Considerations for Recommending Extended Use and Limited Reuse of Filtering Facepiece Respirators in Health Care Settings

Abstract

Public health organizations, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), are increasingly recommending the use of N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) in health care settings. For infection control purposes, the usual practice is to discard FFRs after close contact with a patient (“single use”). However, in some situations, such as during contact with tuberculosis patients, limited FFR reuse (i.e., repeated donning and doffing of the same FFR by the same person) is practiced. A related practice, extended use, involves wearing the same FFR for multiple patient encounters without doffing. Extended use and limited FFR reuse have been recommended during infectious disease outbreaks and pandemics to conserve FFR supplies. This commentary examines CDC recommendations related to FFR extended use and limited reuse and analyzes available data from the literature to provide a relative estimate of the risks of these practices compared to single use. Analysis of the available data and the use of disease transmission models indicate that decisions regarding whether FFR extended use or reuse should be recommended should continue to be pathogen- and event-specific. Factors to be included in developing the recommendations are the potential for the pathogen to spread via contact transmission, the potential that the event could result in or is currently causing a FFR shortage, the protection provided by FFR use, human factors, potential for self-inoculation, the potential for secondary exposures, and government policies and regulations. While recent findings largely support the previous recommendations for extended use and limited reuse in certain situations, some new cautions and limitations should be considered before issuing recommendations in the future. In general, extended use of FFRs is preferred over limited FFR reuse. Limited FFR reuse would allow the user a brief respite from extended wear times, but increases the risk of self-inoculation and preliminary data from one study suggest that some FFR models may begin to lose effectiveness after multiple donnings.

Rapid evidence summary on SARS-CoV-2 survivorship and disinfection, and a reusable PPE protocol using a double-hit process

“…However, due to their methodology it was not possible to ascertain whether the fit of the masks for example, would be affected by their treatment protocol. • It is worth noting that N95 FFRs are mostly made of polypropylene 42 , whose maximum operating temperature is approximately 80°C 43 , so that heat treatment approaching this temperature is probably illadvised.…”

Transfer of bacteriophage MS2 and fluorescein from N95 filtering facepiece respirators to hands: Measuring fomite potential

“…[2] However, there are situations where the Center for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that the reuse or extended use of FFRs be considered as one option to conserve supplies. [3] Extended use of FFRs is the process whereby the wearer dons a FFR and uses it for multiple patient encounters, without removing the FFR in between patient visits. Reuse is the process of repeated donning and doffing of the same FFR for multiple patient encounters.…”

Recovery of Bacteria in Filtering Facepiece Respirators and Effects of Artificial Saliva/Perspiration on Bacterial Survival and Performance of Respirators

“…Similar conditions are observed upon various emergent disasters. Unfortunately, deficiencies or delays in the distribution of FFRs sometimes occur and FFR reuse is required (Fisher et al, 2014).…”