Evaluation of the user seal check on gross leakage detection of 3 different designs of N95 filtering facepiece respirators

Background The use of N95 respirators prevents spread of respiratory infectious agents, but leakage hampers its protection. Manufacturers recommend a user seal check to identify on-site gross leakage. However, no empirical evidence is provided. Therefore, this study aims to examine validity of a user seal check on gross leakage detection in commonly used types of N95 respirators. Methods A convenience sample of 638 nursing students was recruited. On the wearing of 3 different designs of N95 respirators, namely 3M-1860s, 3M-1862, and Kimberly-Clark 46827, the standardized user seal check procedure was carried out to identify gross leakage. Repeated testing of leakage was followed by the use of a quantitative fit testing (QNFT) device in performing normal breathing and deep breathing exercises. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios were calculated accordingly. Results As indicated by QNFT, prevalence of actual gross leakage was 31.0%-39.2% with the 3M respirators and 65.4%-65.8% with the Kimberly-Clark respirator. Sensitivity and specificity of the user seal check for identifying actual gross leakage were approximately 27.7% and 75.5% for 3M-1860s, 22.1% and 80.5% for 3M-1862, and 26.9% and 80.2% for Kimberly-Clark 46827, respectively. Likelihood ratios were close to 1 (range, 0.89-1.51) for all types of respirators. Conclusions The results did not support user seal checks in detecting any actual gross leakage in the donning of N95 respirators. However, such a check might alert health care workers that donning a tight-fitting respirator should be performed carefully.

[1]  J. Doust Using probabilistic reasoning , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[2]  E. Barrett-Connor,et al.  The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of traditional clinical evaluation of peripheral arterial disease: results from noninvasive testing in a defined population. , 1985, Circulation.

[3]  Andrew K. Lui,et al.  Testing of the sensitivity and specificity of the User-Seal-Check procedure on “gross leakage” of N95 respirators , 2012 .

[4]  Larry J. Anderson,et al.  Guidelines for preventing health-care-associated pneumonia, 2003 recommendations of the CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. , 2004, Respiratory care.

[5]  S. Satya‐Murti Evidence-based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM , 1997 .

[6]  S. Maloney,et al.  Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis 
Outbreak among US-bound Hmong 
Refugees, Thailand, 2005 , 2008, Emerging infectious diseases.

[7]  Y. Guan,et al.  H5N1 Outbreaks and Enzootic Influenza , 2006, Emerging infectious diseases.

[8]  George Astrakianakis,et al.  Health Care Workers and Respiratory Protection: Is the User Seal Check a Surrogate for Respirator Fit-Testing? , 2011, Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene.

[9]  C. Gomersall,et al.  Protecting healthcare staff from severe acute respiratory syndrome: filtration capacity of multiple surgical masks , 2005, Journal of Hospital Infection.

[10]  E. Franssen How to Report Statistics in Medicine , 2008, Nature Medicine.

[11]  S. Lam,et al.  Sensitivity and specificity of the user-seal-check in determining the fit of N95 respirators , 2011, Journal of Hospital Infection.

[12]  Sharon E Straus,et al.  Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach It , 2010 .

[13]  Leslie G. Portney Dpt PhD Fapta,et al.  Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice , 2015 .

[14]  K. Kreiss,et al.  Respirator Donning in Post-Hurricane New Orleans , 2007, Emerging infectious diseases.

[15]  Simon Cauchemez,et al.  CME ACTIVITY: Face Mask Use and Control of Respiratory Virus Transmission in Households , 2009, Emerging infectious diseases.

[16]  S. Likitnukul,et al.  Evaluation of sensitivity and specificity of rapid influenza diagnostic tests for novel swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus. , 2009, The Pediatric infectious disease journal.

[17]  E. V. Sargent,et al.  Use of personal protective equipment for respiratory protection. , 2003, ILAR journal.

[18]  Henggen Shen,et al.  Racial differences in respirator fit testing: a pilot study of whether American fit panels are representative of Chinese faces. , 2007, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[19]  V. Lawrence,et al.  Lang TA, Secic M. How to report statistics in medicine. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians, 2006. This book can be obtained from www.amazon.co.uk for £33.20. , 2007 .

[20]  Laboratory performance evaluation of N95 filtering facepiece respirators, 1996. , 1998, MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report.

[21]  Majid Jaraiedi,et al.  Effectiveness of Fit Check Methods on Half Mask Respirators , 1995 .

[22]  E. D. Kilbourne Influenza Pandemics of the 20th Century , 2006, Emerging infectious diseases.

[23]  Ziqing Zhuang,et al.  Evaluation of the Benefit of the User Seal Check on N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirator Fit , 2012, Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene.

[24]  Respiratory Protection by Respirators: The Predictive Value of User Seal Check for the Fit Determination in Healthcare Settings , 2011, Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

[25]  J. Peiris,et al.  Effectiveness of precautions against droplets and contact in prevention of nosocomial transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) , 2003, The Lancet.

[26]  G. Bai,et al.  Worldwide Emergence of Extensively Drug-resistant Tuberculosis , 2007, Emerging infectious diseases.

[27]  A. Akobeng Understanding diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity, specificity and predictive values , 2007, Acta paediatrica.

[28]  G. ter Riet,et al.  Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[29]  J L Derrick,et al.  Predictive value of the user seal check in determining half-face respirator fit , 2004, Journal of Hospital Infection.