An optimal chest compression technique using personal protective equipment during resuscitation in the COVID-19 pandemic: a randomized crossover simulation study

Emergency medical service interventions and experiences during pandemics: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The global impact of COVID-19 has been profound, with efforts to manage and contain the virus placing increased pressure on healthcare systems and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in particular. There has been no previous review of studies investigating EMS interventions or experiences during pandemics. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and present published quantitative and qualitative evidence of EMS pandemic interventions, and how this translates into practice.

METHODS

Six electronic databases were searched from inception to July 2022, supplemented with internet searches and forward and backward citation tracking from included studies and review articles. A narrative synthesis of all eligible quantitative studies was performed and structured around the aims, key findings, as well as intervention type and content, where appropriate. Data from the qualitative studies were also synthesised narratively and presented thematically, according to their main aims and key findings.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified a total of 22,599 citations and after removing duplicates and excluding citations based on title and abstract, and full text screening, 90 studies were included. The quantitative narrative synthesis included seven overarching themes, describing EMS pandemic preparedness plans and interventions implemented in response to pandemics. The qualitative data synthesis included five themes, detailing the EMS workers' experiences of providing care during pandemics, their needs and their suggestions for best practices moving forward.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite concerns for their own and their families' safety and the many challenges they are faced with, especially their knowledge, training, lack of appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and constant protocol changes, EMS personnel were willing and prepared to report for duty during pandemics. Participants also made recommendations for future outbreak response, which should be taken into consideration in order for EMS to cope with the current pandemic and to better prepare to respond to any future ones.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The review protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework (osf.io/2pcy7).

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 Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic on Cardiac Arrest and Emergency Care

The incidence of both out-of-hospital and in-hospital cardiac arrest increased during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Patient survival and neurologic outcome after both out-of-hospital and in-hospital cardiac arrest were reduced. Direct effects of the COVID-19 illness combined with indirect effects of the pandemic on patient's behavior and health care systems contributed to these changes. Understanding the potential factors offers the opportunity to improve future response and save lives.

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.

Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic on Cardiac Arrest and Emergency Care

The incidence of both out-of-hospital and in-hospital cardiac arrest increased during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Patient survival and neurologic outcome after both out-of-hospital and in-hospital cardiac arrest were reduced. Direct effects of the COVID-19 illness combined with indirect effects of the pandemic on patient's behavior and health care systems contributed to these changes. Understanding the potential factors offers the opportunity to improve future response and save lives.

Cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation in "hostile" environments: Using automated compression devices to minimize the rescuers' danger

Mechanical automated compression devices are being used in cardiopulmonary resuscitation instead of manual, "hands-on", rescuer-delivered chest compressions. The -theoretical- advantages include high-quality non-stop compressions, thus freeing the rescuer performing the compressions and additionally the ability of the rescuer to stand reasonably away from a potentially "hazardous" victim, or from hazardous and/or difficult resuscitation conditions. Such circumstances involve cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory, especially directly under the fluoroscopy panel, where radiation is well known to cause detrimental effects to the rescuer, and CPR during/after land or air transportation of cardiac arrest victims. Lastly, CPR in a coronavirus disease 2019 patient/ward, where the danger of contamination and further serious illness of the health provider is very existent. The scope of this review is to review and present literature and current guidelines regarding the use of mechanical compressions in these "hostile" and dangerous settings, while comparing them to manual compressions.

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: An interdisciplinary scoping review of clinical literature from 2020

Objectives

The Interdisciplinary Cardiac Arrest Research Review (ICARE) group was formed in 2018 to conduct an annual search of peer-reviewed literature relevant to cardiac arrest. Now in its third year, the goals of the review are to highlight annual updates in the interdisciplinary world of clinical cardiac arrest research with a focus on clinically relevant and impactful clinical and population-level studies from 2020.

Methods

A search of PubMed using keywords related to clinical research in cardiac arrest was conducted. Titles and abstracts were screened for relevance and sorted into 7 categories: Epidemiology & Public Health Initiatives; Prehospital Resuscitation, Technology & Care; In-Hospital Resuscitation & Post-Arrest Care; Prognostication & Outcomes; Pediatrics; Interdisciplinary Guidelines & Reviews; and a new section dedicated to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Screened manuscripts underwent standardized scoring of methodological quality and impact on the respective fields by reviewer teams lead by a subject matter expert editor. Articles scoring higher than 99 percentiles by category were selected for full critique. Systematic differences between editors' and reviewers' scores were assessed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results

A total of 3594 articles were identified on initial search; of these, 1026 were scored after screening for relevance and deduplication, and 51 underwent full critique. The leading category was Prehospital Resuscitation, Technology & Care representing 35% (18/51) of fully reviewed articles. Four COVID-19 related articles were included for formal review that was attributed to a relative lack of high-quality data concerning cardiac arrest and COVID-19 specifically by the end of the 2020 calendar year. No significant differences between editor and reviewer scoring were found among review articles (P = 0.697). Among original research articles, section editors scored a median 1 point (interquartile range, 0-3; P < 0.01) less than reviewers.

Conclusions

Several clinically relevant studies have added to the evidence base for the management of cardiac arrest patients including methods for prognostication of neurologic outcome following arrest, airway management strategy, timing of coronary intervention, and methods to improve expeditious performance of key components of resuscitation such as chest compressions in adults and children.

Impact of COVID-19 on in-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes: An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The main purposes of this meta-analysis are to update the information about the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) and to investigate the impact of being infected by by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on IHCA outcomes.

METHODS

The current meta-analysis is an update and follows the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).

RESULTS

In analyses, pre- and intra-COVID-19 periods were observed for: shockable rhythms in 17.6% vs. 16.2% (odds ratio [OR]: 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-1.72; p = 0.65), return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in 47.4% vs. 44.0% (OR: 1.36; 95% CI: 0.90-2.07; p = 0.15), 30-day mortality in 59.8% vs. 60.9% (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.75-1.22; p = 0.69) and overall mortality 75.8% vs. 74.7% (OR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.49-1.28; p = 0.35), respectively. In analyses, SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patients were observed for: shockable rhythms in 9.6% vs. 19.8% (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.35-0.73; p < 0.001), ROSC in 33.9% vs. 52.1% (OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.30-0.73; p < 0.001), 30-day mortality in 77.2% vs. 59.7% (OR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.28-3.38; p = 0.003) and overall mortality in 94.9% vs. 76.7% (OR: 3.20; 95% CI: 0.98-10.49; p = 0.05), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite ROSC, 30-day and overall mortality rate were not statistically different in pre- vs. intra-COVID-19 periods, a lower incidence of ROSC and higher 20-day mortality rate were observed in SARS-CoV-2 (+) compared to SARS-CoV-2 (-) patients.

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.

Impact of COVID-19 adapted guidelines on resuscitation quality in out-of-hospital-cardiac-arrest: a manikin study

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the effects of European Resuscitation Council (ERC) COVID-19-guidelines on resuscitation quality emphasizing advanced airway management in out-of-hospital-cardiacarrest.

METHODS

In a manikin study paramedics and emergency physicians performed Advanced-Cardiac-Life-Support in three settings: ERC guidelines 2015 (Control), COVID-19-guidelines as suggested with minimum staff (COVID-19-minimal-personnel); COVID-19-guidelines with paramedics and an emergency physician (COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager). Main outcome measures were no-flow-time, quality metrics as defined by ERC and time intervals to first chest compression, oxygen supply, intubation and first rhythm analysis. Data were presented as mean±standard deviation.

RESULTS

Thirty resuscitation scenarios were completed. No-flow-time was markedly prolonged in COVID-19-minimal-personnel [113±37sec] compared to Control [55±9sec] and COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager [76±38sec](p<0.001 each). In both COVID-19-groups chest compressions started later [COVID-19-minimal-personnel:32±6sec; COVID-19-advancedairway-manager:37±7sec; each p<0.001 vs. Control (21±5sec)], but oxygen supply [COVID-19-minimal-personnel:29±5sec; COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager:34±7sec; each p<0.001 vs. Control (77±19sec)] and first intubation attempt [COVID-19-minimalpersonnel: 111±14sec; COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager:131±20sec; each p<0.001 vs. Control (178±44sec)] were performed earlier. However, time interval to successful intubation was similar [Control:198±48sec; COVID-19-minimal-personnel:181±42sec; COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager:130±25sec] due to a longer intubation time in COVID-19-minimalpersonnel [61±35sec] compared to COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager (p=0.002) and control [19±6sec;p<0.001]. Time to first rhythm analysis was more than doubled in COVID-19-minimal-personnel [138±96sec] compared to control [50±12sec;p<0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

Delayed chest compressions and prolonged no-flow-time markedly reduced the quality of resuscitation. These negative effects were attenuated by increasing the number of staff and by adding an experienced airway manager. The use of endotracheal intubation for reducing aerosol release during resuscitation should be discussed critically as its priorization is associated with an increase in no-flow-time.

Evaluation of a revised resuscitation protocol for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients due to COVID-19 safety protocols: a single-center retrospective study in Japan

This study aimed to determine the association between cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) under the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) safety protocols in our hospital and the prognosis of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, in an urban area, where the prevalence of COVID-19 infection is relatively low. This was a single-center, retrospective, observational, cohort study conducted at a tertiary critical care center in Kyoto City, Japan. Adult OHCA patients arriving at our hospital under CPR between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020 were included. Our hospital implemented a revised resuscitation protocol for OHCA patients on April 1, 2020 to prevent COVID-19 transmission. This study defined the conventional CPR period as January 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020, and the COVID-19 safety protocol period as April 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020. Throughout the prehospital and in-hospital settings, resuscitation protocols about wearing personal protective equipment and airway management were revised in order to minimize the risk of infection; otherwise, the other resuscitation management had not been changed. The primary outcome was hospitalization survival. The secondary outcomes were return of spontaneous circulation after hospital arrival and 1-month survival after OHCA occurrence. The adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for outcomes to compare the two study periods, and the multivariable logistic model was used to adjust for potential confounders. The study analyzed 443 patients, with a median age of 76 years (65-85), and included 261 men (58.9%). The percentage of hospitalization survivors during the entire research period was 16.9% (75/443 patients), with 18.7% (50/267) during the conventional CPR period and 14.2% (25/176) during the COVID-19 safety protocol period. The adjusted odds ratio for hospitalization survival during the COVID-19 safety protocol period was 0.61 (95% CI 0.32-1.18), as compared with conventional CPR. There were no cases of COVID-19 infection among the staff involved in the resuscitation in our hospital. There was no apparent difference in hospitalization survival between the OHCA patients resuscitated under the conventional CPR protocol compared with the current revised protocol for controlling COVID-19 transmission.