Particulate respirator use and blood pressure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Highlights: • We did a systematic review of studies on blood pressure effects of PM respirator use. • Seven randomized crossover studies were selected for our systematic review. • Use of PM respirator was associated with −1.23 and −1.57 mmHg change in SBP and MAP. • However, significant heterogeneities and publication bias were observed. • Further interventions on blood pressure effects of PM respirator are needed. People use a particulate respirator in order to reduce exposure to ambient fine particulate matter (PM_2.5). Acute exposure to PM_2.5 is known to increase blood pressure. However, systematic reviews or meta-analyses on blood pressure-related benefits of using a particulate respirator is lacking. Therefore, we reviewed randomized crossover intervention studies on blood pressure-related effects of particulate matter respirator use. We conducted a literature review of articles found on Embase, Medline, and Cochrane library on August 31, 2020. The study outcomes were systolic and diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure. A random-effect model was used in the meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses, based on age (adult < 60 years, elderly ≥ 60 years), personal PM_2.5 exposure levels (High: ≥ 25 μg/m³, Low: < 25 μg/m³), and types of monitoring methods (ambulatory and resting blood pressure) were conducted. We identified 297 references, and seven studies were included in our systematic review. None of the studies used a sham respirator as control and complete allocation concealment and blinding were impossible. The use of a particulate respirator was associated with a −1.23 mmHg (95% confidence interval (CI): −2.53, 0.07) change in systolic blood pressure and a −1.57 mmHg (95% CI: −3.85, 0.71) change in mean arterial pressure. There were significant heterogeneities and possibilities for publication bias. The subgroup analyses revealed that studies involving elderly individuals, those conducted in high PM_2.5 personal exposure, and those in which resting blood pressure was monitored demonstrated a larger decrease in blood pressure resulting from respirator use. Further intervention studies with a large sample size and subjects with diverse characteristics and different personal PM_2.5 levels may add the evidence to current literature.