Effect of Wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) on CPR Quality in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic-A Simulation, Randomised Crossover Trial

Under Armour - Use of personal protective equipment for simulated CPR of COVID-19 patients: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Personal protective equipment (PPE) protects healthcare workers and patients. Data on guideline compliance on how to dress (donning) or remove (doffing) PPE and the assistance among multiple participants (buddying) are limited. This study assesses the quality of donning, doffing, and buddying of PPE in a simulated medical emergency.

METHOD

Physicians handling a simulated cardiac arrest of a COVID-19 patient. Adjacent to the victim, PPE was available. The appropriateness of PPE choice was assessed by using video recordings, with each individual participant being analyzed from the beginning of the simulation scenario from two perspectives regarding the selection of items during donning and doffing, hygiene aspects, time, and team support (buddying). The primary outcome was the number of participants being appropriately protected, defined as both wearing (a) all PPE items provided, and (b) all PPE items correctly at the time of first patient contact (FPC). Secondary outcomes included the timing of participants being appropriately protected. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 28). Mann-Whitney test, chi-square test, and linear regression analysis were performed as appropriate.

RESULTS

At first patient contact 21% (91/437) were correctly protected. One or more incorrect PPE items were found in 4% (19/437), whereas 61% (265/437) wore one or more PPE items incorrectly. In 14% (62/437), one or more PPE items were missing. The time interval between donning start and FPC was 66 (55-78) sec. Time to FPC was longer in correctly than in incorrectly protected participants 77 (66-87) vs. 64 (54-75) sec; p < 0.001) and decreased by 7 ± 2 s per PPE item omitted (P = 0.002). Correct doffing was observed in 192/345 (56%), while buddying occurred in 120 participants (27%), indicating that they either assisted other participants in some manner (verbally or physically) or received assistance themselves.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings imply a need for education in correct and timely PPE donning and doffing. Donning PPE as intended delayed FPC. This and the influence of buddying needs further investigation (German study register number DRKS00023184).

Impact of a COVID-19 code blue protocol on resuscitation care and CPR quality during in-hospital cardiac arrest

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the impact of a COVID-19 Code Blue policy on in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) processes of care, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) quality metrics, and survival to hospital discharge.

METHODS

We completed a health record review of consecutive IHCA for which resuscitation was attempted. We report Utstein outcomes and CPR quality metrics 33 months before (July,2017-March,2020) and after (April,2020-December,2022) the implementation of a COVID-19 Code Blue policy requiring all team members to don personal protective equipment including gown, gloves, mask, and eye protection for all IHCA.

RESULTS

There were 800 IHCA with the following characteristics (Before n = 396; After n = 404): mean age 66, 62.9% male, 81.3% witnessed, 31.3% in the emergency department, 25.6% cardiac cause, and initial shockable rhythm in 16.7%. Among all 404 patients screened for COVID-19, 25 of 288 available test results before IHCA occurred were positive. Comparing the before and after periods: there were relevant time delays (min:sec) in start of chest compressions (0:17vs.0:37;p = 0.005), team arrival (0:43vs.1:21;p = 0.002), 1st rhythm analysis (1:15vs.3:16;p < 0.0001), 1st epinephrine (3:44vs.4:34;p = 0.02), and airway insertion (8:38vs. 10:18;p = 0.02). Resuscitation duration was similar (18:28vs.19:35;p = 0.34). Exception of peri-shock pause which appeared longer (0:06vs.0:14;p = 0.07), chest compression fraction, rate and depth were identical and good. Factors independently associated with survival were age (adjOR 0.98;p < 0.001), male sex (adjOR 1.51;p = 0.048), witnessed (adjOR 2.35;p = 0.02), shockable rhythm (adjOR 3.31;p < 0.0001), hospital location (p = 0.0002), and COVID-19 period (adjOR 0.68;p = 0.052).

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 Code Blue policy was associated with delayed processes of care but similarly good CPR quality. The COVID-19 period appeared associated with decreased survival.

2023 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Pediatric Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; and First Aid Task Forces

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation engages in a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed, published cardiopulmonary resuscitation and first aid science. Draft Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations are posted online throughout the year, and this annual summary provides more concise versions of the final Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations from all task forces for the year. Topics addressed by systematic reviews this year include resuscitation of cardiac arrest from drowning, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adults and children, calcium during cardiac arrest, double sequential defibrillation, neuroprognostication after cardiac arrest for adults and children, maintaining normal temperature after preterm birth, heart rate monitoring methods for diagnostics in neonates, detection of exhaled carbon dioxide in neonates, family presence during resuscitation of adults, and a stepwise approach to resuscitation skills training. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces list priority knowledge gaps for further research. Additional topics are addressed with scoping reviews and evidence updates.

Real-world comparison between mechanical and manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant challenges to healthcare systems worldwide, including an increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA). Healthcare providers are now required to use personal protective equipment (PPE) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Additionally, mechanical CPR devices have been introduced to reduce the number of personnel required for resuscitation. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of CPR performed with a mechanical device and the outcomes of manual CPR performed by personnel wearing PPE.

METHODS

This multicenter observational study utilized data from the Korean Cardiac Arrest Research Consortium registry. The study population consisted of OHCA patients who underwent CPR in emergency departments (EDs) between March 2020 and June 2021. Patients were divided into two equal propensity score matched groups: mechanical CPR group (n = 421) and PPE-equipped manual CPR group (n = 421). Primary outcomes included survival rates and favorable neurological outcomes at discharge. Total CPR duration in the ED was also assessed.

RESULTS

There were no significant between-group differences with respect to survival rate at discharge (mechanical CPR: 7.4% vs PPE-equipped manual CPR: 8.3%) or favorable neurological outcomes (3.3% vs. 3.8%, respectively). However, the mechanical CPR group had a longer duration of CPR in the ED compared to the manual CPR group.

CONCLUSION

This study found no significant differences in survival rates and neurological outcomes between mechanical CPR and PPE-equipped manual CPR in the ED setting. However, a longer total CPR duration was observed in the mechanical CPR group. Further research is required to explore the impact of PPE on healthcare providers' performance and fatigue during CPR in the context of the pandemic and beyond.

2023 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Pediatric Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; and First Aid Task Forces

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation engages in a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed, published cardiopulmonary resuscitation and first aid science. Draft Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations are posted online throughout the year, and this annual summary provides more concise versions of the final Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations from all task forces for the year. Topics addressed by systematic reviews this year include resuscitation of cardiac arrest from drowning, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adults and children, calcium during cardiac arrest, double sequential defibrillation, neuroprognostication after cardiac arrest for adults and children, maintaining normal temperature after preterm birth, heart rate monitoring methods for diagnostics in neonates, detection of exhaled carbon dioxide in neonates, family presence during resuscitation of adults, and a stepwise approach to resuscitation skills training. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces list priority knowledge gaps for further research. Additional topics are addressed with scoping reviews and evidence updates.

Surgical masks and filtering facepiece class 2 respirators (FFP2) have no major physiological effects at rest and during moderate exercise at 3000-m altitude: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of face masks has been recommended or enforced in several situations; however, their effects on physiological parameters and cognitive performance at high altitude are unknown.

METHODS

Eight healthy participants (four females) rested and exercised (cycling, 1 W/kg) while wearing no mask, a surgical mask or a filtering facepiece class 2 respirator (FFP2), both in normoxia and hypobaric hypoxia corresponding to an altitude of 3000 m. Arterialised oxygen saturation (SaO2), partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) and carbon dioxide (PaCO2), heart and respiratory rate, pulse oximetry (SpO2), cerebral oxygenation, visual analogue scales for dyspnoea and mask's discomfort were systematically investigated. Resting cognitive performance and exercising tympanic temperature were also assessed.

RESULTS

Mask use had a significant effect on PaCO2 (overall +1.2 ± 1.7 mmHg). There was no effect of mask use on all other investigated parameters except for dyspnoea and discomfort, which were highest with FFP2. Both masks were associated with a similar non-significant decrease in SaO2 during exercise in normoxia (-0.5 ± 0.4%) and, especially, in hypobaric hypoxia (-1.8 ± 1.5%), with similar trends for PaO2 and SpO2.

CONCLUSIONS

Although mask use was associated with higher rates of dyspnoea, it had no clinically relevant impact on gas exchange at 3000 m at rest and during moderate exercise, and no detectable effect on resting cognitive performance. Wearing a surgical mask or an FFP2 can be considered safe for healthy people living, working or spending their leisure time in mountains, high-altitude cities or other hypobaric environments (e.g. aircrafts) up to an altitude of 3000 m.

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.

COVID-19-specific adult basic life support guideline strategies for chiropractors and other healthcare providers to maximize the safety and efficacy of resuscitation: a commentary

BACKGROUND

The emergence of an unprecedented novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-C0V-2), which causes the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, has created new scenarios in basic life support (BLS) management. According to current evidence, SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted airborne in aerosol particles during resuscitation. Research evidence found an alarming global increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare providers are legally obliged to respond to cardiac arrest as soon as possible. Chiropractors will likely encounter potential exercise-related and non-exercise-related cardiac emergencies at some point in their professional lives. They have a duty of care to respond to emergencies such as cardiac arrest. Chiropractors are increasingly involved in providing care, including emergency care, for athletes and spectators at sporting events. Also, exercise-related cardiac arrest in adult patients may occur during exercise testing or rehabilitation with exercise prescriptions in chiropractic and other healthcare settings. Little is known about the COVID-19 BLS guidelines for chiropractors. Knowledge of the current COVID-19-specific adult BLS guidelines is essential to developing an emergency response plan for the on-field and sideline management of exercise-related cardiac arrest and non-athletic, non-exercise-related cardiac arrest.

MAIN TEXT

Seven peer-reviewed articles on the COVID-19-specific BLS guidelines, including two updates, were reviewed for this commentary. Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, the national and international resuscitation organizations recommended interim COVID-19-specific BLS guidelines with precaution, resuscitation, and education strategies. BLS safety is paramount. A precautionary approach with the bare minimum of appropriate personal protective equipment for resuscitation is recommended. There was disagreement among the COVID-19 BLS guidelines on the level of personal protective equipment. All healthcare professionals should also undergo self-directed BLS e-learning and virtual skill e-training. The summarized COVID-19-specific adult BLS guideline strategies and protocols are tabled, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This commentary provides a practical overview and highlights current evidence-based intervention strategies of the COVID-19-specific adult BLS guidelines that may help chiropractors and other healthcare providers reduce BLS-related exposures to SARS-CoV-2 and the risks of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and maximize the efficacy of resuscitation. This study is relevant to and impacts future COVID-19-related research in areas such as infection prevention and control.

Effects of personal protective equipment on cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and outcomes: A systematic review

Background

The impact of wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on CPR quality and patient outcomes is unclear. This systematic review aimed to examine whether wearing PPE during resuscitation affects patient outcomes, CPR quality and rescuer fatigue.

Methods

In this review registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022347746), we searched Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane library between 2000 and 2022. The inclusion criteria were studies: in actual or simulated cardiac arrest; comparing PPE with no PPE; and randomised controlled trials and observational studies with a English abstract. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias-2 and ROBINS-I tools and outcomes assessed with GRADE. We conducted a meta-analysis according to the study design. Quantitative data synthesis was done using a random-effect model incorporating the potential heterogeneity.

Results

A total of 17 simulation-based studies and 1 clinical study were included. All outcomes were judged to be very low certainty of evidence, subject to high risk of bias. The clinical study showed no difference in survival comparing enhanced and conventional PPE. Meta-analysis of 11 RCTs and 6 observational studies found no difference in CPR quality in rescuers wearing PPE compared with no PPE. Pooled rescuer fatigue was significantly worse in the PPE group (mean difference, 2.7 VAS score out of 10; 95% CI, 1.4-4.0).

Conclusions

PPE was not associated with reduced CPR quality or lower cardiac arrest survival. Rescuers wearing PPE may report more fatigue. This finding was mainly derived from simulation studies, additional clinical studies are needed.

Gender Differences in Anxiety, Attitudes, and Fear among Nursing Undergraduates Coping with CPR Training with PPE Kit for COVID

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to examine the attitudes, fears, and anxiety level of nursing students faced with a critical clinical simulation (cardiopulmonary reanimation) with and without personal protective equipment (PPE).

METHODS

A pilot before-after study as conducted from 21 to 25 June 2021, with 24 students registered in the nursing degree of the Faculty of Health Sciences of the Castilla-La Mancha University (UCLM) in the city of Talavera de la Reina (Toledo, Spain). From 520 possible participants, only 24 were selected according to the exclusion and inclusion criteria. The STAI Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, a self-evaluation questionnaire, was used to study trait STAI (basal anxiety), trait STAI before CPR, state STAI after CPR, total STAI before CPR, and total STAI after CPR as the main variables. A t-test was used to study the STAI variables according to sex and the physiological values related to the anxiety level of participants. An ANOVA statistical test was used to perform a data analysis of the STAI variables.

RESULTS

A total of 54.2% of participants (IC 95% 35.1-72.1) suffered from global anxiety before the cardiopulmonary reanimation maneuvers (CPR). The results of the STAI before CPR maneuvers showed significant differences according to gender in state anxiety (p = 0.04), with a higher level of anxiety in women (22.38 ± 7.69 vs. 15.82 ± 7.18).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates different levels of anxiety in terms of gender suffered by nursing students in high-pressure environments, such as a CPR situation.

COVID-19 CPR-Impact of Personal Protective Equipment during a Simulated Cardiac Arrest in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective Comparative Trial

Background: Guidelines of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) recommend the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the resuscitation of COVID-19 patients. Data on the effects of PPE on rescuers’ stress level and quality of CPR are sparse and conflicting. This trial investigated the effects of PPE on team performance in simulated cardiac arrests. Methods: During the pandemic period, 198 teams (689 participants) performed CPR with PPE in simulated cardiac arrests (PPE group) and were compared with 423 (1451 participants) performing in identical scenarios in the pre-pandemic period (control group). Video recordings were used for data analysis. The primary endpoint was hands-on time. Secondary endpoints included a further performance of CPR and the perceived task load assessed by the NASA task-load index. Results: Hands-on times were lower in PPE teams than in the control group (86% (83−89) vs. 90% (87−93); difference 3, 95% CI for difference 3−4, p < 0.0001). Moreover, PPE teams made fewer change-overs and delayed defibrillation and administration of drugs. PPE teams perceived higher task loads (57 (44−67) vs. 63 (53−71); difference 6, 95% CI for difference 5−8, p < 0.0001) and scored higher in the domains physical and temporal demand, performance, and effort. Leadership allocation had no effect on primary and secondary endpoints. Conclusions: Having to wear PPE during CPR is an additional burden in an already demanding task. PPE is associated with an increase in perceived task load, lower hands-on times, fewer change-overs, and delays in defibrillation and the administration of drugs. (German study register number DRKS00023184).

Cardiac arrest and coronavirus disease 2019

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the cardiovascular system has been highlighted since the very first weeks after the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 identification. We reviewed the influence of COVID-19 pandemic on cardiac arrest, both considering those occurred out of the hospital (OHCA) and in the hospital (IHCA).

RECENT FINDINGS

An increase in OHCA incidence occurred in different countries, especially in those regions most burdened by the COVID-19, as this seems to be bounded to the pandemic trend. A change of OHCA patients' characteristics, with an increase of the OHCA occurred at home, a decrease in bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillator use before Emergency Medical Service (EMS) arrival and an increase in non-shockable rhythms, have been highlighted. A dramatic drop in the OHCA patients' survival was pointed out in almost all the countries, regardless of the high or low-incidence of COVID-19 cases. Concerning IHCA, a reduction in survival was highlighted in patients with COVID-19 who sustained a cardiac arrest.

SUMMARY

Cardiac arrest occurrence and survival were deeply affected by the pandemic. Informative campaigns to the population to call EMS in case of need and the re-allocation of the prehospital resources basing on the pandemic trend are needed to improve survival.

Risk of Dehydration Due to Sweating While Wearing Personal 2 Protective Equipment in COVID-19 Clinical Care: A Pilot Study

Objective: The objectives of this study were (a) to determine the physical impact of the personal protective equipment (PPE) used in COVID-19 care, specifically the impact on the hydration state of the temperature and the comfort of the healthcare workers who use it, and (b) to show the high-fidelity simulated environment as an appropriate place to test the experimental designs to be developed in real environments for COVID-19. Background: All healthcare staff use full PPE in the care of COVID-19 patients. There are problems, such as excessive sweating, which have not been quantified thus far. Methods: A descriptive pilot design was used in a simulated high-fidelity setting. There was paired activity, with mild–moderate physical activity, between 45 and 60 min continuously, with the COVID-19 PPE. Sixteen intensive care nurses were selected. The before–after differential of weight, thirst, weight use of the PPE, body temperature, thermal body image, general and facial warmth sensation, and perspiration sensation were measured. Results: All subjects lost weight in the form of sweat with both PPEs during the simulation scenario, with a mean of 200 g (0.28% of initial weight), and increased thirst sensation. Body thermal image increased by 0.54 °C in people using the full COVID-19 PPE. Conclusions: The use of PPE in the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients generates weight loss related to excessive sweating. The weight loss shown in this pilot test is far from the clinical limits of dehydration. The use of ventilated PPE, such as PAPR, reduce the body temperature and heat sensation experienced by the users of it; at the same time, it improves the comfort of those who wear it. The simulated environment is a suitable place to develop the piloting of applicable research methodologies in future studies in a real environment.

Influence of Personal Protective Equipment on the Quality of Chest Compressions: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the influence of personal protective equipment (PPE) on quality of chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) showed inconsistent results. Accordingly, a meta-analysis was performed to provide an overview.

Methods: Relevant studies were obtained by search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane's Library databases. A random-effect model incorporating the potential heterogeneity was used to pool the results.

Results: Six simulation-based RCTs were included. Overall, pooled results showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the rate [mean difference (MD): −1.70 time/min, 95% confidence interval (CI): −5.77 to 2.36, P = 0.41, I² = 80%] or the depth [MD: −1.84 mm, 95% CI: −3.93 to 0.24, P = 0.11, I² = 73%] of chest compressions performed by medical personnel with and without PPE. Subgroup analyses showed that use of PPE was associated with reduced rate of chest compressions in studies before COVID-19 (MD: −7.02 time/min, 95% CI: −10.46 to −3.57, P < 0.001), but not in studies after COVID-19 (MD: 0.14 time/min, 95% CI: −5.77 to 2.36, P = 0.95). In addition, PPE was not associated with significantly reduced depth of chest compressions in studies before (MD: −3.34 mm, 95% CI: −10.29 to −3.62, P = 0.35) or after (MD: −0.97 mm, 95% CI: −2.62 to 0.68, P = 0.25) COVID-19. No significant difference was found between parallel-group and crossover RCTs (P for subgroup difference both > 0.05).

Conclusions: Evidence from simulation-based RCTs showed that use of PPE was not associated with reduced rate or depth of chest compressions in CPR.

Chest compression quality during CPR of potential contagious patients wearing personal protection equipment

AIM OF THE STUDY

In this study we aimed to investigate whether changing rescuers wearing N95 masks every 1 min instead of the standard CPR change over time of 2 min would make a difference in effective chest compressions.

METHODS

This study was a randomized controlled mannequin study. Participants were selected from healthcare staff. They were divided into two groups of two people in each group. The scenario was implemented on CPR mannequin representing patient with asystolic arrest, that measured compression depth, compression rate, recoil, and correct hand position. Two different scenarios were prepared. In Scenario 1, the rescuers were asked to change chest compression after 1 min. In Scenario 2, standard CPR was applied. The participants' vital parameters, mean compression rate, correct compression rate/ratio, total number of compressions, compression depth, correct recoil/ratio, correct hand position/ratio, mean no-flow time, and total CPR time were recorded.

RESULTS

The study hence included 14 teams each for scenarios, with a total of 56 participants. In each scenario, 14 participants were physicians and 14 participants were women. Although there was no difference in the first minute of the cycles starting from the fourth cycle, a statistically significant difference was observed in the second minute in all cycles except the fifth cycle.

CONCLUSION

Changing the rescuer every 1 min instead of every 2 min while performing CPR with full PPE may prevent the decrease in compression quality that may occur as the resuscitation time gets longer.

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.

COVID-19 Pandemic in Mountainous Areas: Impact, Mitigation Strategies, and New Technologies in Search and Rescue Operations

van Veelen, Michiel J., Anna Voegele, Simon Rauch, Marc Kaufmann, Hermann Brugger, and Giacomo Strapazzon. COVID-19 pandemic in mountainous areas: impact, mitigation strategies, and new technologies in search and rescue operations. High Alt Med Biol. 22:335-341, 2021.-Mitigating the spread of COVID-19, an airborne infection, can lead to delays in the prehospital response and impair the performance of search and rescue (SAR) services in mountainous and remote areas. We provide an overview of the developing epidemiological situation related to the COVID-19 pandemic in mountainous areas and review current protocols to determine their suitability for mountain rescue teams. We also discuss using novel technologies to reduce the adverse effects caused by COVID-19 mitigation strategies such as delays caused by donning personal protective equipment (PPE) and reduced rescuer performance due to impaired movement and ventilation. COVID-19 has spread even in mountainous and remote locations. Dedicated protocols for the use of PPE appropriate for SAR rescuers exerting physical effort in remote areas and using technologies such as drones, telemedicine, and localization and contact tracing applications could contribute to an effective and timely emergency response in mountainous and remote settings.