Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Do supraglottic airways protect against aerosol-generation?

A comparative analysis of aerosol exposure and prevention strategies in bystander, pre-hospital, and inpatient cardiopulmonary resuscitation using simulation manikins

To evaluate aerosol exposure risk and prevention strategies during bystander, pre-hospital, and inpatient cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This study compared hands-only CPR, CPR with a surgical or N95 mask, and CPR with a non-rebreather mask at 15 L/min. 30:2 compression-ventilation ratio CPR was tested with face-mask ventilation (FMV), FMV with a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter; supraglottic airway (SGA), SGA with a surgical mask, SGA with a HEPA filter, or SGA with both. Continuous CPR was tested with an endotracheal tube (ET), ET with a surgical mask, a HEPA filter, or both. Aerosol concentration at the head, trunk, and feet of the mannequin were measured to evaluate exposure to CPR personnel. Hands-only CPR with a surgical or N95 face mask coverings and ET tube ventilation CPR with filters showed the lowest aerosol exposure among all study groups, including CPR with NRM oxygenation, FMV, and SGA ventilation. NRM had a mask effect and reduced aerosol exposure at the head, trunk, and feet of the mannequin. FMV with filters during 30:2 CPR reduced aerosol exposure at the head and trunk, but increased at the feet of the mannequin. A tightly-sealed SGA when used with a HEPA filter, reduced aerosol exposure by 21.00-63.14% compared with a loose-fitting one. Hands-only CPR with a proper fit surgical or N95 face mask coverings is as safe as ET tube ventilation CPR with filters, compared with CPR with NRM, FMV, and SGA. FMV or tight-sealed SGA ventilation with filters prolonged the duration to achieve estimated infective dose of SARS-CoV-2 2.4-2.5 times longer than hands-on CPR only. However, a loose-fitting SGA is not protective at all to chest compressor or health workers standing at the foot side of the victim, so should be used with caution even when using with HEPA filters.

The Effect of a Plastic Barrier Drape on Resuscitation Performance and Provider Contamination: A Randomized Controlled Simulation-Based Pilot Trial

BACKGROUND

Patient barriers to protect health care workers from COVID-19 exposure have been studied for airway management. Few are tested for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). We sought to determine whether a plastic drape barrier affects resuscitation performance and contamination risks for a simulated cardiopulmonary arrest scenario.

METHODS

This pilot trial randomized in-hospital resuscitation teams of 4 to 6 participants to a plastic drape or without a drape in an in situ cardiopulmonary arrest simulation. The mannequin's airway emanated simulated virus particles (GloGerm, Moab, UT), detectable through UV light. Primary outcomes included airway management and CPR quality measures. Secondary outcomes included visible contamination on personal protective equipment (PPE). We used the Non-Technical Skills (NO-TECHS) instrument to measure perceived team performance and the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) to measure individual workload. Outcome variables were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with participant number as a covariate.

RESULTS

Seven teams were allocated to the intervention (plastic drape) group and 7 to the control. Intubation and ventilation performance (η 2 = 0.09, P > 0.3) and chest compression quality (η 2 = 0.03-0.19, P > 0.14) were not affected by the plastic drape. However, mean contaminated PPE per person decreased with the drape (2.8 ± 0.3 vs. 3.7 ± 0.3, partial η 2 = 0.29, P = 0.05). No differences in perceived workload nor team performance were noted ( P > 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

In this pilot study, the use of a plastic drape barrier seems not to affect resuscitation performance on simulated cardiopulmonary arrest but decreases health care worker contamination risk. Further implementation trials could characterize the true risk reduction and any effect on resuscitation outcomes.

Tracheal Intubation during Advanced Life Support Using Direct Laryngoscopy versus Glidescope® Videolaryngoscopy by Clinicians with Limited Intubation Experience: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The use of the Glidescope® videolaryngoscope might improve tracheal intubation performance in clinicians with limited intubation experience, especially during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare direct laryngoscopy to Glidescope® videolaryngoscopy by these clinicians. PubMed/Medline and Embase were searched from their inception to 7 July 2020 for randomized controlled trials, including simulation studies. Studies on adult patients or adult-sized manikins were included when direct laryngoscopy was compared to Glidescope® videolaryngoscopy by clinicians with limited experience in tracheal intubation (<10 intubations per year). The primary outcome was the intubation first-pass success rate. Secondary outcomes were time to successful intubation and chest compression interruption duration during intubation. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We included 4 clinical trials with 525 patients and 20 manikin trials with 2547 intubations. Meta-analyses favored Glidescope® videolaryngoscopy over direct laryngoscopy regarding first-pass success (clinical trials: risk ratio [RR] = 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16−2.23; manikin trials: RR = 1.17; 95% CI: 1.09−1.25). Clinical trials showed a shorter time to achieve successful intubation when using the Glidescope® (mean difference = 17.04 s; 95% CI: 8.51−25.57 s). Chest compression interruption duration was decreased when using the Glidescope® videolaryngoscope. The certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. When clinicians with limited intubation experience have to perform tracheal intubation during advanced life support, the use of the Glidescope® videolaryngoscope improves intubation and CPR performance compared to direct laryngoscopy.

Clinical update on COVID-19 for the emergency clinician: Cardiac arrest in the out-of-hospital and in-hospital settings

Introduction

Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in millions of cases worldwide. As the pandemic has progressed, the understanding of this disease has evolved. Its impact on the health and welfare of the human population is significant; its impact on the delivery of healthcare is also considerable.

Objective

This article is another paper in a series addressing COVID-19-related updates to emergency clinicians on the management of COVID-19 patients with cardiac arrest.

Discussion

COVID-19 has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. From a global perspective, as of February 23, 2022, 435 million infections have been noted with 5.9 million deaths (1.4%). Current data suggest an increase in the occurrence of cardiac arrest, both in the outpatient and inpatient settings, with corresponding reductions in most survival metrics. The frequency of out-of-hospital lay provider initial care has decreased while non-shockable initial cardiac arrest rhythms have increased. While many interventions, including chest compressions, are aerosol-generating procedures, the risk of contagion to healthcare personnel is low, assuming appropriate personal protective equipment is used; vaccination with boosting provides further protection against contagion for the healthcare personnel involved in cardiac arrest resuscitation. The burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on the delivery of cardiac arrest care is considerable and, despite multiple efforts, has adversely impacted the chain of survival.

Conclusion

This review provides a focused update of cardiac arrest in the setting of COVID-19 for emergency clinicians.

Simulation and evaluation of the protective barrier enclosure for cardiopulmonary resuscitation

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented a significant challenge for infection prevention and control during airway management in anaesthesia and critical care. The protective barrier enclosure has been described and studied particularly for perioperative anaesthesia use. The potential use of the protective barrier enclosure during cardiopulmonary resuscitation has been poorly explored in the current literature. This work aims to demonstrate the potential of protective barrier enclosure in limiting aerosol dispersion during cardiopulmonary resuscitation delivery.

METHODS

A proof-of-concept simulation study was conducted to evaluate the protective properties of the protective barrier enclosure during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Aerosol was simulated using a fluorescent dye trapped within the manikin. Three different methods of cardiopulmonary resuscitation delivery with a protective barrier enclosure applied over the manikin's head were conducted. The first method simulated a chest compression only cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the second method also used chest compressions only, with a face mask fitted on the victim, while the third method, the victim was given chest compression and bag-valve-mask ventilation by two rescuers.

RESULTS

In the first method, release of aerosol from the manikin's mouth was observed during chest compression, while in second method, most of the aerosol was trapped within the face mask, with only minor leaking. However, when bag-valve-mask ventilation was delivered, the aerosol leaked out at high speed around the bag-valve-mask seal. No aerosol condensation was found outside of the protective barrier enclosure in all scenes.

CONCLUSION

Protective barrier enclosure may reduce aerosol exposure to the rescuers during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

How to Maintain Safety and Maximize the Efficacy of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in COVID-19 Patients: Insights from the Recent Guidelines

Since December 2019, the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has remained a challenge for governments and healthcare systems all around the globe. SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with increased rates of hospital admissions and significant mortality. The pandemic increased the rate of cardiac arrest and the need for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). COVID-19, with its pathophysiology and detrimental effects on healthcare, influenced the profile of patients suffering from cardiac arrest, as well as the conditions of performing CPR. To ensure both the safety of medical personnel and the CPR efficacy for patients, resuscitation societies have published modified guidelines addressing the specific reality of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this review, we briefly describe the transmission and pathophysiology of COVID-19, present the challenges of CPR in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients, summarize the current recommendations regarding the algorithms of basic life support (BLS), advanced life support (ALS) and pediatric life support, and discuss other aspects of CPR in COVID-19 patients, which potentially affect the risk-to-benefit ratio of medical procedures and therefore should be considered while formulating further recommendations.

The Influence of COVID-19 on Out-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Survival Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is associated with poor prognosis. Because the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted mortality and morbidity, both on an individual level and the health care system as a whole, our purpose was to determine rates of OHCA survival since the onset of the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the influence of COVID-19 on OHCA survival outcomes according to the PRISMA guidelines. We searched the literature using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials databases from inception to September 2021 and identified 1775 potentially relevant studies, of which thirty-one articles totaling 88,188 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods was 12.3% vs. 8.9%, respectively (OR = 1.40; 95%CI: 1.06-1.87; p < 0.001). Survival to hospital discharge in pre- vs. intra-COVID-19 periods was 11.5% vs. 8.2% (OR = 1.57; 95%CI: 1.37-1.79; p < 0.001). A similar dependency was observed in the case of survival to hospital discharge with the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) 1-2 (6.7% vs. 4.0%; OR = 1.71; 95%CI: 1.35-2.15; p < 0.001), as well as in the 30-day survival rate (9.2% vs. 6.4%; OR = 1.63; 95%CI: 1.13-2.36; p = 0.009). In conclusion, prognosis of OHCA is usually poor and even worse during COVID-19.