The nationwide impact of COVID-19 on life support courses. A retrospective evaluation by Resuscitation Council UK.

Aim: To determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Resuscitation Council UK Advanced Life Support (ALS) and Immediate Life Support (ILS) course numbers and outcomes. Methods: We conducted a before-after study using course data from the Resuscitation Council UK Learning Management System between January 2018 and December 2021, using 23 March 2020 as the cut-off between pre- and post-pandemic periods. Demographics and outcomes were analysed using chi-squared tests and regression models. Results: There were 90,265 ALS participants (51,464 pre-; 38,801 post-) and 368,140 ILS participants (225,628 pre-; 142,512 post-). There was a sharp decline in participants on ALS/ILS courses due to COVID-19. ALS participant numbers rebounded to exceed pre-pandemic levels, whereas ILS numbers recovered to a lesser degree with increased uptake of e-learning versions. Mean ALS course participants reduced from 20.0 to 14.8 post-pandemic (P < 0.001).Post-pandemic there were small but statistically significant decreases in ALS Cardiac Arrest Simulation Test pass rates (from 82.1 % to 80.1 % (OR = 0.90, 95 % CI = 0.86-0.94, P < 0.001)), ALS MCQ score (from 86.6 % to 86.0 % (mean difference = -0.35, 95 % CI -0.44 to -0.26, P < 0.001)), and overall ALS course results (from 95.2 %to 94.7 %, OR = 0.92, CI = 0.85-0.99, P = 0.023). ILS course outcomes were similar post-pandemic (from 99.4 % to 99.4 %, P = 0.037). Conclusion: COVID-19 caused a sharp decline in the number of participants on ALS/ILS courses and an accelerated uptake of e-learning versions, with the average ALS course size reducing significantly. The small reduction in performance on ALS courses requires further research to clarify the contributing factors.

Repair of acute respiratory distress syndrome in COVID-19 by stromal cells (REALIST-COVID trial): 1 year follow up for safety and pulmonary dysfunction

S44 Table 1Summary of significant medical events, thoracic computed tomography (CT) and pulmonary function tests (PFTs) in ORBCEL-C and placebo groups at 1 year follow upORBCEL-C Placebo Number of patients followed up 20 21 Significant medical events Number of patients with SMEs 6/20 9/21 Total SME events 7 11 Classification Respiratory,thoracic and mediastinal disorders 4 6 Neoplasm - benign, malignant, unspecified 1 0 Infections and infestations 1 1 Cardiac disorders 1 0 Metabolism and nutrition disorders 0 1 Injury, poisoning and procedural complications 0 1 Renal and urinary disorders 0 1 Gastrointestinal disorders 0 1 Thoracic CT Number of CTs available 5 8 Time to CT (Median, IQR) 181 (157–198) 203 (95–233) Evidence of ILD on CT 4 6 PFTs Number of PFTs available 10 8 Time to PFTs (Median, IQR) 184.5 (117.5–292.75) 203.5 (118.25–242.5) FEV1 (Mean, SD) 84.9 (13.6) 80.5 (13.3) FEV1 <80% predicted (n,%) 4/10 (44%) 4/8 (50%) FVC (Mean, SD) 78.4 (13.2) 79.3 (16.5) FVC <80% predicted (n,%) 5/10 (55%) 5/8 (62.5%) FEV1/FVC ratio (Mean, SD, n) 0.88 (0.12) N=8 0.76 (0.05) N=5 FEV1/FVC <0.7 (n,%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) TLCO (Mean, SD, n) 78.9 (14.8) N=9 61.9 (13.4) N=7 TLCO <80% (n,%) 6/9 (66.7%) 7/7 (100%) ConclusionsOne year follow up supports the safety of ORBCEL-C MSCs in patients with moderate to severe ARDS due to COVID-19. A similar incidence of pulmonary dysfunction is reported in both groups at long term follow up.Please refer to page A?? for declarations of interest related to this .

European Resuscitation Council COVID-19 guidelines executive summary.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a substantial impact on the incidence of cardiac arrest and survival. The challenge is to find the correct balance between the risk to the rescuer when undertaking cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on a person with possible COVID-19 and the risk to that person if CPR is delayed. These guidelines focus specifically on patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. The guidelines include the delivery of basic and advanced life support in adults and children and recommendations for delivering training during the pandemic. Where uncertainty exists treatment should be informed by a dynamic risk assessment which may consider current COVID-19 prevalence, the person's presentation (e.g. history of COVID-19 contact, COVID-19 symptoms), likelihood that treatment will be effective, availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) and personal risks for those providing treatment. These guidelines will be subject to evolving knowledge and experience of COVID-19. As countries are at different stages of the pandemic, there may some international variation in practice.

International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation: COVID-19 consensus on science, treatment recommendations and task force insights.

Consensus on Science and Treatment recommendations aim to balance the benefits of early resuscitation with the potential for harm to care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Chest compressions and cardiopulmonary resuscitation have the potential to generate aerosols. During the current COVID-19 pandemic lay rescuers should consider compressions and public-access defibrillation. Lay rescuers who are willing, trained and able to do so, should consider providing rescue breaths to infants and children in addition to chest compressions. Healthcare professionals should use personal protective equipment for aerosol generating procedures during resuscitation and may consider defibrillation before donning personal protective equipment for aerosol generating procedures.