Effect of Austrian COVID-19 lockdowns on acute myocardial infarction frequency and long-term mortality: a multicentre observational study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to find out if the decrease in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) admissions during the first COVID-19 lockdowns (LD), which was described by previous studies, occurred equally in all LD periods (LD1, LD2, LD2021), which had identical restrictions. Further, we wanted to analyse if the decrease of AMI admission had any association with the 1-year mortality rate. DESIGN AND SETTING: This study is a prospective observational study of two centres that are participating in the Vienna ST-elevation myocardial infarction network. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1732 patients who presented with AMI according to the 4th universal definition of myocardial infarction in 2019, 2020 and the LD period of 2021 were included in our study. Patients with myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries were excluded from our study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of this study was the frequency of AMI during the LD periods and the all-cause and cardiac-cause 1-year mortality rate of 2019 (pre-COVID-19) and 2020. RESULTS: Out of 1732 patients, 70% (n=1205) were male and median age was 64 years. There was a decrease in AMI admissions of 55% in LD1, 28% in LD2 and 17% in LD2021 compared with 2019.There were no differences in all-cause 1-year mortality between the year 2019 (11%; n=110) and 2020 (11%; n=79; p=0.92) or death by cardiac causes [10% (n=97) 2019 vs 10% (n=71) 2020; p=0.983]. CONCLUSION: All LDs showed a decrease in AMI admissions, though not to the same extent, even though the regulatory measures were equal. Admission in an LD period was not associated with cardiac or all-cause 1-year mortality rate in AMI patients in our study.

Increases in Ambulance Call Volume Are an Early Warning Sign of Major COVID-19 Surges in Children.

Background: Infectious diseases, including COVID-19, have a severe impact on child health globally. We investigated whether emergency medical service (EMS) calls are a bellwether for future COVID-19 caseloads. We elaborated on geographical hotspots and socioeconomic risk factors. Methods: All EMS calls for suspected infectious disease in the pediatric population (under 18 years of age) in Rhode Island between 1 March 2018 and 28 February 2022 were included in this quasi-experimental ecological study. The first of March 2020 was the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. We used the 2020 census tract and the most recent COVID-19 data. We investigated associations between pediatric EMS calls and positive COVID-19 tests with time series analysis and identified geographical clusters using local indicators of spatial association. Economic risk factors were examined using Poisson regression. Results: We included 980 pediatric ambulance calls. Calls during the omicron wave were significantly associated with increases in positive COVID-19 tests one week later (p < 0.001). Lower median household income (IRR 0.99, 95% CI [0.99, 0.99]; p < 0.001) and a higher child poverty rate (IRR 1.02, 95% CI [1.02, 1.02]; p < 0.001) were associated with increased EMS calls. Neighborhood hotspots changed over time. Conclusion: Ambulance calls might be a predictor for major surges of COVID-19 in children.

A Global Survey of Emergency Department Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency departments (ED) globally are addressing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with varying degrees of success. We leveraged the 17-country, Emergency Medicine Education & Research by Global Experts (EMERGE) network and non-EMERGE ED contacts to understand ED emergency preparedness and practices globally when combating the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We electronically surveyed EMERGE and non-EMERGE EDs from April 3-June 1, 2020 on ED capacity, pandemic preparedness plans, triage methods, staffing, supplies, and communication practices. The survey was available in English, Mandarin Chinese, and Spanish to optimize participation. We analyzed survey responses using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 74/129 (57%) EDs from 28 countries in all six World Health Organization global regions responded. Most EDs were in Asia (49%), followed by North America (28%), and Europe (14%). Nearly all EDs (97%) developed and implemented protocols for screening, testing, and treating patients with suspected COVID-19 infections. Sixty percent responded that provider staffing/back-up plans were ineffective. Many sites (47/74, 64%) reported staff missing work due to possible illness with the highest provider proportion of COVID-19 exposures and infections among nurses. CONCLUSION: Despite having disaster plans in place, ED pandemic preparedness and response continue to be a challenge. Global emergency research networks are vital for generating and disseminating large-scale event data, which is particularly important during a pandemic.

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

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