Powered Air-Purifying Respirators (PAPRs) showed no significant differentiation in heart rate responses compared to traditional N95 masks with face shields among healthcare workers.
RCT (n=40)
crossover
No
Does the use of PAPRs compared to N95 masks with face shields affect physiological stress responses (heart rate) in healthcare workers?
There is no significant difference in heart rate responses between healthcare workers wearing PAPRs versus N95 masks with face shields, suggesting non-inferiority regarding physiological stress.
This study investigates the impact of different types of personal protective equipment (PPE), specifically Powered Air-Purifying Respirators (PAPRs) and traditional N95 masks with face shields, on the physiological stress responses of healthcare workers (HWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Utilizing an interventional randomized crossover trial design, the research encompasses a simulation phase with ten participants followed by field testing involving thirty frontline healthcare professionals in a tertiary-care hospital setting. Heart rate (HR) and movement data were collected through smartwatches, while trained observers recorded the duration and nature of various activities undertaken during simulations. Data analysis employed statistical techniques, including Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and t-Distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (t-SNE), to explore potential correlations between PPE type, HR, and movement. Clustering validation measures such as the Calinski–Harabasz, Davies–Bouldin, and Silhouette scores were applied to evaluate the difference between each type of PPE. The results indicated no significant differentiation in HR responses between the two PPE types. However, because HR may lack the sensitivity to fully capture variations in cognitive load or stress, these findings should be interpreted as an exploratory baseline. Additionally, no clear distinctions were observed regarding individual user responses or the activities performed, even when considering movement data. Although the findings imply non-inferiority of the examined PPE, future research including heart rate variability as a more comprehensive indicator of stress would be informative. This research contributes valuable insights into PPE selection and its implications for healthcare worker performance and well-being in high-stress environments, ultimately aiming to inform guidelines and training programs to enhance healthcare delivery during infectious disease outbreaks.
Almeida et al. (Wed,) conducted a rct in Healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic (n=40). Powered Air-Purifying Respirators (PAPRs) vs. Traditional N95 masks with face shields was evaluated on Heart rate (HR) responses. Powered Air-Purifying Respirators (PAPRs) showed no significant differentiation in heart rate responses compared to traditional N95 masks with face shields among healthcare workers.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: