Skip to content

Monitors to Improve Indoor Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Concentrations in the Hospital

Monitors to Improve Indoor Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Concentrations in the Hospital: a Randomized, Sham-controlled, Open Label Trial

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04770597
Acronym
MICH
Enrollment
12
Registered
2021-02-25
Start date
2021-02-21
Completion date
2021-05-02
Last updated
2021-05-11

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Healthcare Associated Infection

Keywords

Indoor air quality, Carbon dioxide, Ventilation

Brief summary

Ventilation with fresh outdoor air has recently gained considerable attention as a means to reduce the potential risk of indoor aerosol transmission of respiratory pathogens such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Commercial carbon dioxide (CO2) monitors are increasingly used in schools, long-term care facilities, offices and public buildings to monitor indoor ventilation. However, no formal evidence is available to support the effectiveness of feedback from CO2 monitoring devices. Moreover, modern hospitals have superior indoor air quality control systems. The aim of this prospective pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to evaluate whether CO2 monitoring devices would be useful as a means to further maintain lower indoor CO2 concentrations in hospitals.

Detailed description

In this pilot, randomized, sham-controlled open-label RCT, hospital rooms will be fitted with Aranet4 Home CO2 sensors. Each device will continuously measure indoor CO2 concentrations at 1-minute intervals during 4 time periods: 1\. Baseline: staff blinded to CO2 levels displayed on sensor 2-3. Sham/Intervention period: sensors on the same ward will be randomized to placebo (sensor not showing CO2 levels to staff) or Intervention (sensor displaying CO2 levels to staff) in a cross-over design 4\. Post-intervention phase (3 weeks post-intervention): staff blinded to CO2 levels Each measurement period will consist of 7 days with no washout period. Our primary hypothesis is that CO2 sensors will record less time (minutes) with elevated CO2 levels during the intervention period, compared to the Sham periods. However, carry-over effects will be investigated by comparing the Intervention periods to the Baseline and Post-intervention phases. Note \[February 27, 2021\]: due to technical problems with the Aranet4 device Bluetooth connection, outcome data will be analyzed according to measurement data at 2-5 minute intervals (measurements can be made every minute, but data cannot be downloaded with the current version of the app due to technical problems).

Interventions

DEVICEAranet4 Home CO2 monitor

The sensor is placed in the room at a height between 1 and 2 meters and not near the window or door.

Sponsors

Imelda Hospital, Bonheiden
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

Each sensor will be randomized to Sham-Intervention or Intervention-Sham cross-over. Additionally, each sensor will measure CO2 during a baseline and post-intervention phase.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Double-bed hospital rooms

Exclusion criteria

* Unoccupied rooms

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Time >800 ppm CO27 days/time period (pre-, active/sham and post-intervention)Time/day (in minutes/24h) measuring \>800 ppm CO2

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Time >1000 ppm CO27 days/time period (pre-, active/sham and post-intervention)Time/day (in minutes/24h) measuring \>1000 ppm CO2
Time >1400 ppm CO27 days/time period (pre-, active/sham and post-intervention)Time/day (in minutes/24h) measuring \>1400 ppm CO2
Daily peak CO2 concentration [in ppm]7 days/time period (pre-, active/sham and post-intervention)Daily peak CO2 concentration \[in ppm\]

Other

MeasureTime frameDescription
Staff-rated feasibility on a 10-point Likert scale [0-10, with 10 indicating better outcome]7 daysHow feasible is it to use CO2 sensors to monitor indoor air quality in hospital? Anonymous online survey during the post-intervention phase
Staff-rated preference on a 10-point Likert scale [0-10, with 10 indicating better outcome]7 daysWould you prefer to use CO2 sensors to monitor indoor air quality in hospital in the future? Anonymous online survey during the post-intervention phase

Countries

Belgium

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 20, 2026