TY - JOUR T1 - Editor’s Commentary JF - Respiratory Care SP - i LP - i VL - 68 IS - 1 A2 - , Y1 - 2023/01/01 UR - http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/68/1/i.abstract N2 - This month’s Editor’s Choice is a paper by Dell’Olio and colleagues evaluating environmental contamination by SARS-CoV-2 from COVID-19 subjects receiving noninvasive ventilation (NIV). The presence of SARS-CoV-2 was measured using surface sampling in the ICU. Sampling was performed at 6, 12, and 24 h. In 256 samples, only 21 (8%) tested positive. The authors suggest these findings demonstrate that NIV does not increase risk of infection to healthcare workers.Ramsey and others evaluated SARS-CoV-2 aerosols during noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) of COVID-19 patients. They used aerosol sampling techniques to collect air samples near 37 subjects with COVID-19. In a parallel study they evaluated aerosol collected from normal volunteers using NRS. The presence of SARS-CoV-2 was found in < 10% of samples, and only in close proximity to the subject. They concluded that use of NIV or high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in subjects with COVID-19 did not increase the risk of aerosol dispersal in the ICU. Li considers both papers in an accompanying editorial. She reviews the methods of both studies and discusses the difference between aerosol-generating procedures and aerosol dispersion. She suggests that NRS has been shown to be effective in select cases of COVID-19 and does not appear to increase risks to caregivers.Delorme and coworkers performed a bench study of response of positive airway pressure (PAP) devices used during treatment of sleep-disordered breathing to simulated breathing patterns (ie, central hypopnea, central apnea, obstructive hypopnea, and obstructive apnea). They intended to test the response … ER -