ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in the adult population. Herein, is a systematic review with meta-analysis to determine the impact of AF/atrial flutter (AFL) on mortality, as well as individual complications in patients hospitalized with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A systematic search of the SCOPUS, Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane databases was performed. The a priori primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. A random-effects model was used to pool study results. RESULTS: Nineteen studies which included 33,296 patients were involved in this meta-analysis. Inhospital mortality for AF/AFL vs. no-AF/AFL groups varied and amounted to 32.8% vs. 14.2%, respectively (risk ratio [RR]: 2.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.79-2.65; p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality in new onset AF/AFL compared to no-AFAFL was 22.0% vs. 18.8% (RR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.54-2.24; p < 0.001). Intensive care unit (ICU) admission was required for 17.7% of patients with AF/AFL compared to 10.8% for patients without AF/AFL (RR: 1.94; 95% CI: 1.04-3.62; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The present study reveals that AF/AFL is associated with increased in-hospital mortality and worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and may be used as a negative prognostic factor in these patients. Patients with AF/AFL are at higher risk of hospitalization in ICU. The presence of AF/AFL in individuals with COVID-19 is associated with higher risk of complications, such as bleeding, acute kidney injury and heart failure. AF/AFL may be associated with unfavorable outcomes due to the hemodynamic compromise of cardiac function itself or hyperinflammatory state typical of these conditions.
Subject(s)
Atrial Fibrillation , Atrial Flutter , COVID-19 , Adult , Atrial Flutter/diagnosis , Atrial Flutter/therapy , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Hospitalization , Humans , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
A safe way of securing the airway with an endotracheal tube is one of the priorities of an advanced cardiovascular life support algorithm for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to compare intubation success rates (ISR) and intubation time (IT) of different laryngoscopes for simulated COVID-19 patients under cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, crossover trial. Fifty four active paramedics performed endotracheal intubation with a Macintosh direct laryngoscope (MAC) and McGrath videolaryngoscope (McGrath) with and without personal protective equipment (PPE). Without PPE, ISRs were 87% and 98% for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p = 0.32). ITs were 22.5 s (IQR: 19-26) and 19.5 s (IQR: 17-21) for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p = 0.005). With PPE, first-pass ISR were 30% and 89% with MAC and McGrath, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall success rates were 83% vs. 100% (p = 0.002). Median ITs were 34.0 s (IQR: 29.5-38.5) and 24.8 s (IQR: 21-29) for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the McGrath videolaryngoscope appears to possess significant advantages over the Macintosh direct laryngoscope when used by paramedics in suspected or confirmed COVID-19 intubation scenarios.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The purpose herein, was to perform a systematic review of interventional outcome studies in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period. METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed of publications meeting the following PICOS criteria: (1) participants, patients > 18 years of age with cardiac arrest due to any causes; (2) intervention, cardiac arrest in COVID-19 period; (3) comparison, cardiac arrest in pre-COVID-19 period; (4) outcomes, detailed information for survival; (5) study design, randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized or observational studies comparing cardiac arrest in COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 period for their effects in patients with cardiac arrest. RESULTS: Survival to hospital discharge for the pre-pandemic and pandemic period was reported in 3 studies (n =1432 patients) and was similar in the pre-pandemic vs. the pandemic period, 35.6% vs. 32.1%, respectively (odds ratio [OR] 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-3.65; p = 0.16; I2 = 72%). Return of spontaneous circulation was reported by all 4 studies and were also similar in the pre and during COVID-19 periods, 51.9% vs. 48.7% (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.78-2.07; p = 0.33; I2 = 71%), respectively. Pooled analysis of cardiac arrest recurrence was also similar, 24.9% and 17.9% (OR 1.60; 95% CI 0.99-2.57; p = 0.06; I2 = 32%) in the pre and during COVID-19 cohorts. Survival with Cerebral Performance Category 1 or 2 was higher in pre vs. during pandemic groups (27.3 vs. 9.1%; OR 3.75; 95% CI 1.26-11.20; p = 0.02). Finally, overall mortality was similar in the pre vs. pandemic groups, 65.9% and 67.2%, respectively (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.33-1.34; p = 0.25; I2 = 76%). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the pre-pandemic period, in hospital cardiac arrest in COVID-19 patients was numerically higher but had statistically similar outcomes.