Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 16 de 16
Filter
1.
BMC Emerg Med ; 23(1): 48, 2023 05 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2319037

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although airway management for paramedics has moved away from endotracheal intubation towards extraglottic airway devices in recent years, in the context of COVID-19, endotracheal intubation has seen a revival. Endotracheal intubation has been recommended again under the assumption that it provides better protection against aerosol liberation and infection risk for care providers than extraglottic airway devices accepting an increase in no-flow time and possibly worsen patient outcomes. METHODS: In this manikin study paramedics performed advanced cardiac life support with non-shockable (Non-VF) and shockable rhythms (VF) in four settings: ERC guidelines 2021 (control), COVID-19-guidelines using videolaryngoscopic intubation (COVID-19-intubation), laryngeal mask (COVID-19-Laryngeal-Mask) or a modified laryngeal mask modified with a shower cap (COVID-19-showercap) to reduce aerosol liberation simulated by a fog machine. Primary endpoint was no-flow-time, secondary endpoints included data on airway management as well as the participants' subjective assessment of aerosol release using a Likert-scale (0 = no release-10 = maximum release) were collected and statistically compared. Continuous Data was presented as mean ± standard deviation. Interval-scaled Data were presented as median and Q1 and Q3. RESULTS: A total of 120 resuscitation scenarios were completed. Compared to control (Non-VF:11 ± 3 s, VF:12 ± 3 s) application of COVID-19-adapted guidelines lead to prolonged no-flow times in all groups (COVID-19-Intubation: Non-VF:17 ± 11 s, VF:19 ± 5 s;p ≤ 0.001; COVID-19-laryngeal-mask: VF:15 ± 5 s,p ≤ 0.01; COVID-19-showercap: VF:15 ± 3 s,p ≤ 0.01). Compared to COVID-19-Intubation, the use of the laryngeal mask and its modification with a showercap both led to a reduction of no-flow-time(COVID-19-laryngeal-mask: Non-VF:p = 0.002;VF:p ≤ 0.001; COVID-19-Showercap: Non-VF:p ≤ 0.001;VF:p = 0.002) due to a reduced duration of intubation (COVID-19-Intubation: Non-VF:40 ± 19 s;VF:33 ± 17 s; both p ≤ 0.01 vs. control, COVID-19-Laryngeal-Mask (Non-VF:15 ± 7 s;VF:13 ± 5 s;p > 0.05) and COVID-19-Shower-cap (Non-VF:15 ± 5 s;VF:17 ± 5 s;p > 0.05). The participants rated aerosol liberation lowest in COVID-19-intubation (median:0;Q1:0,Q3:2;p < 0.001vs.COVID-19-laryngeal-mask and COVID-19-showercap) compared to COVID-19-shower-cap (median:3;Q1:1,Q3:3 p < 0.001vs.COVID-19-laryngeal-mask) or COVID-19-laryngeal-mask (median:9;Q1:6,Q3:8). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19-adapted guidelines using videolaryngoscopic intubation lead to a prolongation of no-flow time. The use of a modified laryngeal mask with a shower cap seems to be a suitable compromise combining minimal impact on no-flowtime and reduced aerosol exposure for the involved providers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , Humans , Airway Management , COVID-19/therapy , Hospitals , Intubation, Intratracheal , Manikins , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy
2.
Am J Emerg Med ; 2022 Nov 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2230130

ABSTRACT

A tracheobronchial rupture can be lethal. Its etiology in children varies and includes blunt trauma and iatrogenic injury. Most of the latter are associated with tracheal intubation, with other, iatrogenic causes scarcely being reported. We herein reported the first case of tracheobronchial rupture caused by chest compression during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The present case highlights the importance of close follow-up after cardiopulmonary resuscitation, even if the patients are not intubated.

3.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 9: 825823, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1952359

ABSTRACT

Background: Sustaining Basic Life Support (BLS) training during the COVID-19 pandemic bears substantial challenges. The limited availability of highly qualified instructors and tight economic conditions complicates the delivery of these life-saving trainings. Consequently, innovative and resource-efficient approaches are needed to minimize or eliminate contagion while maintaining high training standards and managing learner anxiety related to infection risk. Methods: In a non-inferiority trial 346 first-year medical, dentistry, and physiotherapy students underwent BLS training at AIXTRA-Competence Center for Training and Patient Safety at the University Hospital RWTH Aachen. Our objectives were (1) to examine whether peer feedback BLS training supported by tele-instructors matches the learning performance of standard instructor-guided BLS training for laypersons; and (2) to minimize infection risk during BLS training. Therefore, in a parallel group design, we compared arm (1) Standard Instructor Feedback (SIF) BLS training (Historical control group of 2019) with arm (2) a Tele-Instructor Supported Peer-Feedback (TPF) BLS training (Intervention group of 2020). Both study arms were based on Peyton's 4-step approach. Before and after each training session, objective data for BLS performance (compression depth and rate) were recorded using a resuscitation manikin. We also assessed overall BLS performance via standardized instructor evaluation and student self-reports of confidence via questionnaire. Non-inferiority margins for the outcome parameters and sample size calculation were based on previous studies with SIF. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals were employed to determine significance of non-inferiority. Results: The results confirmed non-inferiority of TPF to SIF for all tested outcome parameters. A follow-up after 2 weeks found no confirmed COVID-19 infections among the participants. Conclusion: Tele-instructor supported peer feedback is a powerful alternative to in-person instructor feedback on BLS skills during a pandemic, where infection risk needs to be minimized while maximizing the quality of BLS skill learning. Trial registration: https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00025199, Trial ID: DRKS00025199.

4.
Am J Emerg Med ; 52: 128-131, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1561972

ABSTRACT

AIM OF THE STUDY: In this study we aimed to investigate whether changing rescuers wearing N95 masks every 1 min instead of the standard CPR change over time of 2 min would make a difference in effective chest compressions. METHODS: This study was a randomized controlled mannequin study. Participants were selected from healthcare staff. They were divided into two groups of two people in each group. The scenario was implemented on CPR mannequin representing patient with asystolic arrest, that measured compression depth, compression rate, recoil, and correct hand position. Two different scenarios were prepared. In Scenario 1, the rescuers were asked to change chest compression after 1 min. In Scenario 2, standard CPR was applied. The participants' vital parameters, mean compression rate, correct compression rate/ratio, total number of compressions, compression depth, correct recoil/ratio, correct hand position/ratio, mean no-flow time, and total CPR time were recorded. RESULTS: The study hence included 14 teams each for scenarios, with a total of 56 participants. In each scenario, 14 participants were physicians and 14 participants were women. Although there was no difference in the first minute of the cycles starting from the fourth cycle, a statistically significant difference was observed in the second minute in all cycles except the fifth cycle. CONCLUSION: Changing the rescuer every 1 min instead of every 2 min while performing CPR with full PPE may prevent the decrease in compression quality that may occur as the resuscitation time gets longer.


Subject(s)
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/standards , Emergency Service, Hospital/standards , Fatigue/prevention & control , Heart Arrest/therapy , Medical Staff, Hospital , N95 Respirators , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Manikins , Turkey
5.
J Clin Med ; 10(8)2021 Apr 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526839

ABSTRACT

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is considered an aerosol-generating procedure. Consequently, COVID-19 resuscitation guidelines recommend the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) during resuscitation. In this simulation of randomised crossover trials, we investigated the influence of PPE on the quality of chest compressions (CCs). Thirty-four emergency medical service BLS-providers performed two 20 min CPR sequences (five 2 min cycles alternated by 2 min of rest) on manikins, once with and once without PPE, in a randomised order. The PPE was composed of a filtering facepiece 3 FFP3 mask, safety glasses, gloves and a long-sleeved gown. The primary outcome was defined as the difference between compression depth with and without PPE; secondary outcomes were defined as differences in CC rate, release and the number of effective CCs. The participants graded fatigue and performance, while generalised estimating equations (GEE) were used to analyse data. There was no significant difference in CC quality between sequences without and with PPE regarding depth (mean depth 54 ± 5 vs. 54 ± 6 mm respectively), rate (mean rate 119 ± 9 and 118 ± 6 compressions per minute), release (mean release 2 ± 2 vs. 2 ± 2 mm) and the number of effective CCs (43 ± 18 vs. 45 ± 17). The participants appraised higher fatigue when equipped with PPE in comparison to when equipped without PPE (p < 0.001), and lower performance was appraised when equipped with PPE in comparison to when equipped without PPE (p = 0.031). There is no negative effect of wearing PPE on the quality of CCs during CPR in comparison to not wearing PPE.

6.
Am J Emerg Med ; 50: 575-581, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1437367

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate leg-heel chest compression without previous training as an alternative for medical professionals and its effects on distance to potential aerosol spread during chest compression. METHODS: 20 medical professionals performed standard manual chest compression followed by leg-heel chest compression after a brief instruction on a manikin. We compared percentage of correct chest compression position, percentage of full chest recoil, percentage of correct compression depth, average compression depth, percentage of correct compression rate and average compression rate between both methods. In a second approach, potential aerosol spread during chest compression was visualized. RESULTS: Our data indicate no credible difference between manual and leg-heel compression. The distance to potential aerosol spread could have been increased by leg-heel method. CONCLUSION: Under special circumstances like COVID-19-pandemic, leg-heel chest compression may be an effective alternative without previous training compared to manual chest compression while markedly increasing the distance to the patient.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Heart Massage/methods , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Heel , Humans , Leg , Manikins
7.
Am J Emerg Med ; 50: 80-84, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1326900

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the effect of synchronous online and face-to-face cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training on chest compressions quality in a manikin model. METHODS: A total of 118 fourth-year medical students participated in this study. The participants were divided into two groups: the online synchronous teaching group and the face-to-face group. Then, the participants were further randomly distributed to 1 of 2 feedback groups: online synchronous teaching and training with feedback devices (TF, n = 30) or without feedback devices (TN, n = 29) and face-to-face teaching and training with feedback devices (FF, n = 30) or without feedback devices (FN, n = 29). In the FN group and FF group, instructors delivered a 45-min CPR training program and gave feedback and guidance during training on site. In the TN group and TF group, the participants were trained with an online lecture via Tencent Meeting live broadcasting. Finally, participants performed a 2-min continuous chest compression (CC) during a simulated cardiopulmonary arrest scene without the audiovisual feedback (AVF) device. The outcome measures included CC depth, CC rate, proportions of appropriate depth (50-60 mm) and CC rate (100-120/min), percentage of correct hand location position, and percentage of complete chest recoil. RESULTS: There was little difference in the CC quality between the synchronous online training groups and the face-to-face training groups. There was no statistically significant difference in CC quality between the TN group and FN group. There were also no statistically significant differences between the TF and FF groups in terms of correct hand position, CC depth, appropriate CC depth, complete chest recoil or CC rate. However, the FF group had a higher appropriate CC rate than the TF group (p = 0.045). In the face-to-face training groups, the AVF device group had a significantly greater CC depth, appropriate CC depth, CC rate, and appropriate CC rate. However, there was a lack of statistically significant differences in terms of correct hand position (p = 0.191) and appropriate CC depth (p = 0.123). In the synchronous online training groups, the AVF device had little effect on the CC rate (p = 0.851) and increased the appropriate CC rate, but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.178). CONCLUSIONS: Synchronous online training with an AVF device would be a potential alternative approach to face-to-face chest compression training. Synchronous online training with AVF devices seems to be a suitable replacement for face-to-face training to offer adequate bystander CPR chest compression training.


Subject(s)
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/education , Education, Distance , Education, Medical/organization & administration , Heart Arrest/therapy , Manikins , Simulation Training , China , Clinical Competence , Female , Humans , Male , Pilot Projects , Young Adult
8.
Am J Emerg Med ; 49: 172-177, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1260367

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Airborne personal protective equipment is required for healthcare workers when performing aerosol-generating procedures on patients with infectious diseases. Chest compressions, one of the main components of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, require intense and dynamic movements of the upper body. We aimed to investigate the protective effect of tight-fitting powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) during chest compressions. METHODS: This single-center simulation study was performed from February 2021 to March 2021. The simulated workplace protection factor (SWPF) is the concentration ratio of ambient particles and particles inside the PAPR mask; this value indicates the level of protection provided by a respirator when subjected to a simulated work environment. Participants performed continuous chest compressions three times for 2 min each time, with a 4-min break between each session. We measured the SWPF of the tight-fitting PAPR during chest compression in real-time mode. The primary outcome was the ratio of any failure of protection (SWPF <500) during the chest compression sessions. RESULTS: Fifty-four participants completed the simulation. Overall, 78% (n = 42) of the participants failed (the measured SWPF value was less than 500) at least one of the three sessions of chest compressions. The median value and interquartile range of the SWPF was 4304 (685-16,191). There were no reports of slipping down of the respirator or mechanical failure during chest compressions. CONCLUSIONS: Although the median SWPF value was high during chest compressions, the tight-fitting PAPR did not provide adequate protection.


Subject(s)
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/adverse effects , Protective Factors , Respiratory Protective Devices/standards , Adult , Air Filters/standards , Air Filters/statistics & numerical data , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Female , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/standards , Infection Control/statistics & numerical data , Male , Respiratory Protective Devices/statistics & numerical data , Surveys and Questionnaires
9.
Resuscitation ; 166: 101-109, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1271768

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is still low. For every minute without resuscitation the likelihood of survival decreases. One critical step is initiation of immediate, high quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The aim of this subgroup analysis of data collected for the European Registry of Cardiac Arrest Study number 2 (EuReCa TWO) was to investigate the association between OHCA survival and two types of bystander CPR namely: chest compression only CPR (CConly) and CPR with chest compressions and ventilations (FullCPR). METHOD: In this subgroup analysis of EuReCa TWO, all patients who received bystander CPR were included. Outcomes were return of spontaneous circulation and survival to 30-days or hospital discharge. A multilevel binary logistic regression analysis with survival as the dependent variable was performed. RESULTS: A total of 5884 patients were included in the analysis, varying between countries from 21 to 1444. Survival was 320 (8%) in the CConly group and 174 (13%) in the FullCPR group. After adjustment for age, sex, location, rhythm, cause, time to scene, witnessed collapse and country, patients who received FullCPR had a significantly higher survival rate when compared to those who received CConly (adjusted odds ration 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.17-1.83). CONCLUSION: In this analysis, FullCPR was associated with higher survival compared to CConly. Guidelines should continue to emphasise the importance of compressions and ventilations during resuscitation for patients who suffer OHCA and CPR courses should continue to teach both.


Subject(s)
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Emergency Medical Services , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , Humans , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Registries , Survival Rate , Ventilation
10.
Am J Emerg Med ; 39: 190-196, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-809403

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of personal protective equipment (PPE) on different aspects of chest compression (CC) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, we conducted this study. METHODS: This systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science from inception to June-6, 2020, limiting to the studies that reported the comparison of the effectiveness of CC in terms of CC rate, CC depth, the proportion of adequate CC rate, the proportion of adequate CC depth or proportion of adequate recoil; in study arms with or without PPE. Risk of bias was assessed by the ROB-2 and ROBINS-I tool. Quantitative data synthesis was done using the generic inverse variance method and the fixed-effects model. RESULTS: Five simulation-based studies were finally included. A Significant decrease in CC rate (SMD: -0.28, 95%CI: -0.47 to -0.10) and CC depth (SMD: -0.26, 95%CI: -0.44 to -0.07) were observed in the PPE arm as compared to the no-PPE arm. The difference in CC rate was more prominently seen in adult CPR than in paediatric CPR. Without PPE, the proportion of adequate CC rate delivered was 0.74, which reduced significantly to 0.60 after use of PPE (p - 0.035). Similarly, the proportion of adequate CC depth was significantly lesser (p - 0.001) in PPE arm (0.55), as compared to that of the no-PPE arm (0.78). CONCLUSION: The use of PPE compromises the quality of CC during CPR significantly, and newer ways to deliver chest compression has to be investigated. This study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020192031).


Subject(s)
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/instrumentation , Heart Arrest/therapy , Heart Massage/instrumentation , Personal Protective Equipment , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Humans , Treatment Outcome
11.
Resuscitation ; 159: 28-34, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-978421

ABSTRACT

AIM: It remains unclear whether cardiac arrest (CA) resuscitation generates aerosols that can transmit respiratory pathogens. We hypothesize that chest compression and defibrillation generate aerosols that could contain the SARS-CoV-2 virus in a swine CA model. METHODS: To simulate witnessed CA with bystander-initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 3 female non-intubated swine underwent 4 min of ventricular fibrillation without chest compression or defibrillation (no-flow) followed by ten 2-min cycles of mechanical chest compression and defibrillation without ventilation. The diameter (0.3-10 µm) and quantity of aerosols generated during 45-s intervals of no-flow and chest compression before and after defibrillation were analyzed by a particle analyzer. Aerosols generated from the coughs of 4 healthy human subjects were also compared to aerosols generated by swine. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the total aerosols generated during chest compression before defibrillation compared to no-flow. In contrast, chest compression after defibrillation generated significantly more aerosols than chest compression before defibrillation or no-flow (72.4 ±â€¯41.6 × 104 vs 12.3 ±â€¯8.3 × 104 vs 10.5 ±â€¯11.2 × 104; p < 0.05), with a shift in particle size toward larger aerosols. Two consecutive human coughs generated 54.7 ±â€¯33.9 × 104 aerosols with a size distribution smaller than post-defibrillation chest compression. CONCLUSIONS: Chest compressions alone did not cause significant aerosol generation in this swine model. However, increased aerosol generation was detected during chest compression immediately following defibrillation. Additional research is needed to elucidate the clinical significance and mechanisms by which aerosol generation during chest compression is modified by defibrillation.


Subject(s)
Aerosols/analysis , COVID-19/transmission , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/adverse effects , Heart Massage/adverse effects , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Animals , Female , Humans , Pilot Projects , SARS-CoV-2 , Swine
12.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 17(15)2020 07 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-879786

ABSTRACT

To analyze the quality of resuscitation (CPR) performed by individuals without training after receiving a set of instructions (structured and unstructured/intuitive) from an expert in a simulated context, the specific objective was to design a simple and structured CPR learning method on-site. An experimental study was designed, consisting of two random groups with a post-intervention measurement in which the experimental group (EG) received standardized instructions, and the control group (CG) received intuitive or non-standardized instructions, in a public area simulated scenario. Statistically significant differences were found (p < 0.0001) between the EG and the CG for variables: time needed to give orders, pauses between chest compressions and ventilations, depth, overall score, chest compression score, and chest recoil. The average depth of the EG was 51.1 mm (SD 7.94) and 42.2 mm (SD 12.04) for the CG. The chest recoil median was 86.32% (IQR 62.36, 98.87) for the EG, and 58.3% (IQR 27.46, 84.33) in the CG. The use of a sequence of simple, short and specific orders, together with observation-based learning makes possible the execution of chest compression maneuvers that are very similar to those performed by rescuers, and allows the teaching of the basic notions of ventilation. The structured order method was shown to be an on-site learning opportunity when faced with the need to maintain high-quality CPR in the presence of an expert resuscitator until the arrival of emergency services.


Subject(s)
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Emergency Medical Services , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/education , Female , Heart Arrest/therapy , Humans , Male , Pressure , Respiration
13.
Anaesthesist ; 70(3): 247-249, 2021 Mar.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-793180

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Due to SARS-CoV­2 respiratory failure, prone positioning of patients with respiratory and hemodynamic instability has become a frequent intervention in intensive care units (ICUs), and even in patients undergoing transfer in an ambulance or helicopter. It has become increasingly important how to perform safe and effective CPR in prone position, achieving both an optimal outcome for the patient and optimal protection of staff from infection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted feasibility tests to assess the effects of CPR with an automatic load-distributing band (AutoPulse™) in prone position and discussed different aspects of mechanical chest compression (mCPR) in prone position. RESULTS: In supine position, AutoPulse™ generated a constant pressure depth of 3cm at a frequency of 84/min. In prone position, AutoPulse™ generated a constant pressure depth of 2.6cm at a frequency of 84/min. CONCLUSION: We found mCPR to be feasible in manikins in both prone and supine positions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Humans , Manikins , Prone Position , SARS-CoV-2
14.
Indian J Anaesth ; 64(Suppl 2): S91-S96, 2020 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-590347

ABSTRACT

Management of the recent outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2(SARS-CoV-2) remains challenging. The challenges are not only limited to its preventive strategies, but also extend to curative treatment, and are amplified during the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Older persons with comorbidities like diabetes mellitus, cardiac diseases, hepatic impairment, renal disorders and respiratory pathologies or immune impairing conditions are more vulnerable and have a higher mortality from COVID-19. Earlier, the Indian Resuscitation Council (IRC) had proposed the Comprehensive Cardiopulmonary Life Support (CCLS) for management of cardiac arrest victims in the hospital setting. However, in patients with COVID-19, the guidelines need to be modified,due to various concerns like differing etiology of cardiac arrest, virulence of the virus, risk of its transmission to rescuers, and the need to avoid or minimize aerosolization from the patient due to various interventions. There is limited evidence in these patients, as the SARS-CoV-2 is a novel infection and not much literature is available with high-level evidence related to CPR in patients of COVID-19. These suggested guidelines are a continuum of CCLS guidelines by IRC with an emphasis on the various challenges and concerns being faced during the resuscitative management of COVID-19 patients with cardiopulmonary arrest.

15.
Am J Emerg Med ; 44: 434-438, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-401492

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: N95 mask is essential for healthcare workers dealing with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, N95 mask causes discomfort breathing with marked reduction in air exchange. This study was designed to investigate whether the use of N95 mask affects rescuer's fatigue and chest compression quality during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). METHODS: After a brief review of CPR, each participant performed a 2-minute continuous chest compression on a manikin wearing N95 (N95 group, n = 40) or surgical mask (SM group, n = 40). Compression rate and depth, the proportions of correct compression rate, depth, complete chest recoil and hand position were documented. Participants' fatigue was assessed using Borg score. RESULTS: Significantly lower mean chest compression rate and depth were both achieved in the N95 group than in the SM group (p < 0.05, respectively). In addition, the proportion of correct compression rate (61 ± 19 vs. 75 ± 195, p = 0.0067), depth (67 ± 16 vs. 90 ± 14, p < 0.0001) and complete recoil (91 ± 16 vs. 98 ± 5%, p = 0.0248) were significantly decreased in the N95 group as compared to the SM group. At the end of compression, the Borg score in the N95 group was significantly higher than that in the SM group (p = 0.027). CONCLUSION: Wearing a N95 mask increases rescuer's fatigue and decreases chest compression quality during CPR. Therefore, the exchange of rescuers during CPR should be more frequent than that recommended in current guidelines when N95 masks are applied.


Subject(s)
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/standards , Fatigue/etiology , N95 Respirators/adverse effects , Pressure , Adult , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , China , Female , Humans , Male , Manikins , Posture , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Professional Competence , Young Adult
16.
Resuscitation ; 151: 59-66, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-88675

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There may be a risk of COVID-19 transmission to rescuers delivering treatment for cardiac arrest. The aim of this review was to identify the potential risk of transmission associated with key interventions (chest compressions, defibrillation, cardiopulmonary resuscitation) to inform international treatment recommendations. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review comprising three questions: (1) aerosol generation associated with key interventions; (2) risk of airborne infection transmission associated with key interventions; and (3) the effect of different personal protective equipment strategies. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the World Health Organization COVID-19 database on 24th March 2020. Eligibility criteria were developed individually for each question. We assessed risk of bias for individual studies, and used the GRADE process to assess evidence certainty by outcome. RESULTS: We included eleven studies: two cohort studies, one case control study, five case reports, and three manikin randomised controlled trials. We did not find any direct evidence that chest compressions or defibrillation either are or are not associated with aerosol generation or transmission of infection. Data from manikin studies indicates that donning of personal protective equipment delays treatment delivery. Studies provided only indirect evidence, with no study describing patients with COVID-19. Evidence certainty was low or very low for all outcomes. CONCLUSION: It is uncertain whether chest compressions or defibrillation cause aerosol generation or transmission of COVID-19 to rescuers. There is very limited evidence and a rapid need for further studies. Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020175594.


Subject(s)
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/instrumentation , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Heart Arrest/therapy , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Occupational Health , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Aerosols/adverse effects , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Communicable Disease Control/organization & administration , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Emergency Medical Services/organization & administration , Female , Heart Arrest/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2 , World Health Organization
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL