Treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the COVID-19 era: A 100 days experience from the Lombardy region.

INTRODUCTION: An increase in the incidence of OHCA during the COVID-19 pandemic has been recently demonstrated. However, there are no data about how the COVID-19 epidemic influenced the treatment of OHCA victims. METHODS: We performed an analysis of the Lombardia Cardiac Arrest Registry comparing all the OHCAs occurred in the Provinces of Lodi, Cremona, Pavia and Mantua (northern Italy) in the first 100 days of the epidemic with those occurred in the same period in 2019. RESULTS: The OHCAs occurred were 694 in 2020 and 520 in 2019. Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) rate was lower in 2020 (20% vs 31%, p<0.001), whilst the rate of bystander automated external defibrillator (AED) use was similar (2% vs 4%, p = 0.11). Resuscitation was attempted by EMS in 64.5% of patients in 2020 and in 72% in 2019, whereof 45% in 2020 and 64% in 2019 received ALS. At univariable analysis, the presence of suspected/confirmed COVID-19 was not a predictor of resuscitation attempt. Age, unwitnessed status, non-shockable presenting rhythm, absence of bystander CPR and EMS arrival time were independent predictors of ALS attempt. No difference regarding resuscitation duration, epinephrine and amiodarone administration, and mechanical compression device use were highlighted. The return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate at hospital admission was lower in the general population in 2020 [11% vs 20%, p = 0.001], but was similar in patients with ALS initiated [19% vs 26%, p = 0.15]. Suspected/confirmed COVID-19 was not a predictor of ROSC at hospital admission. CONCLUSION: Compared to 2019, during the 2020 COVID-19 outbreak we observed a lower attitude of laypeople to start CPR, while resuscitation attempts by BLS and ALS staff were not influenced by suspected/confirmed infection, even at univariable analysis.

Emergency Department and Out-of-Hospital Emergency System (112-AREU 118) integrated response to Coronavirus Disease 2019 in a Northern Italy centre.

Since December 2019, the world has been facing the life-threatening disease, named Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), recognized as a pandemic by the World Health Organization. The response of the Emergency Medicine network, integrating "out-of-hospital" and "hospital" activation, is crucial whenever the health system has to face a medical emergency, being caused by natural or human-derived disasters as well as by a rapidly spreading epidemic outbreak. We here report the Pavia Emergency Medicine network response to the COVID-19 outbreak. The "out-of-hospital" response was analysed in terms of calls, rescues and missions, whereas the "hospital" response was detailed as number of admitted patients and subsequent hospitalisation or discharge. The data in the first 5 weeks of the Covid-19 outbreak (February 21-March 26, 2020) were compared with a reference time window referring to the previous 5 weeks (January 17-February 20, 2020) and with the corresponding historical average data from the previous 5 years (February 21-March 26). Since February 21, 2020, a sudden and sustained increase in the calls to the AREU 112 system was noted (+ 440%). After 5 weeks, the number of calls and missions was still higher as compared to both the reference pre-Covid-19 period (+ 48% and + 10%, respectively) and the historical control (+ 53% and + 22%, respectively). Owing to the overflow from the neighbouring hospitals, which rapidly became overwhelmed and had to temporarily close patient access, the population served by the Pavia system more than doubled (from 547.251 to 1.135.977 inhabitants, + 108%). To minimize the possibility of intra-hospital spreading of the infection, a separate "Emergency Department-Infective Disease" was created, which evaluated 1241 patients with suspected infection (38% of total ED admissions). Out of these 1241 patients, 58.0% (n = 720) were admitted in general wards (n = 629) or intensive care unit (n = 91). To allow this massive number of admissions, the hospital reshaped many general ward Units, which became Covid-19 Units (up to 270 beds) and increased the intensive care unit beds from 32 to 60. In the setting of a long-standing continuing emergency like the present Covid-19 outbreak, the integration, interaction and team work of the "out-of-hospital" and "in-hospital" systems have a pivotal role. The present study reports how the rapid and coordinated reorganization of both might help in facing such a disaster. AREU-112 and the Emergency Department should be ready to finely tune their usual cooperation to respond to a sudden and overwhelming increase in the healthcare needs brought about by a pandemia like the current one. This lesson should shape and reinforce the future.

COVID-19 kills at home: the close relationship between the epidemic and the increase of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.

AIMS: An increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) incidence has been reported in the very early phase of the COVID-19 epidemic, but a clear demonstration of a correlation between the increased incidence of OHCA and COVID-19 is missing so far. We aimed to verify whether there is an association between the OHCA difference compared with 2019 and the COVID-19 epidemic curve. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included all the consecutive OHCAs which occurred in the Provinces of Lodi, Cremona, Pavia, and Mantova in the 2 months following the first documented case of COVID-19 in the Lombardia Region and compared them with those which occurred in the same time frame in 2019. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 from 21 February to 20 April 2020 in the study territory was 956 COVID-19/100 000 inhabitants and the cumulative incidence of OHCA was 21 cases/100 000 inhabitants, with a 52% increase as compared with 2019 (490 OHCAs in 2020 vs. 321 in 2019). A strong and statistically significant correlation was found between the difference in cumulative incidence of OHCA between 2020 and 2019 per 100 000 inhabitants and the COVID-19 cumulative incidence per 100 000 inhabitants both for the overall territory (ρ 0.87, P < 0.001) and for each province separately (Lodi: ρ 0.98, P < 0.001; Cremona: ρ 0.98, P < 0.001; Pavia: ρ 0.87, P < 0.001; Mantova: ρ 0.81, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The increase in OHCAs in 2020 is significantly correlated to the COVID-19 pandemic and is coupled with a reduction in short-term outcome. Government and local health authorities should seriously consider our results when planning healthcare strategies to face the epidemic, especially considering the expected recurrent outbreaks.

Load distributing band device for mechanical chest compressions: An Utstein-categories based analysis of survival to hospital discharge.

PURPOSE: The role of load distributing band device (LDB, AutoPulse®, Zoll Medical Corporation, Chelmsford, MA, USA) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is still a matter of debate, with few studies reaching conflicting results available in literature. We sought to assess whether the use of the LBD device could affect survival to hospital discharge in the different Utstein categories. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All consecutive patients enrolled in our provincial cardiac arrest registry (Pavia CARe) from January 2015 to December 2017 were included and pre-hospital data were computed as well as survival to hospital discharge. RESULTS: Among 1401 resuscitation attempts, the LDB device was used in 235 (17%) patients. The LDB device was significantly more used for shockable cardiac arrest (42.6% vs 13.7%, p < 0.001). The rate of ROSC and of survival to hospital discharge in the LDB group compared to the manual group was 40% vs 17% (p < 0.001) and 10% vs 7% (p = 0.2), respectively. However, after correction for independent predictors of LDB use, LDB device was a strong independent predictor of survival to hospital discharge only for non-shockable witnessed OHCA [n = 624/1401, OR 11.9 (95% CI 1.5-95.2), p = 0.02]. In this categories of patients LDB group showed longer resuscitation time [49.3 min (IQR 37-71) vs 23.6 (IQR 15-35), p < 0.001] and a higher rate of conversion to a shockable rhythm (33/83 = 40% vs 29/541 = 5%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Utstein categories-based analysis showed that the LDB device positively affect survival to hospital discharge for non-shockable witnessed cardiac arrests with a neutral effect for shockable rhythms.

End-tidal carbon dioxide and defibrillation success in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

PURPOSE: Basing on the relationship between the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and the responsiveness of VF to the defibrillation we aimed to assess whether the values of ETCO2 in the minute before defibrillation could predict the effectiveness of the shock. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the reports generated by the manual monitor/defibrillator (Corpuls by GS Elektromedizinische Geräte G. Stemple GmbH, Germany) used for cases of VF cardiac arrest from January 2015 to December 2016. The mean ETCO2 value of the minute preceding the shock (METCO260) was computed. A blind evaluation of the effectiveness of each shock was provided by three cardiologists. RESULTS: A total amount of 207 shocks were delivered for 62 patients. When considering the three tertiles of METCO260 (T1:METCO260 ≤ 20mmHg; T2: 20mmHg < METCO260 ≤ 31mmHg and T3: METCO260 > 31mmHg) a statistically significant difference between the percentages of shock success was found (T1: 50%; T2: 63%; T3: 78%; Chi square p=0.003; p for trend <0.001). When the METCO260 was lower than 7mmHg no shock was effective and when the METCO260 was higher than 45mmHg no shock was ineffective. Shocks followed by ROSC were preceded by higher values of METCO260 as compared either to ineffective shocks or effective ones without ROSC. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first demonstration of the relation between ETCO2 and defibrillation effectiveness. Our findings stress the pivotal role of High Quality CPR, monitored via ETCO2, and suggest ETCO2 monitoring as an additional weapon to guide defibrillation.

Comparative performance assessment of commercially available automatic external defibrillators: A simulation and real-life measurement study of hands-off time.

PURPOSE: Early and good quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and the use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) improve cardiac arrest patients' survival. However, AED peri- and post-shock/analysis pauses may reduce CPR effectiveness. METHODS: The time performance of 12 different commercially available AEDs was tested in a manikin based scenario; then the AEDs recordings from the same tested models following the clinical use both in Pavia and Ticino were analyzed to evaluate the post-shock and post-analysis time. RESULTS: None of the AEDs was able to complete the analysis and to charge the capacitors in less than 10s and the mean post-shock pause was 6.7±2.4s. For non-shockable rhythms, the mean analysis time was 10.3±2s and the mean post-analysis time was 6.2±2.2s. We analyzed 154 AED records [104 by Emergency Medical Service (EMS) rescuers; 50 by lay rescuers]. EMS rescuers were faster in resuming CPR than lay rescuers [5.3s (95%CI 5-5.7) vs 8.6s (95%CI 7.3-10). CONCLUSIONS: AEDs showed different performances that may reduce CPR quality mostly for those rescuers following AED instructions. Both technological improvements and better lay rescuers training might be needed.