Cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation for cardiac arrest when patients are in the prone position: A systematic review.

AIM: To perform a systematic review of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and/or defibrillation in the prone position compared to turning the patient supine prior to starting CPR and/or defibrillation. METHODS: The search included PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, CINAHL Plus, and medRxiv on December 9, 2020. The population included adults and children in any setting with cardiac arrest while in the prone position. The outcomes included arterial blood pressure and end-tidal capnography during CPR, time to start CPR and defibrillation, return of spontaneous circulation, survival and survival with favorable neurologic outcome to discharge, 30 days or longer. ROBINS-I was performed to assess risk of bias for observational studies. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 29 case reports (32 individual cases), two prospective observational studies, and two simulation studies. The observational studies enrolled 17 patients who were declared dead in the supine position and reported higher mean systolic blood pressure from CPR in prone position (72 mmHg vs 48 mmHg, p < 0.005; 79 ± 20 mmHg vs 55 ± 20 mmHg, p = 0.028). One simulation study reported a faster time to defibrillation in the prone position. Return of spontaneous circulation, survival to discharge or 30 days were reported in adult and paediatric case reports. Critical risk of bias limited our ability to perform pooled analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a limited number of observational studies and case reports comparing prone versus supine CPR and/or defibrillation. Prone CPR may be a reasonable option if immediate supination is difficult or poses unacceptable risks to the patient.

Rapid Dissemination of a COVID-19 Airway Management Simulation Using a Train-the-Trainers Curriculum.

PROBLEM: The most effective way to train clinicians to safely don and doff personal protective equipment (PPE) and perform aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs), such as intubations, is unknown when clinician educators are unavailable, as they have been during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proper PPE and airway management techniques are critical to prevent the transmission of respiratory illnesses such as COVID-19. APPROACH: In March 2020, the authors implemented a structured train-the-trainers curriculum to teach PPE techniques and a modified airway management algorithm for suspected COVID-19 patients. A single emergency medicine physician trainer taught 17 subsequent emergency medicine and critical care physician trainers the proper PPE and airway management techniques. The initial trainer and 7 of the subsequent trainers then instructed 99 other emergency medicine resident and attending physicians using in situ simulation. Trainers and learners completed retrospective pre-post surveys to assess their comfort teaching the material and performing the techniques, respectively. OUTCOMES: The surveys demonstrated a significant increase in the trainers' comfort in teaching simulation-based education, from 4.00 to 4.53 on a 5-point Likert scale (P < .005), and in teaching the airway management techniques through simulation, from 2.47 to 4.47 (P < .001). There was no difference in the change in comfort level between those learners who were taught by the initial trainer and those who were taught by the subsequent trainers. These results suggest that the subsequent trainers were as effective in teaching the simulation material as the initial trainer. NEXT STEPS: Work is ongoing to investigate clinician- and patient-specific outcomes, including PPE adherence, appropriate AGP performance, complication rate, and learners' skill retention. Future work will focus on implementing similar train-the-trainers strategies for other health professions, specialties, and high-risk or rare procedures.

Aerosol generation during chest compression and defibrillation in a swine cardiac arrest model.

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.

In-situ Simulation Use for Rapid Implementation and Process Improvement of COVID-19 Airway Management.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presents unique challenges to frontline healthcare workers. In order to safely care for patients new processes, such as a plan for the airway management of a patient with COVID-19, must be implemented and disseminated in a rapid fashion. The use of in-situ simulation has been used to assist in latent problem identification as part of a Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle. Additionally, simulation is an effective means for training teams to perform high-risk procedures before engaging in the actual procedure. This educational advance seeks to use and study in-situ simulation as a means to rapidly implement a process for airway management in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Using an airway algorithm developed by the authors, we designed an in-situ simulation scenario to train physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists in best practices for airway management of patients with COVID-19. Physician participants were surveyed using a five-point Likert scale with regard to their comfort level with various aspects of the airway algorithm both before and after the simulation in a retrospective fashion. Additionally, we obtained feedback from all participants and used it to refine the airway algorithm. RESULTS: Over a two-week period, 93 physicians participated in the simulation. We received 81 responses to the survey (87%), which showed that the average level of comfort with personal protective equipment procedures increased significantly from 2.94 (95% confidence interval, 2.71-3.17) to 4.36 (4.24-4.48), a difference of 1.42 (1.20-1.63, p < 0.001). There was a significant increase in average comfort level in understanding the physician role with scores increasing from 3.51 (3.26-3.77) to 4.55 (2.71-3.17), a difference of 1.04 (0.82-1.25, p < 0.001). There was also increased comfort in performing procedural tasks such as intubation, from 3.08 (2.80-3.35) to 4.38 (4.23-4.52) after the simulation, a difference of 1.30 points (1.06-1.54, p < 0.001). Feedback from the participants also led to refinement of the airway algorithm. CONCLUSION: We successfully implemented a new airway management guideline for patients with suspected COVID-19. In-situ simulation is an essential tool for both dissemination and onboarding, as well as process improvement, in the context of an epidemic or pandemic.