Should chest compressions be considered an aerosol-generating procedure? A literature review in response to recent guidelines on personal protective equipment for patients with suspected COVID-19

'Family members screaming for help makes it very difficult to don PPE'. A qualitative study on UK ambulance staff experiences of infection prevention and control practices during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK, ambulance staff continued to deliver direct patient care whilst simultaneously adapting to a considerable escalation in evolving infection prevention and control (IPC) practices.

Aim

To enable learning to benefit future planning, this qualitative article aims to describe ambulance staff's experiences of this rapid escalation of IPC practices.

Method

Three online surveys were presented during the acceleration, peak, and deceleration phases of the pandemic's first wave in the UK (2020). Overall, 18 questions contributed 14,237 free text responses that were examined using inductive thematic analysis at both descriptive and interpretive levels.

Findings

Many participants lacked confidence in policies related to the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) because of perceived inadequate supporting evidence, confusing communication, and low familiarity with items. Compliance with policy and confidence in PPE use were further influenced by discomfort, urgency, and perceptions of risk. Various suggestions were made to improve IPC practices within the work environment, including reducing unnecessary exposure through public education and remote triage improvements.

Discussion

Some participants' poor experiences of escalating IPC practices were shared with health care workers studied in other environments and in previous epidemics, emphasising the need for lessons to be learnt. PPE should be developed with consideration of ambulance staff's unique working environment and regular familiarisation training could be beneficial. Pragmatic, evidence-based, clearly communicated policies implemented with sufficient resources may protect staff and facilitate them to maintain standards of care delivery during a pandemic.

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.

ETView SL versus Macintosh Direct Laryngoscope for Endotracheal Intubation Amid Simulated COVID-19 Cardiac Arrest: A Randomized Crossover Study

Airway management procedures, such as endotracheal intubation (ETI), pose a significant risk of aerosol generation, requiring robust personal protective equipment (PPE) against aerosol-generating procedures (AGP). This study aimed to assess the impact of PPE-AGP on intubation success rates, time to intubation, and glottic visualization using ETView and a standard Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC). A total of 52 physicians participated in this prospective, observational, randomized crossover study conducted in a medical simulation setting. Participants included COVID-19 patients with cardiac arrest scenarios with and without PPE-AGP who were intubated with ETView and MAC. During intubation without PPE-AGP, ETView showed a similar first-pass success rate (FPS) but had a shorter intubation time and better glottal hydration compared to MAC. In scenario B (with PPE-AGP), ETView outperformed MAC in FPS, initiation time, and glottic visualization. The use of PPE-AGP had little impact on ETView's performance. However, it negatively affected the Macintosh laryngoscope, reducing FPS and glottic visibility. Participants found intubation with ETView easier in both scenarios. In conclusion, as compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope, ETView demonstrated higher performance under the circumstances of the simulation, especially when PPE-AGP was used.

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.

Impact of COVID-19-adapted guidelines using different airway management strategies on resuscitation quality in out-of-hospital-cardiac-arrest - a randomised manikin study

BACKGROUND

Although airway management for paramedics has moved away from endotracheal intubation towards extraglottic airway devices in recent years, in the context of COVID-19, endotracheal intubation has seen a revival. Endotracheal intubation has been recommended again under the assumption that it provides better protection against aerosol liberation and infection risk for care providers than extraglottic airway devices accepting an increase in no-flow time and possibly worsen patient outcomes.

METHODS

In this manikin study paramedics performed advanced cardiac life support with non-shockable (Non-VF) and shockable rhythms (VF) in four settings: ERC guidelines 2021 (control), COVID-19-guidelines using videolaryngoscopic intubation (COVID-19-intubation), laryngeal mask (COVID-19-Laryngeal-Mask) or a modified laryngeal mask modified with a shower cap (COVID-19-showercap) to reduce aerosol liberation simulated by a fog machine. Primary endpoint was no-flow-time, secondary endpoints included data on airway management as well as the participants' subjective assessment of aerosol release using a Likert-scale (0 = no release-10 = maximum release) were collected and statistically compared. Continuous Data was presented as mean ± standard deviation. Interval-scaled Data were presented as median and Q1 and Q3.

RESULTS

A total of 120 resuscitation scenarios were completed. Compared to control (Non-VF:11 ± 3 s, VF:12 ± 3 s) application of COVID-19-adapted guidelines lead to prolonged no-flow times in all groups (COVID-19-Intubation: Non-VF:17 ± 11 s, VF:19 ± 5 s;p ≤ 0.001; COVID-19-laryngeal-mask: VF:15 ± 5 s,p ≤ 0.01; COVID-19-showercap: VF:15 ± 3 s,p ≤ 0.01). Compared to COVID-19-Intubation, the use of the laryngeal mask and its modification with a showercap both led to a reduction of no-flow-time(COVID-19-laryngeal-mask: Non-VF:p = 0.002;VF:p ≤ 0.001; COVID-19-Showercap: Non-VF:p ≤ 0.001;VF:p = 0.002) due to a reduced duration of intubation (COVID-19-Intubation: Non-VF:40 ± 19 s;VF:33 ± 17 s; both p ≤ 0.01 vs. control, COVID-19-Laryngeal-Mask (Non-VF:15 ± 7 s;VF:13 ± 5 s;p > 0.05) and COVID-19-Shower-cap (Non-VF:15 ± 5 s;VF:17 ± 5 s;p > 0.05). The participants rated aerosol liberation lowest in COVID-19-intubation (median:0;Q1:0,Q3:2;p < 0.001vs.COVID-19-laryngeal-mask and COVID-19-showercap) compared to COVID-19-shower-cap (median:3;Q1:1,Q3:3 p < 0.001vs.COVID-19-laryngeal-mask) or COVID-19-laryngeal-mask (median:9;Q1:6,Q3:8).

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19-adapted guidelines using videolaryngoscopic intubation lead to a prolongation of no-flow time. The use of a modified laryngeal mask with a shower cap seems to be a suitable compromise combining minimal impact on no-flowtime and reduced aerosol exposure for the involved providers.

Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review

Objective: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a prominent cause of death worldwide. As indicated by the high proportion of COVID-19 suspicion or diagnosis among patients who had OHCA, this issue could have resulted in multiple fatalities from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) occurring at home and being counted as OHCA. Methods: We used the MeSH term "heart arrest" as well as non-MeSH terms "out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, sudden cardiac death, OHCA, cardiac arrest, coronavirus pandemic, COVID-19, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)." We conducted a literature search using these search keywords in the Science Direct and PubMed databases and Google Scholar until 25 April 2022. Results: A systematic review of observational studies revealed OHCA and mortality rates increased considerably during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the same period of the previous year. A temporary two-fold rise in OHCA incidence was detected along with a drop in survival. During the pandemic, the community's response to OHCA changed, with fewer bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitations (CPRs), longer emergency medical service (EMS) response times, and worse OHCA survival rates. Conclusions: This study's limitations include a lack of a centralised data-gathering method and OHCA registry system. If the chain of survival is maintained and effective emergency ambulance services with a qualified emergency medical team are given, the outcome for OHCA survivors can be improved even more.

Recommendations for the safety of hospitalised patients in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To map the recommendations for hospitalised patient safety in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Scoping review using the method recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute.

DATA SOURCES

Databases: Medline, SCOPUS, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, LILACS, CINAHL and IBECS; grey literature platform: Google Scholar; and 11 official websites of leading healthcare institutions were searched on 27 April 2021 and updated on 11 April 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included documents that present recommendations for the safety of hospitalised patients in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, published in any language, from 2020 onwards.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction was performed in pairs with consensus rounds. A descriptive analysis was carried out to present the main characteristics of the articles. Qualitative data from the extraction of recommendations were analysed through content analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-five documents were included. Most papers were identified as expert consensus (n=56, 44.8%). Forty-six recommendations were identified for the safety of hospitalised patients: 17 relating to the reorganisation of health services related to the flow of patients, the management of human and material resources and the reorganisation of the hospital environment; 11 on the approach to the airways and the prevention of the spread of aerosols; 11 related to sanitary and hygiene issues; 4 about proper use of personal protective equipment and 3 for effective communication.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommendations mapped in this scoping review present the best practices produced so far and serve as a basis for planning and implementing good practices to ensure safe hospital care, during and after COVID-19. The engagement of everyone involved in the care of hospitalised patients is essential to consolidate the mapped recommendations and provide dignified, safe and quality care.

“See us as humans. Speak to us with respect. Listen to us.” A qualitative study on UK ambulance staff requirements of leadership while working during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

The COVID-19 Ambulance Response Assessment (CARA) study aimed to enable the experiences of UK frontline ambulance staff working during the first wave of the pandemic to be heard. Specifically, CARA aimed to assess feelings of preparedness and well-being and to collect suggestions for beneficial leadership support.

Methods

Three online surveys were sequentially presented between April and October 2020. Overall, 18 questions elicited free-text responses that were analysed qualitatively using an inductive thematic approach.

Findings

Analysis of 14 237 responses revealed participants’ goals and their requirements of leadership to enable those goals to be achieved. A large number of participants expressed low confidence and anxiety resulting from disagreement, inconsistency and an absence of transparency related to policy implementation. Some staff struggled with large quantities of written correspondence and many desired more face-to-face training and an opportunity to communicate with policymakers. Suggestions were made on how best to allocate resources to reduce operational demands and maintain service delivery, and a need to learn from current events in order to plan for the future was stressed. To further support well-being, staff wanted leadership to understand and empathise with their working conditions, to work to reduce the risks and if required, to facilitate access to appropriate therapeutic interventions.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that ambulance staff desire both inclusive and compassionate leadership. Leadership should aim to engage in honest dialogue and attentive listening. Resultant learning can then inform policy development and resource allocation to effectively support both service delivery and staff well-being.

Healthcare providers' experiences in hospital resuscitation of patients with COVID-19: a qualitative study

Background

The COVID-19 epidemic has globally challenged medical practices, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Numerous challenges affect healthcare providers (HCPs) who are members of the resuscitation team and the resuscitation process in COVID-19 patients. As a result, HCPs may experience different dilemmas about CPR. Failure to recognize these experiences can harm both HCPs and patients. This study aimed to explore the HCP’s experiences of CPR in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 26 participants in the emergency departments of Besat, Golestan, and Imam Reza hospitals (in the west of Iran) using the hermeneutic phenomenology approach. The data were analyzed using the 6-step Smith interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) method.

Results

The mean age of the participants was 38 years. Most of them (61.5%) were male and had a Bachelor’s degree in nursing (46.1%).The data analysis resulted in extracting four super-ordinate and nine sub-ordinate themes. “Human aspects of Care”, “Perceived Psychological Effects of Resuscitation in COVID-19”, “HCP’s perceptions of factors affecting the resuscitation process in COVID-19”, and “Perceived differences in COVID-19 resuscitation compared to non-COVID patients” were super-ordinate themes.

Conclusions

The participants experienced a wide range of difficult feelings and emotions while resuscitating the patients with COVID-19, suggesting the effect of the COVID-19 epidemic on HCPs and the resuscitation process. They experienced stress and fear, and the resuscitation process was influenced by their compassion, underlying patient conditions, resuscitation futility, and participants’ fatigue or lack of oxygen due to the use of personal protective equipment (PPE).

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.

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.

Changing resuscitation strategies during a pandemic: lessons from the consecutive surges in New York and global challenges

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide a framework for resuscitation of COVID-19 critical illness for emergency and intensive care clinicians with the most up to date evidence and recommendations in the care of COVID-19 patients in cardiac arrest or in extremis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on COVID-19 patients requires the clinicians to adopt infection mitigation strategies such as full personal protective equipment, mechanical chest compression devices, and restricting the number of people present during the resuscitation. The time of intubation is a subject of ongoing research and clinicians should use their best judgment for each patient. Clinicians should prepare for CPR in prone position. Particular attention should be given to the psychological well-being of the staff. Point of care ultrasound has proved to be an invaluable diagnostic tool in assessing ventricular dysfunction and parenchymal lung disease. Although novel therapies to supplant the function of diseased lungs have shown promise in select patients the evidence is still being collected. The end-of-life discussions have been negatively impacted by prognostic uncertainty as well as barriers to in person meetings with families.

SUMMARY

The resuscitation of critically ill COVID-19 patients poses new challenges, but the principles remain largely unchanged.

Transmission of Infections during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is an emergency lifesaving endeavor, performed in either the hospital or outpatient settings, that significantly improves outcomes and survival rates when performed in a timely fashion. As with any other medical procedure, CPR can bear potential risks not only for the patient but also for the rescuer. Among those risks, transmission of an infectious agent has been one of the most compelling triggers of reluctance to perform CPR among providers. The concern for transmission of an infection from the resuscitated subject may impede prompt initiation and implementation of CPR, compromising survival rates and neurological outcomes of the patients. Infections during CPR can be potentially acquired through airborne, droplet, contact, or hematogenous transmission. However, only a few cases of infection transmission have been actually reported globally. In this review, we present the available epidemiological findings on transmission of different pathogens during CPR and data on reluctance of health care workers to perform CPR. We also outline the levels of personal protective equipment and other protective measures according to potential infectious hazards that providers are potentially exposed to during CPR and summarize current guidelines on protection of CPR providers from international societies and stakeholders.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiac arrest systems of care

Purpose of review

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus, which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), led to the declaration of a global pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020. As of February 6, 2021, over 105 million persons have been infected in 223 countries and there have been 2,290,488 deaths. As a result, emergency medical services and hospital systems have undergone unprecedented healthcare delivery reconfigurations. Here, we review the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) epidemiology and systems of care.

Recent findings

Areas severely affected by the pandemic have reported increased incidence of OHCA, lower rates of successful resuscitation, and increased mortality. COVID-19 has significantly impacted patient outcomes through increased disease severity, decreased access to care, and the reshaping of emergency medical response and hospital-based healthcare systems and policies. The pandemic has negatively influenced attitudes toward resuscitation and challenged providers with novel ethical dilemmas provoked by the scarcity of healthcare resources.

Summary

The COVID-19 pandemic has had direct, indirect, psychosocial, and ethical impacts on the cardiac arrest chain of survival.

Personal protective equipment for reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection among health care workers involved in emergency trauma surgery during the pandemic: An umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Health care facilities in low- and middle-income countries are inadequately resourced to adhere to current COVID-19 prevention recommendations. Recommendations for surgical emergency trauma care measures need to be adequately informed by available evidence and adapt to particular settings. To inform future recommendations, we set to summarize the effects of different personal protective equipment (PPE) on the risk of COVID-19 infection in health personnel caring for trauma surgery patients.

METHODS

We conducted an umbrella review using Living Overview of Evidence platform for COVID-19, which performs regular automated searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and more than 30 other sources. Systematic reviews of experimental and observational studies assessing the efficacy of PPE were included. Indirect evidence from other health care settings was also considered. Risk of bias was assessed with the AMSTAR II tool (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews, Ottawa, ON, Canada), and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for grading the certainty of the evidence is reported (registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, CRD42020198267).

RESULTS

Eighteen studies that fulfilled the selection criteria were included. There is high certainty that the use of N95 respirators and surgical masks is associated with a reduced risk of COVID-19 when compared with no mask use. In moderate- to high-risk environments, N95 respirators are associated with a further reduction in risk of COVID-19 infection compared with surgical masks. Eye protection also reduces the risk of contagion in this setting. Decontamination of masks and respirators with ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, vaporous hydrogen peroxide, or dry heat is effective and does not affect PPE performance or fit.

CONCLUSION

The use of PPE drastically reduces the risk of COVID-19 compared with no mask use in health care workers. N95 and equivalent respirators provide more protection than surgical masks. Decontamination and reuse appear feasible to overcome PPE shortages and enhance the allocation of limited resources. These effects are applicable to emergency trauma care and should inform future recommendations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Review, level II.

Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 on Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Survival Rate: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a challenge for medical staff, especially in the COVID-19 period. The COVID-19 disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is highly infectious, thus requiring additional measures during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Since CPR is a highly aerosol-generating procedure, it carries a substantial risk of viral transmission. We hypothesized that patients with diagnosed or suspected COVID-19 might have worse outcomes following OHCA outcomes compared to non-COVID-19 patients. To raise awareness of this potential problem, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that reported OHCA in the pandemic period, comparing COVID-19 suspected or diagnosed patients vs. COVID-19 not suspected or diagnosed group. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge (SHD). Secondary outcomes were the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission or survival with favorable neurological outcomes. Data including 4210 patients included in five studies were analyzed. SHD in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients were 0.5% and 2.6%, respectively (odds ratio, OR = 0.25; 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.12, 0.53; p < 0.001). Bystander CPR rate was comparable in the COVID-19 vs. not COVID-19 group (OR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.22; p = 0.43). Shockable rhythms were observed in 5.7% in COVID-19 patients compared with 37.4% in the non-COVID-19 group (OR = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.96; p = 0.04; I2 = 95%). ROSC in the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients were 13.3% vs. 26.5%, respectively (OR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.81; p < 0.001). SHD with favorable neurological outcome was observed in 0% in COVID-19 vs. 3.1% in non-COVID-19 patients (OR = 1.35; 95% CI: 0.07, 26.19; p = 0.84). Our meta-analysis suggests that suspected or diagnosed COVID-19 reduces the SHD rate after OHCA, which seems to be due to the lower rate of shockable rhythms in COVID-19 patients, but not due to reluctance to bystander CPR. Future trials are needed to confirm these preliminary results and determine the optimal procedures to increase survival after OHCA in COVID-19 patients.