Comparison of Vie Scope® and Macintosh laryngoscopes for intubation during resuscitation by paramedics wearing personal protective equipment.

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is still the gold standard of airway management, but in cases of sudden cardiac arrest in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, ETI is associated with risks for both the patient and the medical personnel. We hypothesized that the Vie Scope® is more useful for endotracheal intubation of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cardiac arrest patients than the conventional laryngoscope with Macintosh blade when operators are wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). METHODS: Study was designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed by Emergency Medical Services in Poland. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who needed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prehospital setting were included. Patients under 18 years old or with criteria predictive of impossible intubation under direct laryngoscopy, were excluded. Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to Vie Scope® versus direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade. Study groups were compared on success of intubation attempts, time to intubation, glottis visualization and number of optimization maneuvers. RESULTS: We enrolled 90 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, aged 43-92 years. Compared to the VieScope® laryngoscope, use of the Macintosh laryngoscope required longer times for tracheal intubation with an estimated mean difference of -48 s (95%CI confidence interval [CI], -60.23, -35.77; p < 0.001). Moreover VieScope® improved first attempt success rate, 93.3% vs. 51.1% respectively (odds ratio [OR] = 13.39; 95%CI: 3.62, 49.58; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Vie Scope® laryngoscope in OHCA patients improved the first attempt success rate, and reduced intubation time compared to Macintosh laryngoscope in paramedics wearing PPE for against aerosol generating procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials registration number NCT04365608.

Simple demographic characteristics and laboratory findings on admission may predict in-hospital mortality in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: development and validation of the covid-19 score.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) constitutes a major health burden worldwide due to high mortality rates and hospital bed shortages. SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with several laboratory abnormalities. We aimed to develop and validate a risk score based on simple demographic and laboratory data that could be used on admission in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection to predict in-hospital mortality. METHODS: Three cohorts of patients from different hospitals were studied consecutively (developing, validation, and prospective cohorts). The following demographic and laboratory data were obtained from medical records: sex, age, hemoglobin, mean corpuscular volume (MCV), platelets, leukocytes, sodium, potassium, creatinine, and C-reactive protein (CRP). For each variable, classification and regression tree analysis were used to establish the cut-off point(s) associated with in-hospital mortality outcome based on data from developing cohort and before they were used for analysis in the validation and prospective cohort. The covid-19 score was calculated as a sum of cut-off points associated with mortality outcome. RESULTS: The developing, validation, and prospective cohorts included 129, 239, and 497 patients, respectively (median age, 71, 67, and 70 years, respectively). The following cut of points associated with in-hospital mortality: age > 56 years, male sex, hemoglobin < 10.55 g/dL, MCV > 92.9 fL, leukocyte count > 9.635 or < 2.64 103/µL, platelet count, < 81.49 or > 315.5 103/µL, CRP > 51.14 mg/dL, creatinine > 1.115 mg/dL, sodium < 134.7 or > 145.4 mEq/L, and potassium < 3.65 or > 6.255 mEq/L. The AUC of the covid-19 score for predicting in-hospital mortality was 0.89 (0.84-0.95), 0.850 (0.75-0.88), and 0.773 (0.731-0.816) in the developing, validation, and prospective cohorts, respectively (P < 0.001The mortality of the prospective cohort stratified on the basis of the covid-19 score was as follows: 0-2 points,4.2%; 3 points, 15%; 4 points, 29%; 5 points, 38.2%; 6 and more points, 60%. CONCLUSION: The covid-19 score based on simple demographic and laboratory parameters may become an easy-to-use, widely accessible, and objective tool for predicting mortality in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

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.

An optimal chest compression technique using personal protective equipment during resuscitation in the COVID-19 pandemic: a randomized crossover simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation with the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol generating procedures (AGP) in patients with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID­19) remains challenging. AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare 3 chest compression (CC) methods used by paramedics wearing PPE. METHODS: The single­blinded, multicenter, randomized, crossover simulation study involved 67 paramedics wearing PPE AGP. They performed 2­minute continuous CCs in an adult with suspected or confirmed COVID­19 in 3 scenarios: 1) manual CCs; 2) CCs with the TrueCPR feedback device; 3) CCs with the LUCAS 3 mechanical CC device. RESULTS: The depth of CC was more frequently correct when using LUCAS 3 compared with TrueCPR and manual CC (median [IQR] 51 [50-55] mm vs 47 [43-52] mm vs 43 [38-46] mm; P = 0.005). This was also true for the CC rate (median [IQR]102 [100-102] compressions per minute [CPM] vs 105 [98-1114] CPM vs 116 [112-129] CPM; P = 0.027) and chest recoil (median [IQR]100% [98%-100%] vs 83% [60%-92%] vs 39% [25%-50%]; P = 0.001). A detailed analysis of 2­minute resuscitation with manual CCs showed a decrease in compression depth and full chest recoil after 1 minute of CCs. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that during simulated resuscitation with the use of PPE AGP in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID­19, CC with LUCAS 3 compared with manual CCs as well as the TrueCPR essentially increased the CC quality. In the case of manual CCs by paramedics dressed in PPE AGP, it is advisable to change the person performing resuscitation every minute.

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest treated by emergency medical service teams during COVID-19 pandemic: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a challenge for medical personnel, especially in the current COVID-19 pandemic, where medical personnel should perform resuscitation wearing full personal protective equipment. This study aims were to assess the characteristics and outcomes of adults who suffered an OHCA in the COVID-19 pandemic treated by emergency medical service (EMS) teams. METHODS: All EMS-attended OHCA adults over than 18 years in the Polish EMS registry were analyzed. The retrospective EMS database was conducted. EMS interventions performed between March 1, and April 30, 2020 were retrospectively screened. RESULTS: In the study period EMS operated 527 times for OHCA cases. The average age of patients with OHCA was 67.8 years. Statistically significantly more frequently men were involved (64.3%). 298 (56.6%) of all OHCA patients had resuscitation attempted by EMS providers. Among resuscitated patients, 73.8% were cardiac etiology. 9.4% of patients had return of spontaneous circulation, 27.2% of patients were admitted to hospital with ongoing chest compression. In the case of 63.4% cardiopulmonary resuscitation was ineffective and death was determined. CONCLUSIONS: The present study found that OHCA incidence rate in the Masovian population (central region of Poland) in March-April 2020 period was 12.2/100,000 adult inhabitants. Return of spontaneous circulation in EMS was observed only in 9.4% of resuscitated patients. The presence of shockable rhythms was associated with better prognosis. The prehospital mortality, even though it was high, did not differ from those reported by other studies.

RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF INTERVENTIONS PERFORMED BY EMERGENCY MEDICAL TEAMS IN POLAND BEFORE AND DURING THE SARS COV-2 PANDEMIC.

OBJECTIVE: Introduction: The SARS-CoV-2 virus was recognized in December 2019 in China. From that moment it has quickly spread around the whole world. It causes COVID-19 disease manifested by breathlessness, coughing and high temperature. The COVID-19 pandemic has become a great challenge for humanity. The aim: To analyze interventions of emergency medical teams during the SAR-CoV-2 pandemic, and to compare obtained data with the same periods in 2018-2019. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Material and methods: The study retrospectively analyzed interventions of emergency medical teams in the period from 15.03 to 15.05 in 2018 - 2020. 1,479,530 interventions of emergency medical teams were included in the study. The number of interventions, reasons for calls, and diagnoses made by heads of the emergency medical teams during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic were compared to the same period in 2018-2019. RESULTS: Results: Authors observed the decline in the number of interventions performed by emergency medical teams during the pandemic in relation to earlier years by approximately 25%. The big decline concerned interventions that were the reason for calls to public places, such as "traffic accident" and "collapse". In the case of diagnoses made by the head of the emergency medical team, the diagnoses regarding stroke or sudden cardiac arrest remained at the similar level. Others showed a marked decline. CONCLUSION: Conclusions: Reduced social activity contributed to a reduced number of interventions by emergency medical teams in public places. The societal fear of the unknown also contributed to the decrease in the number of interventions performed by emergency medical teams. People began to avoid contact with other people.