ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the response rate of community-first-responders (CFR) and other out-of-hospital-cardiac-arrest (OHCA) outcomes using the smartphone-first-responder-system (SFRS) "Mobile Retter." METHODS: All adult non-traumatic OHCA in the district of Gütersloh between 01.01.2018-31.12.2021 were included. Periods of interest were 1) prior to the first COVID-19-lockdown; to 2) both lockdowns; and 3) the time in between, as well as after the COVID-19-lockdowns (pre-COVID-19, COVID-19-lockdown and COVID-19-pandemic respectively). The primary outcome was the CFR response rate defined as proportion of CFR alerts that were accepted by a CFR and in which at least one CFR arrived on scene of the emergency out of all CFR alerts. Secondary outcomes included the rate of CFR alerts, defined as proportion of OHCA to which CFR were summoned by the emergency medical dispatcher, as well as the rate of return-of-spontaneous-circulation (ROSC) and rate of survival until hospital discharge. We also examined the incidence COVID-19-infection of CFR in context of the SFRS. RESULTS: A total of 1064 OHCA-patients (mean age: 71.4±14.5 years; female: 33.8%) were included in the study (Pre-COVID-19: 539; COVID-19-lockdown: 109; COVID-19-pandemic: 416). The response rate was 64.0% (pre-COVID-19: 58.7%; COVID-19-lockdown: 63.5%; COVID-19-pandemic: 71.8%, P=0.002 vs. pre-COVID-19). The alert rate was 52.7% (pre-COVID-19: 56.2%; COVID-19-lockdown: 47.7%, P=0.04 vs. Pre-COVID-19; COVID-19-Pandemic: 49.5%, P=0.02 vs. pre-COVID-19). The ROSC-rate was 40.4% (pre-COVID-19: 41.0%; COVID-19-lockdown: 33.9%; COVID-19-pandemic: 41.4%) and hospital discharge rate 31.2% (Pre-COVID-19: 33.0%; COVID-19-lockdown: 36.8%; COVID-19-pandemic: 28.7%). The use of CFR was associated with favorable effects in terms of hospital admission (odds ratio [OR]: 0.654 (CI95: 0.444-0.963), P=0.03), hospital discharge (OR: 2.343 (CI95: 1.002-5.475), P=0.04). None of the CFR became infected with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: "Mobile-Retter" was associated with high response rates, improved outcome in OHCA patients and no COVID-19-infections of CFR during the COVID-19-pandemic and -lockdowns.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Male , Aged , Germany/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/epidemiology , Aged, 80 and over , Emergency Responders , Smartphone , AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In contrast to the pre-hospital environment, patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest are usually lying in a hospital bed. Interestingly, there are no current recommendations for optimal provider positioning. The present study evaluates in bed chest compression quality in different provider positions during in-hospital-cardiac-arrest. METHODS: Paramedics conducted four resuscitation scenarios: manikin lying on the floor with provider position kneeling next to the manikin (control group), manikin lying in a hospital bed with the provider kneeling astride, kneeling beside or standing next to the manikin. A resuscitation board was not used according to the current guideline recommendations. Quality of resuscitation, compression depth, compression rate and percentage of compressions with complete chest rebound were recorded. Afterwards, the paramedics were asked about subjective efficiency and fatigue. Data were analyzed using Generalized-Linear-Mixed-Models and, in addition, by non-parametric Friedman test. RESULTS: A total of 60 participants were recruited. The total quality of chest compressions was significantly higher in floor-based control position compared to the standing (P<.001) and both kneeling positions (P<.05). Also, the compression depth was significantly more guideline compliant in the control (P<.001) and the kneeling position (P<.05) compared to the standing position. The compression frequency as well as the complete chest wall recoil did not differ significantly. The standing position was rated as more fatiguing than the other positions (p≤0.001), kneeling beside as subjectively more efficient than the standing position (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In case of an in-bed resuscitation, high quality chest compressions are possible. Kneeling astride or beside the patient should be preferred because these positions demonstrated a good chest compression quality and were more efficient and less exhausting.
