Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 137
Filter
1.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(15)2022 Jul 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1957327

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA), which causes more than half of all cardiovascular related deaths, can be regarded as a common massive global public health problem. Analyzing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) cases, one of the key components is automatic external defibrillators (AEDs). AIM: The aim of this study was to analyze the use and distribution of AEDs in Polish public places. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data were analyzed by using the Excel and R calculation programs. RESULTS: The data represents 120 uses of automatic external defibrillators used in Polish public space in the period 2008-2018. The analysis describes 1165 locations of AEDs in Poland. It was noted that the number of uses in the period 2010-2016 fluctuated at a constant value, with a significant rise in 2017. When analyzing the time of interventions in detail the following was noted: the highest percentage of interventions was observed in April, and the lowest in November; the highest number of interventions was observed on a Friday, while the least number of interventions was observed on a Sunday; most occurred between 12:00 to 16:00, and least between 20:00 to 8:00. CONCLUSIONS: The observed growth in the number of cases of AED use in public places is associated with the approach to training, the emphasis on public access to defibrillation, and, therefore, the growth of social awareness. This study will be continued. The next analysis would include 2020-2022 and would be a comparative analysis with the current research.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergency Medical Services , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , COVID-19/epidemiology , Defibrillators , Humans , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/epidemiology , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Pandemics , Poland/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Cardiol Clin ; 40(3): 355-364, 2022 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1944433

ABSTRACT

The incidence of both out-of-hospital and in-hospital cardiac arrest increased during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Patient survival and neurologic outcome after both out-of-hospital and in-hospital cardiac arrest were reduced. Direct effects of the COVID-19 illness combined with indirect effects of the pandemic on patient's behavior and health care systems contributed to these changes. Understanding the potential factors offers the opportunity to improve future response and save lives.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Emergency Medical Services , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/epidemiology , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/etiology , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Pandemics
5.
Curr Opin Crit Care ; 28(3): 237-243, 2022 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1948568

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the cardiovascular system has been highlighted since the very first weeks after the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 identification. We reviewed the influence of COVID-19 pandemic on cardiac arrest, both considering those occurred out of the hospital (OHCA) and in the hospital (IHCA). RECENT FINDINGS: An increase in OHCA incidence occurred in different countries, especially in those regions most burdened by the COVID-19, as this seems to be bounded to the pandemic trend. A change of OHCA patients' characteristics, with an increase of the OHCA occurred at home, a decrease in bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillator use before Emergency Medical Service (EMS) arrival and an increase in non-shockable rhythms, have been highlighted. A dramatic drop in the OHCA patients' survival was pointed out in almost all the countries, regardless of the high or low-incidence of COVID-19 cases. Concerning IHCA, a reduction in survival was highlighted in patients with COVID-19 who sustained a cardiac arrest. SUMMARY: Cardiac arrest occurrence and survival were deeply affected by the pandemic. Informative campaigns to the population to call EMS in case of need and the re-allocation of the prehospital resources basing on the pandemic trend are needed to improve survival.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Emergency Medical Services , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/epidemiology , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Pandemics
6.
Minerva Anestesiol ; 88(7-8): 594-603, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1934883

ABSTRACT

During the COVID-19 pandemic, prehospital and hospital services were put under great stress because of limited resources and increased workloads. One expected effect was the increased number of out-of-hospital (OHCA) and in-hospital (IHCA) cardiac arrests that occurred during 2020 compared to previous years. Both direct and indirect mechanisms were involved. In the former case, although the exact mechanisms by which SARS-CoV-2 causes cardiac arrest (CA) are still unknown, severe hypoxia, a dysregulated immune host response and sepsis are probably implicated and are often seen in COVID-19 patients with poor outcomes. In the latter case, the strain on hospitals, changes in treatment protocols, governments' actions to limit the spread of the disease and fear of the contagion naturally affected treatment efficacy and disrupted the CA chain of survival; as expected in OHCA, only a small proportion of patients were positive to COVID-19, and yet reported outcomes were worse during the pandemic. CA patient characteristics were reported, along with modifications in patient management. In this review, we summarize the evidence to date regarding OHCA and IHCA epidemiology and management during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Emergency Medical Services , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Demography , Emergency Medical Services/methods , Hospitals , Humans , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/epidemiology , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
7.
BMC Emerg Med ; 22(1): 85, 2022 05 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1933079

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The city of Freiburg has been among the most affected regions by the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. In out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) care, all parts of the rescue system were exposed to profound infrastructural changes. We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of these changes in the resuscitation landscape in the Freiburg region. METHODS: Utstein-style quantitative data on OHCA with CPR initiated, occurring in the first pandemic wave between February 27th, 2020 and April 30th, 2020 were compared to the same time periods between 2016 and 2019. Additionally, qualitative changes in the entire rescue system were analyzed and described. RESULTS: Incidence of OHCA with attempted CPR did not significantly increase during the pandemic period (11.1/100.000 inhabitants/63 days vs 10.4/100.000 inhabitants/63 days, p = 1.000). In witnessed cases, bystander-CPR decreased significantly from 57.7% (30/52) to 25% (4/16) (p = 0.043). A severe pre-existing condition (PEC) was documented more often, 66.7% (16/24) vs 38.2% (39/102) there were longer emergency medical services (EMS) response times, more resuscitation attempts terminated on scene, 62.5% (15/24) vs. 34.3% (35/102) and less patients transported to hospital (p = 0.019). Public basic life support courses, an app-based first-responder alarm system, Kids Save Lives activities and a prehospital extracorporeal CPR (eCPR) service were paused during the peak of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: In our region, bystander CPR in witnessed OHCA cases as well as the number of patients transported to hospital significantly decreased during the first pandemic wave. Several important parts of the resuscitation landscape were paused. The COVID-19 pandemic impedes OHCA care, which leads to additional casualties. Countermeasures should be taken.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Emergency Medical Services , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , COVID-19/epidemiology , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Observational Studies as Topic , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/epidemiology , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Pandemics , Registries
10.
Am J Emerg Med ; 57: 114-123, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1803389

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in millions of cases worldwide. As the pandemic has progressed, the understanding of this disease has evolved. Its impact on the health and welfare of the human population is significant; its impact on the delivery of healthcare is also considerable. OBJECTIVE: This article is another paper in a series addressing COVID-19-related updates to emergency clinicians on the management of COVID-19 patients with cardiac arrest. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. From a global perspective, as of February 23, 2022, 435 million infections have been noted with 5.9 million deaths (1.4%). Current data suggest an increase in the occurrence of cardiac arrest, both in the outpatient and inpatient settings, with corresponding reductions in most survival metrics. The frequency of out-of-hospital lay provider initial care has decreased while non-shockable initial cardiac arrest rhythms have increased. While many interventions, including chest compressions, are aerosol-generating procedures, the risk of contagion to healthcare personnel is low, assuming appropriate personal protective equipment is used; vaccination with boosting provides further protection against contagion for the healthcare personnel involved in cardiac arrest resuscitation. The burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on the delivery of cardiac arrest care is considerable and, despite multiple efforts, has adversely impacted the chain of survival. CONCLUSION: This review provides a focused update of cardiac arrest in the setting of COVID-19 for emergency clinicians.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Emergency Medical Services , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Emergency Medical Services/methods , Hospitals , Humans , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/epidemiology , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Pandemics
11.
Intensive Care Med ; 48(1): 1-15, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1800370

ABSTRACT

Rates of survival with functional recovery for both in-hospital and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are notably low. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is emerging as a modality to improve prognosis by augmenting perfusion to vital end-organs by utilizing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) during conventional CPR and stabilizing the patient for interventions aimed at reversing the aetiology of the arrest. Implementing this emergent procedure requires a substantial investment in resources, and even the most successful ECPR programs may nonetheless burden healthcare systems, clinicians, patients, and their families with unsalvageable patients supported by extracorporeal devices. Non-randomized and observational studies have repeatedly shown an association between ECPR and improved survival, versus conventional CPR, for in-hospital cardiac arrest in select patient populations. Recently, randomized controlled trials suggest benefit for ECPR over standard resuscitation, as well as the feasibility of performing such trials, in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest within highly coordinated healthcare delivery systems. Application of these data to clinical practice should be done cautiously, with outcomes likely to vary by the setting and system within which ECPR is initiated. ECPR introduces important ethical challenges, including whether it should be considered an extension of CPR, at what point it becomes sustained organ replacement therapy, and how to approach patients unable to recover or be bridged to heart replacement therapy. The economic impact of ECPR varies by health system, and has the potential to outstrip resources if used indiscriminately. Ideally, studies should include economic evaluations to inform health care systems about the cost-benefits of this therapy.


Subject(s)
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , Adult , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Humans , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy
12.
Am J Emerg Med ; 57: 1-5, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1783128

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Emerging research demonstrates lower rates of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (BCPR), public AED (PAD), worse outcomes, and higher incidence of OHCA during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aim to characterize the incidence of OHCA during the early pandemic period and the subsequent long-term period while describing changes in OHCA outcomes and survival. METHODS: We analyzed adult OHCAs in Texas from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES) during March 11-December 31 of 2019 and 2020. We stratified cases into pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods. Our prehospital outcomes were bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (BCPR), public AED use (PAD), sustained ROSC, and prehospital termination of resuscitation (TOR). Our hospital survival outcomes were survival to hospital admission, survival to hospital discharge, good neurological outcomes (CPC Score of 1 or 2) and Utstein bystander survival. We created a mixed effects logistic regression model analyzing the association between the pandemic on outcomes, using EMS agency as the random intercept. RESULTS: There were 3619 OHCAs (45.0% of overall study population) in 2019 compared to 4418 (55.0% of overall study population) in 2020. Rates of BCPR (46.2% in 2019 to 42.2% in 2020, P < 0.01) and PAD (13.0% to 7.3%, p < 0.01) decreased. Patient survival to hospital admission decreased from 27.2% in 2019 to 21.0% in 2020 (p < 0.01) and survival to hospital discharge decreased from 10.0% in 2019 to 7.4% in 2020 (p < 0.01). OHCA patients were less likely to receive PAD (aOR = 0.5, 95% CI [0.4, 0.8]) and the odds of field termination increased (aOR = 1.5, 95% CI [1.4, 1.7]). CONCLUSIONS: Our study adds state-wide evidence to the national phenomenon of long-term increased OHCA incidence during COVID-19, worsening rates of BCPR, PAD use and survival outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Emergency Medical Services , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Incidence , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/epidemiology , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Pandemics , Registries , Texas/epidemiology
13.
Resuscitation ; 172: 74-83, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1740147

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The Australasian Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (Aus-ROC) out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) Epistry (Epidemiological Registry) now covers 100% of Australia and New Zealand (NZ). This study reports and compares the Utstein demographics, arrest characteristics and outcomes of OHCA patients across our region. METHODS: We included all OHCA cases throughout 2019 as submitted to the Epistry by the eight Australian and two NZ emergency medical services (EMS). We calculated crude and age-standardised incidence rates and performed a national and EMS regional comparison. RESULTS: We obtained data for 31,778 OHCA cases for 2019: 26,637 in Australia and 5,141 in NZ. Crude incidence was 107.9 per 100,000 person-years in Australia and 103.2/100,000 in NZ. Overall, the majority of OHCAs occurred in adults (96%), males (66%), private residences (76%), were unwitnessed (63%), of presumed medical aetiology (83%), and had an initial monitored rhythm of asystole (64%). In non-EMS-witnessed cases, 38% received bystander CPR and 2% received public defibrillation. Wide variation was seen between EMS regions for all OHCA demographics, arrest characteristics and outcomes. In patients who received an EMS-attempted resuscitation (13,664/31,778): 28% (range across EMS = 13.1% to 36.7%) had return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) at hospital arrival and 13% (range across EMS = 9.9% to 20.7%) survived to hospital discharge/30-days. Survival in the Utstein comparator group (bystander-witnessed in shockable rhythm) varied across the EMS regions between 27.4% to 42.0%. CONCLUSION: OHCA across Australia and NZ has varied incidence, characteristics and survival. Understanding the variation in survival and modifiable predictors is key to informing strategies to improve outcomes.


Subject(s)
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Emergency Medical Services , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , Adult , Australia/epidemiology , Humans , Male , New Zealand/epidemiology , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/epidemiology , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Registries
14.
J Am Heart Assoc ; 11(6): e024140, 2022 03 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1731380

ABSTRACT

Background Little is known about how COVID-19 influenced engagement of citizen responders dispatched to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) by a smartphone application. The objective was to describe and analyze the Danish Citizen Responder Program and bystander interventions (both citizen responders and nondispatched bystanders) during the first COVID-19 lockdown in 2020. Methods and Results All OHCAs from January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2020, with citizen responder activation in 2 regions of Denmark were included. We compared citizen responder engagement for OHCA in the nonlockdown period (January 1, 2020, to March 10, 2020, and April 21, 2020, to June 30, 2020) with the lockdown period (March 11, 2020, to April 20, 2020). Data are displayed in the order lockdown versus nonlockdown period. Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation rates did not differ in the 2 periods (99% versus 92%; P=0.07). Bystander defibrillation (9% versus 14%; P=0.4) or return-of-spontaneous circulation (23% versus 23%; P=1.0) also did not differ. A similar amount of citizen responders accepted alarms during the lockdown (6 per alarm; interquartile range, 6) compared with the nonlockdown period (5 per alarm; interquartile range, 5) (P=0.05). More citizen responders reported performing chest-compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation during lockdown compared with nonlockdown (79% versus 59%; P=0.0029), whereas fewer performed standardized cardiopulmonary resuscitation, including ventilations (19% versus 38%; P=0.0061). Finally, during lockdown, more citizen responders reported being not psychologically affected by attending an OHCA compared with nonlockdown period (68% versus 56%; P<0.0001). Likewise, fewer reported being mildly affected during lockdown (26%) compared with nonlockdown (35%) (P=0.003). Conclusions The COVID-19 lockdown in Denmark was not associated with decreased bystander-initiated resuscitation in OHCAs attended by citizen responders.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Medical Services/statistics & numerical data , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Communicable Disease Control , Denmark/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/epidemiology , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Retrospective Studies
15.
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med ; 30(1): 10, 2022 Feb 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1690900

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Dispatching first responders (FR) to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in addition to the emergency medical service has shown to increase survival. The promising development of FR systems over the past years has been challenged by the outbreak of COVID-19. Whilst increased numbers and worse outcomes of cardiac arrests during the pandemic suggest a need for expansion of FR schemes, appropriate risk management is required to protect first responders and patients from contracting COVID-19. This study investigated how European FR schemes were affected by the pandemic and what measures were taken to protect patients and responders from COVID-19. METHODS: To identify FR schemes in Europe we conducted a literature search and a web search. The schemes were contacted and invited to answer an online questionnaire during the second wave of the pandemic (December 2020/ January 2021) in Europe. RESULTS: We have identified 135 FR schemes in 28 countries and included responses from 47 FR schemes in 16 countries. 25 schemes reported deactivation due to COVID-19 at some point, whilst 22 schemes continued to operate throughout the pandemic. 39 schemes communicated a pandemic-specific algorithm to their first responders. Before the COVID-19 outbreak 20 FR systems did not provide any personal protective equipment (PPE). After the outbreak 19 schemes still did not provide any PPE. The majority of schemes experienced falling numbers of accepted call outs and decreasing registrations of new volunteers. Six schemes reported of FR having contracted COVID-19 on a mission. CONCLUSIONS: European FR schemes were considerably affected by the pandemic and exhibited a range of responses to protect patients and responders. Overall, FR schemes saw a decrease in activity, which was in stark contrast to the high demand caused by the increased incidence and mortality of OHCA during the pandemic. Given the important role FR play in the chain of survival, a balanced approach upholding the safety of patients and responders should be sought to keep FR schemes operational.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Emergency Responders , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
16.
BMJ Open ; 12(2): e055640, 2022 Feb 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1673440

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: The effect of large-scale disasters on bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (BCPR) performance is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether and how large-scale earthquake and tsunami as well as subsequent nuclear pollution influenced BCPR performance for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) witnessed by family and friends/colleagues. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected, nationwide, population-based data for OHCA cases. PARTICIPANTS: From the nationwide OHCA registry recorded between 11 March 2010 and 1 March 2013, we extracted 74 684 family-witnessed and friend/colleague-witnessed OHCA cases without prehospital physician involvement. EXPOSURE: Earthquake and tsunamis that were followed by nuclear pollution and largely affected the social life of citizens for at least 24 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: Neurologically favourable outcome after 1 month, 1-month survival and BCPR. METHODS: We analysed the 4-week average trend of BCPR rates in the years affected and before and after the disaster. We used univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to investigate whether these disasters affected BCPR and OHCA results. RESULTS: Multivariable logistic regression for tsunami-affected prefectures revealed that the BCPR rate during the impact phase in 2011 was significantly lower than that in 2010/2012 (42.5% vs 48.2%; adjusted OR; 95% CI 0.82; 0.68 to 0.99). A lower level of bystander compliance with dispatcher-assisted CPR instructions (62.1% vs 69.5%, 0.72; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.92) in the presence of a preserved level of voluntary BCPR performance (23.6% vs 23.8%) was also observed. Both 1-month survival and neurologically favourable outcome rates during the impact phase in 2011 were significantly poorer than those in 2010/2012 (8.5% vs 10.7%, 0.72; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.99, 4.0% vs 5.2%, 0.62; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.98, respectively). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: A large-scale disaster with nuclear pollution influences BCPR performance and clinical outcomes of OHCA witnessed by family and friends/colleagues. Basic life-support training leading to voluntary-initiated BCPR might serve as preparedness for disaster and major accidents.


Subject(s)
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Disasters , Emergency Medical Services , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Friends , Humans , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Retrospective Studies
17.
PLoS One ; 17(2): e0263607, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1666781

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A reduction in overall acute coronary syndrome (ACS) cases, increases in the severity of ACS presentation, and increased rates of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) have been reported from multiple countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. The attributed factors include COVID-19 infection, fear of COVID-19 and resultant avoidance of health care facilities, and restrictions on mobility. Pakistan, a country with a high burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and challenges related to health care access, will be expected to demonstrate these same findings. Therefore, we compared ACS hospitalization, ACS severity, and patients who have already died (dead on arrival, or DOA) due to presumed OHCA at a tertiary cardiac hospital during pre-pandemic and intra-pandemic periods in Pakistan. METHODS: Standardized data elements were extracted from the charts of patients with ACS, and telephonic verbal autopsies (VA) using a validated tool were conducted for patients who were arrived DOA. As a comparison, cases during the same months prior to the COVID-19 were analyzed for respective waves. Events were counted, and proportions and frequencies are reported for each time period. RESULTS: A total of 4,480 ACS cases were reviewed; 1,216 cases during March-July 2019, 804 cases in the same months of 2020 (33.8% decrease); 1,304 cases in August 2019-January 2020 and 1,157 in the corresponding months of 2020 and 2021 (11.2% decrease). There was no observed change in the baseline characteristics of patients with ACS or their symptom-to-door time, and in-hospital mortality was unchanged across all time periods. There were 218 DOA cases in pre-pandemic months and 360 cases during the pandemic. The pre-pandemic rate of DOA was 12/1000 emergency patients (95% CI 10-13) compared to 22/1000 (95% CI 22-27) during the pandemic (30/1000in the 1st wave and 17/1000 during 2nd wave). On VA, CVD was found to be the major cause of death during both time periods. CONCLUSION: At a cardiac hospital in Pakistan, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a reduction in ACS hospitalization and an increased DOA rate.


Subject(s)
Acute Coronary Syndrome/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Death , Hospitalization , Hospitals, Urban , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/epidemiology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Tertiary Care Centers , Aged , COVID-19/virology , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Pakistan/epidemiology
18.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 800, 2022 01 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1635245

ABSTRACT

Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (BCPR), early defibrillation and timely treatment by emergency medical services (EMS) can double the chance of survival from out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest (OHCA). We investigated the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the pre-hospital chain of survival. We searched five bibliographical databases for articles that compared prehospital OHCA care processes during and before the COVID-19 pandemic. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted, and meta-regression with mixed-effect models and subgroup analyses were conducted where appropriate. The search yielded 966 articles; 20 articles were included in our analysis. OHCA at home was more common during the pandemic (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.11-1.71, p = 0.0069). BCPR did not differ during and before the COVID-19 pandemic (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80-1.11, p = 0.4631), although bystander defibrillation was significantly lower during the COVID-19 pandemic (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48-0.88, p = 0.0107). EMS call-to-arrival time was significantly higher during the COVID-19 pandemic (SMD 0.27, 95% CI 0.13-0.40, p = 0.0006). Resuscitation duration did not differ significantly between pandemic and pre-pandemic timeframes. The COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected prehospital processes for OHCA. These findings may inform future interventions, particularly to consider interventions to increase BCPR and improve the pre-hospital chain of survival.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/mortality , Emergency Medical Services/methods , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/epidemiology , Pandemics , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Hospitals , Humans , Male , Middle Aged
19.
Am J Emerg Med ; 52: 34-42, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1603379

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) are a leading cause of mortality in the United States. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically altered the landscape of response to OHCAs, particularly with regard to providing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). We aimed to describe, characterize, and address the attitudes and concerns of healthcare workers towards CPR of OHCA patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of healthcare workers and trainees in the United States and Saudi Arabia via an online survey available between October 2020, and May 2021. The primary outcome of interest was willingness to perform CPR for OHCA, with confidence to handle CPR for OHCA as our secondary outcome. RESULTS: A total of 501 healthcare professionals, including 436 (87%) with background in emergency medicine, participated in our survey. 331 (66%) reported being willing to perform CPR for OHCA, while 170 (34%) were not willing. 311 (94%) willing participants stated that their medical oath and moral responsibility were the main motivators for willingness, while a fear of contracting COVID-19 was the primary demotivating factor for 126 (74%) unwilling participants. Time series analysis with simple exponential smoothing showed an increase in willingness to perform CPR from 30% to 50%, as well as an increase in mean confidence level to perform CPR from 60% to 70%, between October 2020 and May 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected healthcare workers' attitudes towards performing CPR for OHCA. Confidence levels and willingness to perform CPR increased over time during the study period. Efforts should be directed towards the creation of standardized and evidence-based guidelines for CPR during COVID-19, as well as increasing knowledge regarding risks of infection and effective use of PPE during resuscitation.


Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Emergency Medical Services , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Pandemics , Adult , COVID-19/transmission , Cross-Sectional Studies , Fear , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Motivation , Personal Protective Equipment , SARS-CoV-2 , Saudi Arabia/epidemiology , United States/epidemiology
20.
Rev Cardiovasc Med ; 22(4): 1677-1683, 2021 12 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1593890

ABSTRACT

The Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become an unprecedented global public health crisis and a pandemic associated with vicarious psychosocial and economic stresses. Such stresses were reported to lead to behavioral and emotional disturbances in individuals not infected with the COVID-19 virus. It is largely unknown if these stresses can trigger acute cardiovascular events (CVE) in such individuals. Covid-19-neagtive adults presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), cerebrovascular accident (CVA), or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) during the COVID-19 pandemic in Jordan from March 15, 2020 through March 14, 2021 were enrolled in the study if they reported exposure to psychosocial or economic stresses related to the pandemic lockdown. Of 300 patients enrolled (mean age 58.7 ± 12.9 years), AMI was diagnosed in 269 (89.7%) patients, CVA in 15 (5.0%) patients, and OHCA in 16 (5.3%) patients. Triggering events were psychosocial in 243 (81.0%) patients and economic stressors in 157 (52.3%) patients. The psychosocial stresses included loneliness, hopelessness, fear of COVID-19 infection, anger, and stress-related to death of a significant person. The economic stressors included financial hardships, job loss or insecurity, volatile or loss of income. Exposure to more than one trigger was reported in 213 (71.0%) patients. In-hospital mortality of the patients admitted for AMI or CVA was 2.1%, and none of the OHCA survived the event. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be a source of significant psychosocial and economic hardships that can trigger life-threatening acute CVE among individuals not infected with the virus.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , Adult , Aged , Communicable Disease Control , Humans , Jordan , Middle Aged , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/diagnosis , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/epidemiology , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL