, Coleraine, UK) immediately adjacent to the ventilator outlet (figure 1a). The deadspace of the tubing was 500 mL.

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

a) Positioning of the side-stream carbon dioxide analyser adjacent to the ventilator outlet and b) typical carbon dioxide trace recorded during analysis.

One member of the team (B. Messer) underwent NIV/CPAP using three different circuit configurations (except where the device functionality did not allow): 1) vented mask (AirFit F10, ResMed), 2) non-vented mask with an exhalation port (Intersurgical), and 3) active exhalation valve (Breas).

The settings used, which would reflect standard clinical practice were as follows. Vented mask configuration settings: mode pressure control (PC), inspiratory positive airway pressure (IPAP) 20 cmH2O, expiratory positive airway pressure (EPAP) 4 cmH2O, 12 breaths·min−1. Exhalation port configuration settings: mode PC, IPAP 20 cmH2O, EPAP 4 cmH2O, 12 breaths·min−1. Active exhalation valve configuration settings: mode PC, IPAP 20 cmH2O, EPAP 0 cmH2O, 12 breaths·min−1. CPAP settings: 8 cmH2O.

In order to establish whether the exhaled CO2 was related to tidal volume, we used a Wright's respirometer in the circuit with the exhalation port configuration, to adjust the NIV pressures to give a measured exhaled tidal volume between 2000 mL and 500 mL. We voluntarily controlled the tidal volume in the CPAP circuit.

In each circuit configuration using each ventilator and CPAP machine, CO2 was detected at the ventilator outlet, demonstrating that exhaled gas can reach the ventilator. Figure 1b shows a typical exhaled CO2 trace. In our experiments, the exhaled CO2 varied between 1.5 kPa and 3.7 kPa depending upon the circuit and machine used (table 1). With tidal volumes >800 mL, CO2 was detected at the ventilator outlet. At <800 mL, no CO2 was detected.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Exhaled carbon dioxide detected with four machines and three circuit configurations

We have shown that, contrary to published guidelines, exhaled gas from a patient reaches the ventilator outlet in all trialled circuit configurations during NIV/CPAP treatment, with standard clinical settings, when tidal volumes were >800 mL. Although 800 mL represents a relatively high tidal volume, it is well within the clinical range for CPAP and NIV users, especially those with recruitment breaths, a recruitment profile or during coughing.

NIV and CPAP machines are not considered single-patient-use devices. These findings therefore demonstrate the potential for contamination of such devices through exhaled air. This has profound implications for the LTV and sleep medicine community, where the use of bacterial and viral filters is not universal, not least in the context of current risks of COVID-19 infection, to which LTV patients are particularly vulnerable [7].

If the theoretical risks of contamination are shown to result in machine colonisation and transmission of bacteria and viruses between patients, the implications for LTV patients are substantial. There are potential adverse outcomes from transmission of pathogenic bacteria in patients using LTV, particularly those with chronic lung diseases such as CF, non-CF bronchiectasis and COPD. There is therefore an urgent need within the infection control and LTV community to investigate whether ventilators are contaminated, including discussion about practices relating to reuse of ventilators, decontamination of ventilators and routine use of bacterial filters during treatment with LTV.

This experiment does not prove contamination of the machines from users, nor does it demonstrate cross-infection. However, it disproves the assumption that exhaled (thus potentially infected) gases cannot travel down the ventilator tubing and back to the device outlet. We believe this understanding of the function and workings of the breathing circuit is the first step in establishing the risk(s) of device contamination. Further studies investigating bacterial growth within ventilator devices and circuitry should be undertaken to help assess the risks of contamination.

Footnotes

  • Provenance: Submitted article, peer reviewed.

  • Data availability: Data sharing requests will be considered immediately following publication. Requests should be made via the corresponding author.

  • Author contributions: B. Messer undertook the literature search, designed the study, collected and analysed the data, and prepared the manuscript. A.D. Armstrong assisted in the study design, collected and analysed the data, and reviewed the manuscript. N.D. Lane reviewed the manuscript. A. Robb undertook the literature search and reviewed the manuscript. R.E. Bullock assisted in the study design and reviewed the manuscript.

  • Conflict of interest: B. Messer reports personal fees from Fisher & Paykel outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: A.D. Armstrong reports personal fees from Fisher & Paykel and grants from Breas, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: N.D. Lane reports grants from the ResMed Foundation and Bright Northumbria, and nonfinancial support from Chiesi, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: A. Robb has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: R.E. Bullock has nothing to disclose.

  • Support statement: The authors thank the Newcastle Hospitals charity for support with open access fees.

  • Received February 26, 2022.
  • Accepted April 6, 2022.
  • Copyright ©The authors 2022
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org

References

  1. ↵
    1. Bourke SJ,
    2. Peel T
    1. Messer B,
    2. Clark A
    . Chapter 11 – Neuromuscular disease. In: Bourke SJ, Peel T, eds. Integrated Palliative Care of Respiratory Disease. 2nd Edn. Cham, Springer, 2019; pp. 173–197.
  2. ↵
    1. Murphy PB,
    2. Rehal S,
    3. Arbane G, et al.
    Effect of home noninvasive ventilation with oxygen therapy vs oxygen therapy alone on hospital readmission or death after an acute COPD exacerbation: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017; 317: 2177–2186. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.4451
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Archangelidi O,
    2. Carr SB,
    3. Simmonds NJ, et al.
    Non-invasive ventilation and clinical outcomes in cystic fibrosis: findings from the UK CF registry. J Cyst Fibros 2019; 18: 665–670. doi:10.1016/j.jcf.2018.11.006
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Chenoweth CE,
    2. Washer LL,
    3. Obeyesekera K, et al.
    Ventilator-associated pneumonia in the home care setting. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007; 28: 910–915. doi:10.1086/519179
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Araújo D,
    2. Shteinberg M,
    3. Aliberti S, et al.
    The independent contribution of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection to long-term clinical outcomes in bronchiectasis. Eur Respir J 2018; 51: 1701953. doi:10.1183/13993003.01953-2017
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Saiman L,
    2. Siegel JD,
    3. LiPuma JJ, et al.
    Infection prevention and control guideline for cystic fibrosis: 2013 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014; 35: Suppl. 1, S1–S67. doi:10.1086/676882
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. UK Health Security Agency
    . Infection prevention and control for seasonal respiratory infections in health and care settings (including SARS-CoV-2) for winter 2021 to 2022. Date last accessed: 22 February 2022. www.gov.uk/government/publications/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-infection-prevention-and-control/covid-19-guidance-for-maintaining-services-within-health-and-care-settings-infection-prevention-and-control-recommendations
  8. ↵
    1. Wilson NM,
    2. Marks GB,
    3. Eckhardt A, et al.
    The effect of respiratory activity, non-invasive respiratory support and facemasks on aerosol generation and its relevance to COVID-19. Anaesthesia 2021; 76: 1465–1474. doi:10.1111/anae.15475
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Rodríguez González-Moro JM,
    2. Andrade Vivero G,
    3. de Miguel Díez J, et al.
    Colonización bacteriana y ventilación mecánica domiciliaria. Prevalencia y factores de riesgo [Bacterial colonization and home mechanical ventilation: prevalence and risk factors]. Arch Bronconeumol 2004; 40: 392–396. doi:10.1016/S0300-2896(04)75557-X
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Mutagi A,
    2. Nash EF,
    3. Cameron S, et al.
    Microbial contamination of non-invasive ventilation devices used by adults with cystic fibrosis. J Hosp Infect 2012; 81: 104–108. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2012.03.004
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. British Thoracic Society Standards of Care Committee
    . Non-invasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure. Thorax 2002; 57: 192–211. doi:10.1136/thorax.57.3.192
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Armstrong A,
    2. Messer B
    . Is there a risk to home mechanical ventilation patients who are issued with previously used room air ventilators? Poster 37. ERS Respiratory Failure and Mechanical Ventilation Conference, Berlin, 2020.
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 8 Issue 3 Table of Contents
ERJ Open Research: 8 (3)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Exhaled gases and the potential for cross-infection via noninvasive ventilation machines
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Exhaled gases and the potential for cross-infection via noninvasive ventilation machines
Benjamin Messer, Alison Dawn Armstrong, Nicholas David Lane, Ali Robb, Robert Edward Bullock
ERJ Open Research Jul 2022, 8 (3) 00109-2022; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00109-2022

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Exhaled gases and the potential for cross-infection via noninvasive ventilation machines
Benjamin Messer, Alison Dawn Armstrong, Nicholas David Lane, Ali Robb, Robert Edward Bullock
ERJ Open Research Jul 2022, 8 (3) 00109-2022; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00109-2022
Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Respiratory infections and tuberculosis
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • A 3D-engineered silicone stent
  • Obesity does not modify effect of CPAP on insulin resistance
  • Asthma prevalence and medication dispensation
Show more Research letters

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About ERJ Open Research

  • Editorial board
  • Journal information
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Online ISSN: 2312-0541

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society