Impact of Personal Protective Equipment on the Quality of Chest Compressions in Prehospital Care: A Prospective Randomized Crossover Study

Introduction:The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in prehospital emergency care has significantly increased since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Several studies investigating the potential effects of PPE use by Emergency Medical Service providers on the quality of chest compressions during resuscitation have been inconclusive.Study Objectives:This study aimed to determine whether the use of PPE affects the quality of chest compressions or influences select physiological biomarkers that are associated with stress.Methods:This was a prospective randomized, quasi-experimental crossover study with 35 Emergency Medical Service providers who performed 20 minutes of chest compressions on a manikin. Two iterations were completed in a randomized order: (1) without PPE and (2) with PPE consisting of Tyvek, goggles, KN95 mask, and nitrile gloves. The rate and depth of chest compressions were measured. Salivary cortisol, lactate, end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2), and body temperature were measured before and after each set of chest compressions.Results:There were no differences in the quality of chest compressions (rate and depth) between the two groups (P >.05). After performing chest compressions, the group with PPE did not have elevated levels of cortisol, lactate, or EtCO2 when compared to the group without PPE, but did have a higher body temperature (P <.001).Conclusion:The use of PPE during resuscitation did not lower the quality of chest compressions, nor did it lead to higher stress-associated biomarker levels, with the exception of body temperature.

Impact of Personal Protective Equipment on the Quality of Chest Compressions in Prehospital Care: A Prospective Randomized Crossover Study

Introduction:The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in prehospital emergency care has significantly increased since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Several studies investigating the potential effects of PPE use by Emergency Medical Service providers on the quality of chest compressions during resuscitation have been inconclusive.Study Objectives:This study aimed to determine whether the use of PPE affects the quality of chest compressions or influences select physiological biomarkers that are associated with stress.Methods:This was a prospective randomized, quasi-experimental crossover study with 35 Emergency Medical Service providers who performed 20 minutes of chest compressions on a manikin. Two iterations were completed in a randomized order: (1) without PPE and (2) with PPE consisting of Tyvek, goggles, KN95 mask, and nitrile gloves. The rate and depth of chest compressions were measured. Salivary cortisol, lactate, end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2), and body temperature were measured before and after each set of chest compressions.Results:There were no differences in the quality of chest compressions (rate and depth) between the two groups (P >.05). After performing chest compressions, the group with PPE did not have elevated levels of cortisol, lactate, or EtCO2 when compared to the group without PPE, but did have a higher body temperature (P <.001).Conclusion:The use of PPE during resuscitation did not lower the quality of chest compressions, nor did it lead to higher stress-associated biomarker levels, with the exception of body temperature.

Influence of Personal Protective Equipment on the Quality of Chest Compressions: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the influence of personal protective equipment (PPE) on quality of chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) showed inconsistent results. Accordingly, a meta-analysis was performed to provide an overview. Methods: Relevant studies were obtained by search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane's Library databases. A random-effect model incorporating the potential heterogeneity was used to pool the results. Results: Six simulation-based RCTs were included. Overall, pooled results showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the rate [mean difference (MD): -1.70 time/min, 95% confidence interval (CI): -5.77 to 2.36, P = 0.41, I 2 = 80%] or the depth [MD: -1.84 mm, 95% CI: -3.93 to 0.24, P = 0.11, I 2 = 73%] of chest compressions performed by medical personnel with and without PPE. Subgroup analyses showed that use of PPE was associated with reduced rate of chest compressions in studies before COVID-19 (MD: -7.02 time/min, 95% CI: -10.46 to -3.57, P < 0.001), but not in studies after COVID-19 (MD: 0.14 time/min, 95% CI: -5.77 to 2.36, P = 0.95). In addition, PPE was not associated with significantly reduced depth of chest compressions in studies before (MD: -3.34 mm, 95% CI: -10.29 to -3.62, P = 0.35) or after (MD: -0.97 mm, 95% CI: -2.62 to 0.68, P = 0.25) COVID-19. No significant difference was found between parallel-group and crossover RCTs (P for subgroup difference both > 0.05). Conclusions: Evidence from simulation-based RCTs showed that use of PPE was not associated with reduced rate or depth of chest compressions in CPR.

How effective are chest compressions when wearing mask? A randomised simulation study among first-year health care students during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The resuscitation guidelines provided for the COVID-19 pandemic strongly recommended wearing personal protective equipment. The current study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of chest compressions and the level of fatigue while wearing two different types of mask (surgical vs. cloth). METHODS: A randomized, non-inferiority, simulation study was conducted. Participants were randomised into two groups: surgical mask group (n = 108) and cloth mask group (n = 108). The effectiveness (depth and rate) of chest compressions was measured within a 2-min continuous chest-compression-only CPR session. Data were collected through an AMBU CPR Software, a questionnaire, recording vital parameters, and using Borg-scale related to fatigue (before and after the simulation). For further analysis the 2-min session was segmented into 30-s intervals. RESULTS: Two hundred sixteen first-year health care students participated in our study. No significant difference was measured between the surgical mask and cloth mask groups in chest compression depth (44.49 ± 10.03 mm vs. 45.77 ± 10.77 mm), rate (113.34 ± 17.76/min vs. 111.23 ± 17.51/min), and the level of fatigue (5.72 ± 1.69 vs. 5.56 ± 1.67) (p > 0.05 in every cases). Significant decrease was found in chest compression depth between the first 30-s interval and the second, third, and fourth intervals (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of chest compressions (depth and rate) was non-inferior when wearing cloth mask compared to wearing surgical mask. However, the effectiveness of chest compressions decreased significantly in both groups during the 2-min chest-compression-only CPR session and did not reach the appropriate chest compression depth range recommended by the ERC.

Efficacy of cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance while wearing a powered air-purifying respirator.

BACKGROUND: The use of personal protective equipment for respiratory infection control during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a physical burden to healthcare providers. The duration for which CPR quality according to recommended guidelines can be maintained under these circumstances is important. We investigated whether a 2-min shift was appropriate for chest compression and determined the duration for which chest compression was maintained in accordance with the recommended guidelines while wearing personal protective equipment. METHODS: This prospective crossover simulation study was performed at a single center from September 2020 to October 2020. Five indicators of CPR quality were measured during the first and second sessions of the study period. All participants wore a Level D powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR), and the experiment was conducted using a Resusci Anne manikin, which can measure the quality of chest compressions. Each participant conducted two sessions. In Session 1, the sequence of 2 min of chest compressions, followed by a 2-min rest, was repeated twice; in Session 2, the sequence of 1-min chest compressions followed by a 1-min rest was repeated four times. RESULTS: All 34 participants completed the study. The sufficiently deep compression rate was 65.9 ± 31.1% in the 1-min shift group and 61.5 ± 30.5% in the 2-min shift group. The mean compression depth was 52.8 ± 4.3 mm in the 1-min shift group and 51.0 ± 6.1 mm in the 2-min shift group. These two parameters were significantly different between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the other values related to CPR quality. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicated that 1 min of chest compressions with a 1-min rest maintained a better quality of CPR while wearing a PAPR.

Should chest compressions be considered an aerosol-generating procedure? A literature review in response to recent guidelines on personal protective equipment for patients with suspected COVID-19.

There is disagreement between international guidelines on the level of personal protective equipment (PPE) required for chest compressions for patients with suspected COVID-19. This discrepancy centres on whether they are considered to be an aerosol-generating procedure (AGP), thus requiring airborne protection to prevent transmission to healthcare workers (HCWs). The need to don higher-level PPE has to be weighed against the resulting delay to emergency treatment.We performed a literature search on this topic which found eight relevant studies. All were observational with low patient numbers and multiple confounding factors, but describe cases of acute respiratory infection transmission during chest compressions. One systematic review concluded that chest compressions were not an AGP. Two simulated studies (released as preprints) potentially demonstrate aerosol generation. Given that there is evidence for infection transmission during chest compressions, we conclude that a precautionary approach with appropriate PPE is necessary to protect HCW from contracting a potentially fatal infection.

The use of personal protection equipment does not impair the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A prospective triple-cross over randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

AIM: Prior studies suggest that the use of personal protective equipment might impair the quality of critical care. We investigated the influence of personal protective equipment on out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. METHODS: Randomised controlled non-inferiority triple-crossover study. Forty-eight emergency medical service providers, randomized into teams of two, performed 12 min of basic life support (BLS) on a manikin after climbing 3 flights of stairs. Three scenarios were completed in a randomised order: Without personal protective equipment, with personal protective equipment including a filtering face piece (FFP) 2 mask with valve, and with personal protective equipment including an FFP2 mask without valve. The primary outcome was mean depth of chest compressions with a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 3.5 mm. Secondary outcomes included other measurements of CPR quality, providers' subjective exhaustion levels, and providers' vital signs, including end-tidal CO2. RESULTS: Differences regarding the primary outcome were well below the pre-defined non-inferiority margins for both control vs. personal protective equipment without valve (absolute difference 1 mm, 95% CI [-1, 2]) and control vs. personal protective equipment with valve (absolute difference 1 mm, [-0.2, 2]). This was also true for secondary outcomes regarding quality of chest compressions and providers' vital signs including etCO2. Subjective physical strain after BLS was higher in the personal protective equipment groups (Borg 4 (SD 3) without valve, 4 (SD 2) with valve) than in the control group (Borg 3 (SD 2)). CONCLUSION: PPE including masks with and without expiration valve is safe for use without concerns regarding the impairment of CPR quality.