ABSTRACT
Introduction : Notre objectif était d'analyser la survie des patients victimes d'un arrêt cardiaque extrahospitalier (ACEH) durant la pandémie Covid-19 et de comparer les données en fonction du centre de traitement de l'appel choisi, le 15 ou le 18. Méthode : Nous avons extrait les données exhaustives du Registre des arrêts cardiaques (RéAC), entre le 1er mars et le 30 avril 2020. Nous avons effectué trois comparaisons de la survie à 30 jours (J30) de cohortes de patients : 1) Covid vs non-Covid ;2) appels arrivés au service d'aide médicale urgente (Samu) (15) vs aux sapeurs-pompiers (SP) (18) et 3) appels arrivés au 15 vs 18 pour les patients Covid. Résultats : Sur un total de 870 ACEH, 184 étaient atteints de la Covid. Nous avons observé 487 (56 %) appels arrivés au 15 et 383 (44 %) au 18. La survie à J30 était de 3 %. Les ACEH Covid avaient une survie à J30 plus faible que les non-Covid (0 vs 4 %, p < 0,001). Le délai d'arrivée de SP était plus long lors d'un appel au 15. En revanche, aucune différence de survie n'est observée entre les appels arrivés au 15 ou au 18. Conclusion : La survie consécutive à un ACEH durant la pandémie est extrêmement faible. Cependant, quel que soit le numéro composé (15 ou 18), la survie n'est pas différente, même si le délai d'arrivée des prompts secours est plus court lors d'un appel au 18.Alternate abstract: Introduction: Our aim was to analyze the outof-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) care and patients' survival during COVID-19 pandemic by comparing the emergency phone number called to initiate the alert [EMS(#15) or firefighters(#18)]. Procedures: We used data from the French OHCA Registry (RéAC), between March 1, 2020 and April 30, 2020. We performed three comparisons of patient cohorts: 1) COVID vs non-COVID;2) 15 vs 18 calls and 3) in COVID patients, 15 vs 18 calls. Results: We included 870 OHCA, among them, 184 were affected by COVID-19. There were 487 (56%) calls to 15 and 383 (44%) to 18. Patient survival at D+30 during the study was 3%. COVID+ patients had a lower survival rate at D+30 than non-COVID patients (0% vs. 4%, P < 0.001). Firefighters had a long time to arrive on the scene for calls to 15. No difference in survival was observed between 15 or 18 calls. Conclusion: The poor survival of patients during the pandemic is multi-causal but does not appear to be related to the emergency phone number called to initiate the alert [EMS (#15) or firefighters (#18)] even if the arrival time for prompt assistance is shorter on the call to 18.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Our aim was to analyze the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) care and patients' survival during COVID-19 pandemic by comparing the emergency phone number called to initiate the alert [EMS(#15) or firefighters(#18)]. Procedures: We used data from the French OHCA Registry (ReAC), between March 1, 2020 and April 30, 2020. We performed three comparisons of patient cohorts: 1) COVID vs non-COVID;2) 15 vs 18 calls and 3) in COVID patients, 15 vs 18 calls. Results: We included 870 OHCA, among them, 184 were affected by COVID-19. There were 487 (56%) calls to 15 and 383 (44%) to 18. Patient survival at D+30 during the study was 3%. COVID+ patients had a lower survival rate at D+30 than non-COVID patients (0% vs. 4%, P < 0.001). Firefighters had a long time to arrive on the scene for calls to 15. No difference in survival was observed between 15 or 18 calls. Conclusion: The poor survival of patients during the pandemic is multi-causal but does not appear to be related to the emergency phone number called to initiate the alert [EMS (#15) or firefighters (#18)] even if the arrival time for prompt assistance is shorter on the call to 18.