Efficiency rating of SG Diagnostics COVID-19 antigen rapid test kit.

Aim: Rapid detection is crucial in complementing vaccination to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Materials & methods: Nasopharyngeal swabs (n = 213) and oropharyngeal swabs (n = 98) were tested. with the antigen rapid test kit. Results: Overall sensitivity (97.96%), specificity (100.00%) and coincidence rate (98.71%) were high, which translated into a positive predictive value of 100.00% and a negative predictive value of 96.64%. Conclusion: Antigen rapid tests have a great potential for screening in different settings to deliver results with high sensitivity and specificity.

This study evaluated SG Diagnostics COVID-19 antigen rapid test kit. The overall sensitivity, specificity and coincidence rate were found very high with SG Diagnostics COVID-19 antigen rapid test kit performing better.

Comparison of Vie Scope® and Macintosh laryngoscopes for intubation during resuscitation by paramedics wearing personal protective equipment.

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is still the gold standard of airway management, but in cases of sudden cardiac arrest in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, ETI is associated with risks for both the patient and the medical personnel. We hypothesized that the Vie Scope® is more useful for endotracheal intubation of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cardiac arrest patients than the conventional laryngoscope with Macintosh blade when operators are wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). METHODS: Study was designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed by Emergency Medical Services in Poland. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who needed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prehospital setting were included. Patients under 18 years old or with criteria predictive of impossible intubation under direct laryngoscopy, were excluded. Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to Vie Scope® versus direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade. Study groups were compared on success of intubation attempts, time to intubation, glottis visualization and number of optimization maneuvers. RESULTS: We enrolled 90 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, aged 43-92 years. Compared to the VieScope® laryngoscope, use of the Macintosh laryngoscope required longer times for tracheal intubation with an estimated mean difference of -48 s (95%CI confidence interval [CI], -60.23, -35.77; p < 0.001). Moreover VieScope® improved first attempt success rate, 93.3% vs. 51.1% respectively (odds ratio [OR] = 13.39; 95%CI: 3.62, 49.58; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Vie Scope® laryngoscope in OHCA patients improved the first attempt success rate, and reduced intubation time compared to Macintosh laryngoscope in paramedics wearing PPE for against aerosol generating procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials registration number NCT04365608.

Comparison of intravascular access methods applied by nurses wearing personal protective equipment in simulated COVID-19 resuscitation: A randomized crossover simulation trial.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital emergency care of children is challenging. In the era of the COVID-19 pandemic, when medical personnel should use personal protective equipment against aerosol-generating procedures, the efficiency of medical procedures may decrease. The study objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of different intravascular access methods applied by nurses wearing biosafety Level-2 suits in simulated paediatric COVID-19 resuscitation. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, crossover, single-blinded simulation trial was performed. Nursing staff attending Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support courses accredited by the American Heart Association participated in the study. A total of 65 nurses were recruited and randomly assigned to different study groups. They received standard training on intravascular access methods employing distinct devices. The participants wore biosafety Level-2 suits and performed vascular access with the following intraosseous devices: NIO-P, EZ-IO, and Jamshidi needle; intravenous (IV) access was used as a reference method. Both the order of participants and the access methods were random. Each participant performed intravascular access with each of the four methods tested. The effectiveness of the first attempt to obtain intravascular access and the following time parameters were analysed: the time between grasping the intravascular device out of the original packing until infusion line connection. The ease of the procedure was measured with a visual analogue scale (1 - easy; 10 - difficult). RESULTS: The first attempt success rate of intravascular access by using NIO-P and EZ-IO equalled 100% and was statistically significantly higher than that with the Jamshidi needle (80.0%; p = 0.02) and with the IV method (69.2%; p = 0.005). The time required to connect the infusion line varied and amounted to 33 ± 4 s for NIO-P compared to 37 ± 6.7 s for EZ-IO (p<0.001), 43 ± 7 s for Jamshidi (p<0.001), and 98.5 ± 10 s for IV access (p<0.001). The procedure was easiest in the case of NIO-P and EZ-IO (2 ± 1 points; p=1.0) compared with Jamshidi (5 ± 3 points; p<0.001) and IV access (7 ± 2 points; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The study provides evidence that nurses wearing biosafety Level-2 suits were able to obtain intraosseous access faster and more effectively as compared with IV access during simulated COVID-19 paediatric resuscitation. The most effective method of intravascular access was the NIO-P intraosseous device. Further clinical trials are necessary to confirm the results.

An optimal chest compression technique using personal protective equipment during resuscitation in the COVID-19 pandemic: a randomized crossover simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation with the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol generating procedures (AGP) in patients with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID­19) remains challenging. AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare 3 chest compression (CC) methods used by paramedics wearing PPE. METHODS: The single­blinded, multicenter, randomized, crossover simulation study involved 67 paramedics wearing PPE AGP. They performed 2­minute continuous CCs in an adult with suspected or confirmed COVID­19 in 3 scenarios: 1) manual CCs; 2) CCs with the TrueCPR feedback device; 3) CCs with the LUCAS 3 mechanical CC device. RESULTS: The depth of CC was more frequently correct when using LUCAS 3 compared with TrueCPR and manual CC (median [IQR] 51 [50-55] mm vs 47 [43-52] mm vs 43 [38-46] mm; P = 0.005). This was also true for the CC rate (median [IQR]102 [100-102] compressions per minute [CPM] vs 105 [98-1114] CPM vs 116 [112-129] CPM; P = 0.027) and chest recoil (median [IQR]100% [98%-100%] vs 83% [60%-92%] vs 39% [25%-50%]; P = 0.001). A detailed analysis of 2­minute resuscitation with manual CCs showed a decrease in compression depth and full chest recoil after 1 minute of CCs. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that during simulated resuscitation with the use of PPE AGP in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID­19, CC with LUCAS 3 compared with manual CCs as well as the TrueCPR essentially increased the CC quality. In the case of manual CCs by paramedics dressed in PPE AGP, it is advisable to change the person performing resuscitation every minute.

Resuscitation of the patient with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 when wearing personal protective equipment: A randomized multicenter crossover simulation trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate various methods of chest compressions in patients with suspected/confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection conducted by medical students wearing full personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol generating procedures (AGP). METHODS: This was prospective, randomized, multicenter, single-blinded, crossover simulation trial. Thirty-five medical students after an advanced cardiovascular life support course, which included performing 2-min continuous chest compression scenarios using three methods: (A) manual chest compression (CC), (B) compression with CPRMeter, (C) compression with LifeLine ARM device. During resuscitation they are wearing full personal protective equipment for aerosol generating procedures. RESULTS: The median chest compression depth using manual CC, CPRMeter and LifeLine ARM varied and amounted to 40 (38-45) vs. 45 (40-50) vs. 51 (50-52) mm, respectively (p = 0.002). The median chest compression rate was 109 (IQR; 102-131) compressions per minute (CPM) for manual CC, 107 (105-127) CPM for CPRMeter, and 102 (101-102) CPM for LifeLine ARM (p = 0.027). The percentage of correct chest recoil was the highest for LifeLine ARM - 100% (95-100), 80% (60-90) in CPRMeter group, and the lowest for manual CC - 29% (26-48). CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of this simulation trial, automated chest compression devices (ACCD) should be used for chest compression of patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19. In the absence of ACCD, it seems reasonable to change the cardiopulmonary resuscitation algorithm (in the context of patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19) by reducing the duration of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation cycle from the current 2-min to 1-min cycles due to a statistically significant reduction in the quality of chest compressions among rescuers wearing PPE AGP.