COVID-19 cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Guidelines and modifications

Impact of the COVID-19 Public Health Crisis and a Structured COVID Unit on Physician Behaviors in Code Status Ordering

Purpose: Code status orders are standard practice impacting end-of-life care for individuals. This study reviews the impact of a COVID unit on physician behaviors towards goal-concordant end-of-life care at an urban academic tertiary-care hospital. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of code status ordering on adult inpatients comparing the pre-pandemic period to patients who tested positive, negative and were not tested during the pandemic from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020. Results: We analyzed 59,471 unique patient encounters (n = 35,317 pre-pandemic and n = 24,154 during). 1,631 cases of COVID-19 were seen. The rate of code status orders among all inpatients increased from 22% pre-pandemic to 29% during the pandemic (P < .001). Code status orders increased for both patients who were COVID-negative (32% P < .001) and COVID-positive (65% P < .001). Being in a cohorted COVID unit increased code status ordering by an odds of 4.79 (P < .001). Compared to the pre-pandemic cohort, the COVID-positive cohort is less female (50% to 56% P < .001), more Black (66% to 61% P < .001), more Hispanic (6.5% to 5%) and less white (26% to 30% P < .001). Compared to Black patients, white patients had lower odds (.86) of code status ordering (P < .001). Other race/ethnicity categories were not significant. Conclusions: Code status ordering remains low. Compared to pre-pandemic rates, the frequency of orders placed significantly increased for all patients during the pandemic. The largest increase occurred in patients with COVID-19. This increase likely occurred due to protocols in the COVID unit and disease uncertainty.

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 the COVID-19 pandemic on Canadian emergency medical system management of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A retrospective cohort study

AIM

We sought to describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the care provided by Canadian emergency medical system (EMS) clinicians to patients suffering out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), and whether any observed changes persisted beyond the initial phase of the pandemic.

METHODS

We analysed cases of adult, non-traumatic, OHCA from the Canadian Resuscitation Outcome Consortium (CanROC) registry who were treated between January 27th, 2018, and December 31st, 2021. We used adjusted regression models and interrupted time series analysis to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (January 27th, 2020 - December 31st, 2021)on the care provided to patients with OHCA by EMS clinicians.

RESULTS

There were 12,947 cases of OHCA recorded in the CanROC registry in the pre-COVID-19 period and 17,488 during the COVID-19 period. We observed a reduction in the cumulative number of defibrillations provided by EMS (aRR 0.91, 95% CI 0.89 - 0.93, p < 0.01), a reduction in the odds of attempts at intubation (aOR 0.33, 95% CI 0.31 - 0.34, p < 0.01), higher rates of supraglottic airway use (aOR 1.23, 95% CI 1.16-1.30, p < 0.01), a reduction in vascular access (aOR for intravenous access 0.84, 95% CI 0.79 - 0.89, p < 0.01; aOR for intraosseous access 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 - 0.96, p < 0.01), a reduction in the odds of epinephrine administration (aOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.85 - 0.94, p < 0.01), and higher odds of resuscitation termination on scene (aOR 1.38, 95% CI 1.31 - 1.46, p < 0.01). Delays to initiation of chest compressions (2 min. vs. 3 min., p < 0.01), intubation (16 min. vs. 19 min., p = 0.01), and epinephrine administration (11 min. vs. 13 min., p < 0.01) were observed, whilst supraglottic airways were inserted earlier (11 min. vs. 10 min., p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with substantial changes in EMS management of OHCA. EMS leaders should consider these findings to optimise current OHCA management and prepare for future pandemics.

Effectiveness and perception of demonstration-observation- assistance-performance (DOAP) versus video-assisted learning (VAL) in training advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) among medical interns - A comparative study

BACKGROUND

Demonstration-Observation-Assistance-Performance (DOAP) and Video-Assisted Learning (VAL) are small-group teaching/learning methods (TLM) in medical education. Comparison studies between the two are scanty. There is a gap in knowledge, skills, and attitude among medical interns toward Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS). The author studied the effectiveness of DOAP and VAL in training ACLS using mannequins and automated external defibrillator (AED)-simulators among interns in 2021.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This descriptive study was done in the Emergency Department of a tertiary teaching hospital in South India. Out of 80 medical interns, 39 and 41 were allocated to ACLS training by DOAP (Group 1) and VAL (Group 2), respectively, by convenient sampling with random allocation, with the use of mannequins and AED-Simulators (10 interventions in each small group; three-five participants in each session). Pre-validated pre-test and posttest multiple-choice questionnaires (MCQs) and attitude questionnaires, OSCE by two blinded assessors, and perception by Likert-based questionnaire were analyzed with appropriate statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The mean pretest and posttest MCQs and Attitude and OSCE scores of DOAP and VAL showed no statistically significant difference between them (MCQ pre-test 44.51 (11.43); 42.54 (6.56); p = 0.350 and MCQ posttest, 78.97 (8.59); 77.22 (11.29); p = 0.438; OSCE 40.51 (2.43) and 40.63 (1.92); p = 0.804; Attitude: 11 (3), 11 (2); p = 0.567; 14 (2), 14 (3); p = 0.095). MCQ post-tests showed improved scores (p < 0.001) in both the methods and the standardized mean difference based on the MCQ scores for the DOAP group was 3.02, and for the VAL group 3, showed the effectiveness of both methods. Perception scores showed learners' interest and positive feedback to both methods and ACLS.

CONCLUSION

Both DOAP and VAL were equally effective TLMs in imparting knowledge, skills, and attitude to medical interns with positive feedback. In DOAP, the learner performs under supervision and clarifies doubts. As repeatable and cost-effective, VAL is useful in resource-limited settings. Both can be used as complementary methods in training ACLS. The attitude of learners towards ACLS improved with training.

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).

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.