ABSTRACT
This study aimed to determine the impact of modifications in emergency department (ED) practices caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the clinical outcomes and management of patients with septic shock. We performed a retrospective study. Patients with septic shock who presented to the ED between 1 January 2018 and 19 January 2020 were allocated to the pre-COVID-19 group, whereas those who presented between 20 January 2020 and 31 December 2020 were assigned to the post-COVID-19 group. We used propensity score matching to compare the sepsis-related interventions and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Of the 3697 patients included, 2254 were classified as pre-COVID-19 and 1143 as post-COVID-19. A total of 1140 propensity score-matched pairings were created. Overall, the in-hospital mortality rate was 25.5%, with no statistical difference between the pre- and post-COVID-19 groups (p = 0.92). In a matched cohort, the post-COVID-19 group had delayed lactate measurement, blood culture test, and infection source control (all p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in time to antibiotics (p = 0.19) or vasopressor administration (p = 0.09) between the groups. Although sepsis-related interventions were delayed during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no significant difference in the in-hospital mortality between the pre- and post-COVID-19 groups.
ABSTRACT
This study sought to determine whether the C-MAC video laryngoscope (VL) performed better than a direct laryngoscope (DL) when attempting endotracheal intubation (ETI) in the emergency department (ED) while wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). This was a retrospective single-center observational study conducted in an academic ED between February 2020 and March 2022. All emergency medical personnel who participated in any ETI procedure were required to wear PPE. The patients were divided into the C-MAC VL group and the DL group based on the device used during the first ETI attempt. The primary outcome measure was the first-pass success (FPS) rate. A multiple logistic regression was used to determine the factors associated with FPS. Of the 756 eligible patients, 650 were assigned to the C-MAC group and 106 to the DL group. The overall FPS rate was 83.5% (n = 631/756). The C-MAC group had a significantly higher FPS rate than the DL group (85.7% vs. 69.8%, p < 0.001). In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, C-MAC use was significantly associated with an increased FPS rate (adjusted odds ratio, 2.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.69-4.08; p < 0.001). In this study, we found that the FPS rate of ETI was significantly higher when the C-MAC VL was used than when a DL was used by emergency physicians constrained by cumbersome PPE.
ABSTRACT
Background and Objectives: This retrospective study evaluated the clinical impact of enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) on the clinical outcomes in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Moreover, by focusing on the use of a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR), we investigated the medical personnel's perceptions of wearing PAPR during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Materials and Methods: According to the arrival time at the emergency department, the patients were categorized into a conventional PPE group (1 August 2019 to 20 January 2020) and an enhanced PPE group (21 January 2020, to 31 August 2020). The primary outcomes of this analysis were the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate. Additionally, subjective perception of the medical staff regarding the effect of wearing enhanced PPE during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was evaluated by conducting a survey. Results: This study included 130 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, with 73 and 57 patients in the conventional and enhanced PPE groups, respectively. The median time intervals to first intubation and to report the first arterial blood gas analysis results were longer in the enhanced PPE group than in the conventional PPE group (3 min vs. 2 min; p = 0.020 and 8 min vs. 3 min; p < 0.001, respectively). However, there were no significant differences in the ROSC rate (odds ratio (OR) = 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38-1.67; p = 0.542) and 1 month survival (OR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.07-2.10; p = 0.266) between the two groups. In total, 67 emergent department (ED) professionals responded to the questionnaire. Although a significant number of respondents experienced inconveniences with PAPR use, they agreed that PAPR was necessary during the CPR procedure for protection and reduction of infection transmission. Conclusion: The use of enhanced PPE, including PAPR, affected the performance of CPR to some extent but did not alter patient outcomes. PAPR use during the resuscitation of OHCA patients might positively impact the psychological stability of the medical staff.
Subject(s)
Coronavirus , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , Humans , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
Various types and levels of personal protective equipment (PPE) are currently available to protect health-care workers against infectious diseases. However, wearing cumbersome PPE may negatively affect their performance in life-saving procedures. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of wearing extensive PPE, including a powered air-purifying respirator with a loose-fitting hood or an N95 filtering facepiece respirator, on the first-pass success (FPS) rate of endotracheal intubation (ETI) in the emergency department (ED). This study was a single-center, observational before-and-after study of 934 adult (≥18 years old) patients who underwent ETI in the academic ED. The study period was divided into a control period (from 20 January 2019, to 30 September 2019, and from 20 January 2018, to 30 September 2018) and an intervention period (from 20 January 2020, to 30 September 2020). Extensive PPE was not donned during the control period (control group, n = 687) but was donned during the intervention period (PPE group, n = 247). The primary outcome was the FPS rate. We used propensity score matching between the PPE and control groups to reduce potential confounding. Propensity score matching identified 247 cases in the PPE group and 492 cases in the control group. In the matched cohort, no significant difference was found in the FPS rate between the PPE and control groups (83.8% (n = 207) vs. 81.9% (n = 403); p = 0.522). In multivariable analysis, wearing PPE was not associated with the FPS rate (adjusted odds ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-1.40; p = 0.629) after adjusting for the level of the intubator (junior resident, senior resident, or emergency medicine (EM) specialist). In conclusion, the FPS rate is not significantly affected by wearing extensive PPE in the ED.