Leg-heel chest compression as an alternative for medical professionals in times of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate leg-heel chest compression without previous training as an alternative for medical professionals and its effects on distance to potential aerosol spread during chest compression. METHODS: 20 medical professionals performed standard manual chest compression followed by leg-heel chest compression after a brief instruction on a manikin. We compared percentage of correct chest compression position, percentage of full chest recoil, percentage of correct compression depth, average compression depth, percentage of correct compression rate and average compression rate between both methods. In a second approach, potential aerosol spread during chest compression was visualized. RESULTS: Our data indicate no credible difference between manual and leg-heel compression. The distance to potential aerosol spread could have been increased by leg-heel method. CONCLUSION: Under special circumstances like COVID-19-pandemic, leg-heel chest compression may be an effective alternative without previous training compared to manual chest compression while markedly increasing the distance to the patient.

Predictors of COVID-19 in an outpatient fever clinic.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to identify clinical risk factors for COVID-19 in a German outpatient fever clinic that allow distinction of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients from other patients with flu-like symptoms. METHODS: This is a retrospective, single-centre cohort study. Patients were included visiting the fever clinic from 4th of April 2020 to 15th of May 2020. Symptoms, comorbidities, and socio-demographic factors were recorded in a standardized fashion. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify risk factors of COVID-19, on the bases of those a model discrimination was assessed using area under the receiver operation curves (AUROC). RESULTS: The final analysis included 930 patients, of which 74 (8%) had COVID-19. Anosmia (OR 10.71; CI 6.07-18.9) and ageusia (OR 9.3; CI 5.36-16.12) were strongly associated with COVID-19. High-risk exposure (OR 12.20; CI 6.80-21.90), especially in the same household (OR 4.14; CI 1.28-13.33), was also correlated; the more household members, especially with flu-like symptoms, the higher the risk of COVID-19. Working in an essential workplace was also associated with COVID-19 (OR 2.35; CI 1.40-3.96), whereas smoking was inversely correlated (OR 0.19; CI 0.08-0.44). A model that considered risk factors like anosmia, ageusia, concomitant of symptomatic household members and smoking well discriminated COVID-19 patients from other patients with flu-like symptoms (AUROC 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: We report a set of four readily available clinical parameters that allow the identification of high-risk individuals of COVID-19. Our study will not replace molecular testing but will help guide containment efforts while waiting for test results.