Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Management and Outcomes in Patients with Septic Shock in the Emergency Department.

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.

Endotracheal Intubation Using C-MAC Video Laryngoscope vs. Direct Laryngoscope While Wearing Personal Protective Equipment.

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.

Impact of Insurance Benefits and Education on Point-of-Care Ultrasound Use in a Single Emergency Department: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis.

Background and Objectives: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a useful tool that helps clinicians properly treat patients in emergency department (ED). This study aimed to evaluate the impact of specific interventions on the use of POCUS in the ED. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study used an interrupted time series analysis to assess how interventions changed the use of POCUS in the emergency department of a tertiary medical institute in South Korea from October 2016 to February 2021. We chose two main interventions-expansion of benefit coverage of the National Health Insurance (NHI) for emergency ultrasound (EUS) and annual ultrasound educational workshops. The primary variable was the EUS rate, defined as the number of EUS scans per 1000 eligible patients per month. We compared the level and slope of EUS rates before and after interventions. Results: A total of 5188 scanned records were included. Before interventions, the EUS rate had increased gradually. After interventions, except for the first workshop, the EUS rate immediately increased significantly (p < 0.05). The difference in the EUS rate according to the expansion of the NHI was estimated to be the largest (p < 0.001). However, the change in slope significantly decreased after the third workshop during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic (p = 0.004). The EUS rate increased significantly in the presence of physicians participating in intensive POCUS training (p < 0.001). Conclusion: This study found that expansion of insurance coverage for EUS and ultrasound education led to a significant and immediate increase in the use of POCUS, suggesting that POCUS use can be increased by improving education and insurance benefits.

Impact of Personal Protective Equipment on Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation in Coronavirus Pandemic.

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.

Respiratory Protection Effect of Ear-loop-type KF94 Masks according to the Wearing Method in COVID-19 Pandemic: a Randomized, Open-label Study.

BACKGROUND: Ear-loop-type Korean Filter 94 masks (KF94 masks, equivalent to the N95 and FFP2) are broadly used in health care settings in Korea for the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: A prospective randomized open-label study was designed to identify differences in the fitting performance between mask wearing methods in three different types of KF94 mask with ear loops between January to March 2021. General-fitting involved wearing an ear-loop-type KF94 mask, and tight-fitting involved wearing a mask aided by a clip connecting the ear loops. Each of the 30 participants wore three types of masks according to a randomly assigned order in both methods and performed a total of six quantitative fit tests (QNFTs) according to the occupational safety and health administration protocol. RESULTS: All fit factors (FFs) measured by the QNFT were significantly higher for tight-fitting method with the clip in all KF94 masks (P < 0.001). However, the total FFs were very low, with a median (interquartile range) of 6 (3-23) and 29 (9-116) for general-fitting and tight-fitting, respectively. When wearing tightly, the horizontal 3-fold type mask with adjustable ear-loop length had the highest FF, with a median of 125, and the QNFT pass rate (FF ≥ 100) increased significantly from 4 (13%) to 18 (60%). CONCLUSION: Even with sufficient filter efficiency, ear-loop-type-KF94 masks do not provide adequate protection. However, in relatively low-risk environments, wearing a face-seal adjustable KF94 mask and tight wearing with a clip can improve respiratory protection for healthcare workers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04794556.

Impact of Personal Protective Equipment on the First-Pass Success of Endotracheal Intubation in the ED: A Propensity-Score-Matching Analysis.

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.