Comparison of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests during the COVID-19 pandemic with those before the pandemic: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, directly and indirectly, affected the emergency medical care system and resulted in worse out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) outcomes and epidemiological features compared with those before the pandemic. This review compares the regional and temporal features of OHCA prognosis and epidemiological characteristics. Various databases were searched to compare the OHCA outcomes and epidemiological characteristics during the COVID-19 pandemic with before the pandemic. During the COVID-19 pandemic, survival and favorable neurological outcome rates were significantly lower than before. Survival to hospitalization, return of spontaneous circulation, endotracheal intubation, and use of an automated external defibrillator (AED) decreased significantly, whereas the use of a supraglottic airway device, the incidence of cardiac arrest at home, and response time of emergency medical service (EMS) increased significantly. Bystander CPR, unwitnessed cardiac arrest, EMS transfer time, use of mechanical CPR, and in-hospital target temperature management did not differ significantly. A subgroup analysis of the studies that included only the first wave with those that included the subsequent waves revealed the overall outcomes in which the epidemiological features of OHCA exhibited similar patterns. No significant regional differences between the OHCA survival rates in Asia before and during the pandemic were observed, although other variables varied by region. The COVID-19 pandemic altered the epidemiologic characteristics, survival rates, and neurological prognosis of OHCA patients. Review registration: PROSPERO (CRD42022339435).

Airway management during cardiac arrest.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite improvements over time, cardiac arrest continues to be associated with high rates of mortality and morbidity. Several methods can be used to achieve airway patency during cardiac arrest, and the optimal strategy continues to be debated. This review will explore and summarize the latest published evidence for airway management during cardiac arrest. RECENT FINDINGS: A large meta-analysis of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients found no difference in survival between those receiving tracheal intubation and those treated with a supraglottic airway (SGA). Observational studies of registry data have reported higher survival to hospital discharge in patients receiving tracheal intubation or an SGA but another showed no difference. Rates of intubation during in-hospital cardiac arrest have decreased in the United States, and different airway strategies appear to be used in different centres. SUMMARY: Observational studies continue to dominate the evidence base relating to cardiac arrest airway management. Cardiac arrest registries enable these observational studies to include many patients; however, the design of such studies introduces considerable bias. Further randomized clinical trials are underway. The current evidence does not indicate a substantial improvement in outcome from any single airway strategy.

[Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on basic resuscitation and success rate after sudden cardiac arrest]. / A COVID­19-pandémia hatása a hirtelen szívmegállást követo alapszintu újraélesztésre és annak sikerességére.

Since the onset of the coronavirus disease, infection-related mortality has been tracked worldwide and the number of deaths caused by the virus is counted daily. The coronavirus pandemic has not only transformed our daily life, but reorganized the whole healthcare system. In response to the increased demand for hospital admissions, leaders in different countries have implemented a number of emergency actions. The restructuring has had both direct and indirect negative effects on the epidemiology of sudden cardiac death, the willingness of lay rescuer to give cardiopulmonary resuscitation and the use of automated external defibrillators, but these negative effects vary widely across continents and countries. In order to protect lay people and health workers as well as to prevent the spread of the pandemic, the previous recommendations of the European Resuscitation Council on basic and advanced life support have undergone a few modifications. Orv Hetil. 2023; 164(13): 483-487.

An Intensivist-Led Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Program: Design, Implementation, and Outcomes of the First Five Years.

We describe the development, implementation, and outcomes of an intensivist-led adult extracorporeal life support (ECLS) program using intensivists both to perform venovenous (V-V), venoarterial (V-A), and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) cannulations, and to manage patients on ECLS throughout their ICU course. All adults supported with ECLS at the University of New Mexico Hospital (UNMH) from February 1, 2017 to December 31, 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 203 ECLS cannulations were performed in 198 patients, including 116 V-A cannulations (including 65 during ECPR) and 87 V-V cannulations (including 38 in patients with COVID-19). UNMH intensivists performed 195 cannulations, with 9 cannulation complications. Cardiothoracic surgeons performed 8 cannulations. Overall survival to hospital discharge or transfer was 46.5%. Survival was 32.3% in the ECPR group and 56% in the non-ECPR V-A group. In the V-V cohort, survival was 66.7% in the COVID-19-negative patients and 34.2% in the COVID-19-positive patients. This large series of intensivist-performed ECLS cannulations-including V-A, V-V, and ECPR modalities-demonstrates the successful implementation of a comprehensive intensivist-led ECLS program. With outcomes comparable to those in the literature, our program serves as a model for the initiation and development of ECLS programs in settings with limited access to local subspecialty cardiothoracic surgical services.

Impact of COVID-19-adapted guidelines using different airway management strategies on resuscitation quality in out-of-hospital-cardiac-arrest - a randomised manikin study.

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.

[Out-of-hospital adult basic life support: new guidelines and the involvement of bystanders]. / A kórházon kívüli felnott alapszintu újraélesztés új irányelvei és a laikusok bevonásának kérdései.

Survival rate for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest remains low across Europe. In the last decade, involving bystanders turned out to be one of the most important key factors in improving the outcome of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Beside recognizing cardiac arrest and initiate chest compressions, bystanders could be also involved in delivering early defibrillation. Although adult basic life support is a sequence of simple interventions that can be easily learnt even by schoolchildren, non-technical skills and emotional components can complicate real-life situations. This recognition combined with modern technology brings a new point of view in teaching and implementation. We review the latest practice guidelines and new advances in the education (including the importance of non-technical skills) of out-of-hospital adult basic life support, also considering the effects of COVID-19 pandemic. We briefly present the Szív City application developed to support the involvement of lay rescuers. Orv Hetil. 2023; 164(12): 443-448.

Efficacy of distance training program for cardiopulmonary resuscitation utilizing smartphone application and home delivery system.

AIM OF THE STUDY: Community cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) education is important for laypersons. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, with social distancing, conventional face-to-face CPR training was unavailable. We developed a distance learning CPR training course (HEROS-Remote) using a smartphone application that monitors real-time chest compression quality and a home delivery collection system for mannikins. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the HEROS-Remote course by comparing chest compression quality with that of conventional CPR training. METHODS: We applied layperson CPR education with HEROS-Remote and conventional education in Seoul during the COVID-19 pandemic. Both groups underwent a 2-min post-training chest compression test, and we tested non-inferiority. Chest compression depth, rate, complete recoil, and composite chest compression score was measured. Trainees completed a satisfaction survey on CPR education and delivery. The primary outcome was the mean chest compression depth. RESULTS: A total of 180 trainees were enrolled, with 90 assigned to each training group. Chest compression depth of HEROS-Remote training showed non-inferiority to that of conventional training (67.4 vs. 67.8, p = 0.78), as well as composite chest compression score (92.7 vs. 95.5, p = 0.16). The proportions of adequate chest compression depth, chest compression rate, and chest compressions with complete chest recoil were similar in both training sessions. In the HEROS-Remote training, 90% of the trainees were satisfied with CPR training, and 96% were satisfied with the delivery and found it convenient. CONCLUSION: HEROS-Remote training was non-inferior to conventional CPR training in terms of chest compression quality. Distance learning CPR training using a smartphone application and mannikin delivery had high user satisfaction and was logistically feasible.

An unbroken ring of the chain of survival.

This is a commentary on the study conducted by Kennedy et al. from Victoria, Australia, that analyzed the cohort of all adult EMS-witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients in the region and compared patients treated during the COVID-19 period to a historical comparator period. The commentary summarizes the study findings and discusses the importance of the study in the context of the chain of survival and changes in airway management for OHCA patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In-hospital cardiac arrest.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To describe our knowledge about in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) including recent developments. RECENT FINDINGS: Improving trends in IHCA outcomes appear to have stalled or reversed since the COVID-19 pandemic. There are disparities in care based on patient sex, ethnicity and socioeconomic status that need to be tackled. The increased use of emergency treatment plans that include do-not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation recommendations will help to decrease the number of resuscitation attempts. System approaches and strong local leadership through resuscitation champions can improve patient outcomes. SUMMARY: In-hospital cardiac arrest is a global health problem with a 25% survival in high-income settings. There remain significant opportunities to both decrease the incidence of, and outcomes from IHCA.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence and survival outcomes of EMS-witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

AIM: We sought to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence and survival outcomes of emergency medical service (EMS)-witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in Victoria, Australia. METHODS: We performed an interrupted time-series analysis of adult EMS-witnessed OHCA patients of medical aetiology. Patients treated during the COVID-19 period (1st March 2020 to 31st December 2021) were compared to a historical comparator period (1st January 2012 and 28th February 2020). Multivariable poisson and logistic regression models were used to examine changes in incidence and survival outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic, respectively. RESULTS: We included 5,034 patients, 3,976 (79.0%) in the comparator period and 1,058 (21.0%) in the COVID-19 period. Patients in the COVID-19 period had longer EMS response times, fewer public location arrests and were significantly more likely to receive mechanical CPR and laryngeal mask airways compared to the historical period (all p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the incidence of EMS-witnessed OHCA between the comparator and COVID-19 periods (incidence rate ratio 1.06, 95% CI: 0.97-1.17, p = 0.19). Also, there was no difference in the risk-adjusted odds of survival to hospital discharge for EMS-witnessed OHCA occurring during COVID-19 period compared to the comparator period (adjusted odd ratio 1.02, 95% CI: 0.74-1.42; p = 0.90). CONCLUSION: Unlike the reported findings in non-EMS-witnessed OHCA populations, changes during the COVID-19 pandemic did not influence incidence or survival outcomes in EMS-witnessed OHCA. This may suggest that changes in clinical practice that sought to limit the use of aerosol generating procedures did not influence outcomes in these patients.

Sudden cardiac arrest during the COVID-19 pandemic: A two-year prospective evaluation in a North American community.

BACKGROUND: Early during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, higher sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) incidence and lower survival rates were reported. However, ongoing effects on SCA during the evolving pandemic have not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of COVID-19 on SCA during 2 years of the pandemic. METHODS: In a prospective study of Ventura County, California (2020 population 843,843; 44.1% Hispanic), we compared SCA incidence and outcomes during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic to the prior 4 years. RESULTS: Of 2222 out-of-hospital SCA cases identified, 907 occurred during the pandemic (March 2020 to February 2022) and 1315 occurred prepandemic (March 2016 to February 2020). Overall age-standardized annual SCA incidence increased from 39 per 100,000 (95% confidence [CI] 37-41) prepandemic to 54 per 100,000 (95% CI 50-57; P <.001) during the pandemic. Among Hispanics, incidence increased by 77%, from 38 per 100,000 (95% CI 34-43) to 68 per 100,000 (95% CI 60-76; P <.001). Among non-Hispanics, incidence increased by 26%, from 39 per 100,000 (95% CI 37-42; P <.001) to 50 per 100,000 (95% CI 46-54). SCA incidence rates closely tracked COVID-19 infection rates. During the pandemic, SCA survival was significantly reduced (15% to 10%; P <.001), and Hispanics were less likely than non-Hispanics to receive bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (45% vs 55%; P = .005) and to present with shockable rhythm (15% vs 24%; P = .003). CONCLUSION: Overall SCA rates remained consistently higher and survival outcomes consistently lower, with exaggerated effects during COVID infection peaks. This longer evaluation uncovered higher increases in SCA incidence among Hispanics, with worse resuscitation profiles. Potential ethnicity-specific barriers to acute SCA care warrant urgent evaluation and intervention.

The Effectiveness of Online-Only Blended Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Training: Static-Group Comparison Study.

BACKGROUND: Basic life support (BLS) education is essential for improving bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) rates, but the imparting of such education faces obstacles during the outbreak of emerging infectious diseases, such as COVID-19. When face-to-face teaching is limited, distance learning-blended learning (BL) or an online-only model-is encouraged. However, evidence regarding the effect of online-only CPR training is scarce, and comparative studies on classroom-based BL (CBL) are lacking. While other strategies have recommended self-directed learning and deliberate practice to enhance CPR education, no previous studies have incorporated all of these instructional methods into a BLS course. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to demonstrate a novel BLS training model-remote practice BL (RBL)-and compare its educational outcomes with those of the conventional CBL model. METHODS: A static-group comparison study was conducted. It included RBL and CBL courses that shared the same paradigm, comprising online lectures, a deliberate practice session with Little Anne quality CPR (QCPR) manikin feedback, and a final assessment session. In the main intervention, the RBL group was required to perform distant self-directed deliberate practice and complete the final assessment via an online video conference. Manikin-rated CPR scores were measured as the primary outcome; the number of retakes of the final examination was the secondary outcome. RESULTS: A total of 52 and 104 participants from the RBL and CBL groups, respectively, were eligible for data analysis. A comparison of the 2 groups revealed that there were more women in the RBL group than the CBL group (36/52, 69.2% vs 51/104, 49%, respectively; P=.02). After adjustment, there were no significant differences in scores for QCPR release (96.9 vs 96.4, respectively; P=.61), QCPR depth (99.2 vs 99.5, respectively; P=.27), or QCPR rate (94.9 vs 95.5, respectively; P=.83). The RBL group spent more days practicing before the final assessment (12.4 vs 8.9 days, respectively; P<.001) and also had a higher number of retakes (1.4 vs 1.1 times, respectively; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: We developed a remote practice BL-based method for online-only distant BLS CPR training. In terms of CPR performance, using remote self-directed deliberate practice was not inferior to the conventional classroom-based instructor-led method, although it tended to take more time to achieve the same effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Obstacles to patient inclusion in CPR/DNAR decisions and challenging conversations: A qualitative study with internal medicine physicians in Southern Switzerland.

Despite cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and do-not-attempt-resuscitation (DNAR) decisions are increasingly considered an essential component of hospital practice and patient inclusion in these conversations an ethical imperative in most cases, there is evidence that such discussions between physicians and patients/surrogate decision-makers (the person or people providing direction in decision making if a person is unable to make decisions about personal health care, e.g., family members or friends) are often inadequate, excessively delayed, or absent. We conducted a study to qualitatively explore physician-reported CPR/DNAR decision-making approaches and CPR/DNAR conversations with patients hospitalized in the internal medicine wards of the four main hospitals in Ticino, Southern Switzerland. We conducted four focus groups with 19 resident and staff physicians employed in the internal medicine unit of the four public hospitals in Ticino. Questions aimed to elicit participants' specific experiences in deciding on and discussing CPR/DNAR with patients and their families, the stakeholders (ideally) involved in the discussion, and their responsibilities. We found that participants experienced two main tensions. On the one side, CPR/DNAR decisions were dominated by the belief that patient involvement is often pointless, even though participants favored a shared decision-making approach. On the other, despite aiming at a non-manipulative conversation, participants were aware that most CPR/DNAR conversations are characterized by a nudging communicative approach where the physician gently pushes patients towards his/her recommendation. Participants identified structural cause to the previous two tensions that go beyond the patient-physician relationship. CPR/DNAR decisions are examples of best interests assessments at the end of life. Such assessments represent value judgments that cannot be validly ascertained without patient input. CPR/DNAR conversations should be regarded as complex interventions that need to be thoroughly and regularly taught, in a manner similar to technical interventions.