Efficiency rating of SG Diagnostics COVID-19 antigen rapid test kit.

Aim: Rapid detection is crucial in complementing vaccination to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Materials & methods: Nasopharyngeal swabs (n = 213) and oropharyngeal swabs (n = 98) were tested. with the antigen rapid test kit. Results: Overall sensitivity (97.96%), specificity (100.00%) and coincidence rate (98.71%) were high, which translated into a positive predictive value of 100.00% and a negative predictive value of 96.64%. Conclusion: Antigen rapid tests have a great potential for screening in different settings to deliver results with high sensitivity and specificity.

This study evaluated SG Diagnostics COVID-19 antigen rapid test kit. The overall sensitivity, specificity and coincidence rate were found very high with SG Diagnostics COVID-19 antigen rapid test kit performing better.

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.

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

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

Vitamin D supplementation to treat SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. Evidence from meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D is a likely candidate for treatment as its immune modulating characteristics have effects on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. It was sought herein, to summarize the studies published to date regarding the vitamin D supplementation to treat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive patients. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The primary outcome were 14-day and in-hospital mortality reported as an odds ratio (OR) with the associated 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Eight articles were included in the review with a combined total of 2,322 individual patients, 786 in the vitamin D supplementation group and 1,536 in the control group. The use of vitamin D compared to the group without vitamin D supplementation was associated with a lower 14-day mortality (18.8% vs. 31.3%, respectively; OR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.12-2.19; p = 0.36), a lower in-hospital mortality (5.6% vs. 16.1%; OR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.23-1.37; I2 = 74%; p = 0.20), the rarer intensive care unit admission (6.4% vs. 23.4%; OR = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.06-0.54; I2 = 77%; p = 0.002) as well as rarer mechanical ventilation (6.5% vs. 18.9%; OR = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.16-0.80; I2 = 0.48; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin D supplementation in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients has the potential to positively impact patients with both mild and severe symptoms. As several high-quality randomized control studies have demonstrated a benefit in hospital mortality, vitamin D should be considered a supplemental therapy of strong interest. Should vitamin D prove to reduce hospitalization rates and symptoms outside of the hospital setting, the cost and benefit to global pandemic mitigation efforts would be substantial.

Intraosseous versus intravenous access while wearing personal protective equipment: a meta-analysis in the era of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining vascular access is one of the key procedures performed in patients in emergency settings. AIMS: The study was conducted as a meta­analysis and a systematic review and aimed to address the following question: which intravascular access method should be used in patients with COVID­19 when wearing full personal protective equipment (PPE)? METHODS: We performed a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases for randomized controlled trials that compared intravascular access methods used by operators wearing full level C PPE. We evaluated procedure duration and the success rate of intraosseous and peripheral intravenous accesses. RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials were included in quantitative synthesis. The use of PPE during intravascular access procedures had an impact on procedure duration in the case of intraosseous access (mean difference [MD], 11.69; 95% CI, 6.47-16.92; P <0.001), as well as reduced the success rate of intraosseous access by 0.8% and intravenous access by 10.1%. Under PPE conditions, intraosseous access, compared with peripheral intravenous access, offered a shorter procedure time (MD, -41.43; 95% CI, -62.36 to -24.47; P <0.001). CONCLUSION: This comprehensive meta­analysis suggested that the use of PPE significantly extends the duration of intravascular procedures. However, under PPE conditions, operators were able to obtain intraosseous access in a shorter time and with a higher success rate than in the case of intravenous access.