The Impact of Withdrawn vs. Agitated Relatives during Resuscitation on Team Workload: A Single-Center Randomised Simulation-Based Study

Background: Guidelines recommend that relatives be present during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This randomised trial investigated the effects of two different behaviour patterns of relatives on rescuers’ perceived stress and quality of CPR. Material and methods: Teams of three to four physicians were randomised to perform CPR in the presence of no relatives (control group), a withdrawn relative, or an agitated relative, played by actors according to a scripted role, and to three different models of leadership (randomly determined by the team or tutor or left open). The scenarios were video-recorded. Hands-on time was primary, and the secondary outcomes comprised compliance to CPR algorithms, perceived workload, and the influence of leadership. Results: 1229 physicians randomised to 366 teams took part. The presence of a relative did not affect hands-on time (91% [87–93] vs. 92% [88–94] for “withdrawn” and 92 [88–93] for “agitated” relatives; p = 0.15). The teams interacted significantly less with a “withdrawn” than with an “agitated” relative (11 [7–16]% vs. 23 [15–30]% of the time spent for resuscitation, p < 0.01). The teams confronted with an “agitated” relative showed more unsafe defibrillations, higher ventilation rates, and a delay in starting CPR (all p < 0.05 vs. control). The presence of a relative increased frustration, effort, and perceived temporal demands (all <0.05 compared to control); in addition, an “agitated” relative increased mental demands and total task load (both p < 0.05 compared to “withdrawn” and control group). The type of leadership condition did not show any effects. Conclusions: Interaction with a relative accounted for up to 25% of resuscitation time. Whereas the presence of a relative per se increased the task load in different domains, only the presence of an “agitated” relative had a marginal detrimental effect on CPR quality (GERMAN study registers number DRKS00024761)

Effects of Bag Mask Ventilation and Advanced Airway Management on Adherence to Ventilation Recommendations and Chest Compression Fraction: A Prospective Randomized Simulator-Based Trial

The role of advanced airway management (AAM) in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is currently debated as observational studies reported better outcomes after bag-mask ventilation (BMV), and the only prospective randomized trial was inconclusive. Adherence to CPR guidelines ventilation recommendations is unknown and difficult to assess in clinical trials. This study compared AAM and BMV with regard to adherence to ventilation recommendations and chest compression fractions in simulated cardiac arrests. A total of 154 teams of 3–4 physicians were randomized to perform CPR with resuscitation equipment restricting airway management to BMV only or equipment allowing for all forms of AAM. BMV teams ventilated 6 ± 6/min and AAM teams 19 ± 8/min (range 3–42/min; p < 0.0001 vs. BMV). 68/78 BMV teams and 23/71 AAM teams adhered to the ventilation recommendations (p < 0.0001). BMV teams had lower compression fractions than AAM teams (78 ± 7% vs. 86 ± 6%, p < 0.0001) resulting entirely from higher no-flow times for ventilation (9 ± 4% vs. 3 ± 3 %; p < 0.0001). Compared to BMV, AAM leads to significant hyperventilation and lower adherence to ventilation recommendations but favourable compression fractions. The cumulative effect of deviations from ventilation recommendations has the potential to blur findings in clinical trials

Hands-On Times, Adherence to Recommendations and Variance in Execution among Three Different CPR Algorithms: A Prospective Randomized Single-Blind Simulator-Based Trial

Background: Alternative cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) algorithms, introduced to improve outcomes after cardiac arrest, have so far not been compared in randomized trials with established CPR guidelines. Methods: 286 physician teams were confronted with simulated cardiac arrests and randomly allocated to one of three versions of a CPR algorithm: (1) current International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) guidelines (“ILCOR”), (2) the cardiocerebral resuscitation (“CCR”) protocol (3 cycles of 200 uninterrupted chest compressions with no ventilation), or (3) a local interpretation of the current guidelines (“Arnsberg“, immediate insertion of a supraglottic airway and cycles of 200 uninterrupted chest compressions). The primary endpoint was percentage of hands-on time. Results: Median percentage of hands-on time was 88 (interquartile range (IQR) 6) in “ILCOR” teams, 90 (IQR 5) in “CCR” teams (p = 0.001 vs. “ILCOR”), and 89 (IQR 4) in “Arnsberg” teams (p = 0.032 vs. “ILCOR”; p = 0.10 vs. “CCR”). “ILCOR” teams delivered fewer chest compressions and deviated more from allocated targets than “CCR” and “Arnsberg” teams. “CCR” teams demonstrated the least within-team and between-team variance. Conclusions: Compared to current ILCOR guidelines, two alternative CPR algorithms advocating cycles of uninterrupted chest compressions resulted in very similar hands-on times, fewer deviations from targets, and less within-team and between-team variance in execution

COVID-19 CPR—Impact of Personal Protective Equipment during a Simulated Cardiac Arrest in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective Comparative Trial

Background: Guidelines of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) recommend the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the resuscitation of COVID-19 patients. Data on the effects of PPE on rescuers’ stress level and quality of CPR are sparse and conflicting. This trial investigated the effects of PPE on team performance in simulated cardiac arrests. Methods: During the pandemic period, 198 teams (689 participants) performed CPR with PPE in simulated cardiac arrests (PPE group) and were compared with 423 (1451 participants) performing in identical scenarios in the pre-pandemic period (control group). Video recordings were used for data analysis. The primary endpoint was hands-on time. Secondary endpoints included a further performance of CPR and the perceived task load assessed by the NASA task-load index. Results: Hands-on times were lower in PPE teams than in the control group (86% (83–89) vs. 90% (87–93); difference 3, 95% CI for difference 3–4, p < 0.0001). Moreover, PPE teams made fewer change-overs and delayed defibrillation and administration of drugs. PPE teams perceived higher task loads (57 (44–67) vs. 63 (53–71); difference 6, 95% CI for difference 5–8, p < 0.0001) and scored higher in the domains physical and temporal demand, performance, and effort. Leadership allocation had no effect on primary and secondary endpoints. Conclusions: Having to wear PPE during CPR is an additional burden in an already demanding task. PPE is associated with an increase in perceived task load, lower hands-on times, fewer change-overs, and delays in defibrillation and the administration of drugs. (German study register number DRKS00023184)

U SO CARE-The Impact of Cardiac Ultrasound during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Prospective Randomized Simulator-Based Trial

Background: Actual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) guidelines recommend point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS); however, data on POCUS during CPR are sparse and conflicting. This randomized trial investigated the effects of POCUS during CPR on team performance and diagnostic accuracy. Methods: Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine residents performed CPR with or without available POCUS in simulated cardiac arrests. The primary endpoint was hands-on time. Data analysis was performed using video recordings. Results: Hands-on time was 89% (87-91) in the POCUS and 92% (89-94) in the control group (difference 3, 95% CI for difference 2-4, p < 0.001). POCUS teams had delayed defibrillator attachments (33 vs. 26 sec, p = 0.017) and first rhythm analysis (74 vs. 52 sec, p = 0.001). Available POCUS was used in 71%. Of the POCUS teams, 53 stated a POCUS-derived diagnosis, with 49 being correct and 42 followed by a correct treatment decision. Four teams made a wrong diagnosis and two made an inappropriate treatment decision. Conclusions: POCUS during CPR resulted in lower hands-on times and delayed rhythm analysis. Correct POCUS diagnoses occurred in 52%, correct treatment decisions in 44%, and inappropriate treatment decisions in 2%. Training on POCUS during CPR should focus on diagnostic accuracy and maintenance of high-quality CPR

Simulation-based randomized trial of medical emergency cognitive aids

Abstract Background Medical emergencies are complex and stressful, especially for the young and inexperienced. Cognitive aids (CA) have been shown to facilitate management of simulated medical emergencies by experienced teams. In this randomized trial we evaluated guideline adherence and treatment efficacy in simulated medical emergencies managed by residents with and without CA. Methods Physicians attending educational courses executed simulated medical emergencies. Teams were randomly assigned to manage emergencies with or without CA. Primary outcome was risk reduction of essential working steps. Secondary outcomes included prior experience in emergency medicine and CA, perceptions of usefulness, clinical relevance, acceptability, and accuracy in CA selection. Participants were grouped as “medical” (internal medicine and neurology) and “perioperative” (anesthesia and surgery) regarding their specialty. The study was designed as a prospective randomized single-blind study that was approved by the ethical committee of the University Duisburg-Essen (19-8966-BO). Trial registration: DRKS, DRKS00024781. Registered 16 March 2021—Retrospectively registered, http://www.drks.de/DRKS00024781 . Results Eighty teams participated in 240 simulated medical emergencies. Cognitive aid usage led to 9% absolute and 15% relative risk reduction. Per protocol analysis showed 17% absolute and 28% relative risk reduction. Wrong CA were used in 4%. Cognitive aids were judged as helpful by 94% of the participants. Teams performed significantly better when emergency CA were available (p < 0.05 for successful completion of critical work steps). Stress reduction using CA was more likely in “medical” than in “perioperative” subspecialties (3.7 ± 1.2 vs. 2.9 ± 1.2, p < 0.05). Conclusions In a high-fidelity simulation study, CA usage was associated with significant reduction of incorrect working steps in medical emergencies management and was characterized by high acceptance. These findings suggest that CA for medical emergencies may have the potential to improve emergency care

Prevalence of SARS-COV-2 positivity in 516 German intensive care and emergency physicians studied by seroprevalence of antibodies National Covid Survey Germany (NAT-COV-SURV)

Healthcare personnel are at risk to aquire the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We evaluated the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and positive nasopharyngeal reverse transcriptase polymerase-chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests in German intensive care and emergency physicians. Physicians attending intensive care and emergency medicine training courses between June 16(th) and July 2(nd) 2020 answered a questionnaire and were screened for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies via automated electrochemiluminiscence immunoassay. We recruited 516 physicans from all parts of Germany, 445/516 (86%) worked in high risk areas, and 379/516 (73%) had treated patients with COVID-19. The overall positive rate was 18/516 (3.5%), 16/18 (89%) had antibodies against SARS-COV-2, another 2 reported previous positive RT-PCR results although antibody testing was negative. Of those positive, 7/18 (39%) were unaware of their infection. A stay abroad was stated by 173/498 (35%), mostly in Europe. 87/516 (17%) reported a febrile respiratory infection after January 1(st) 2020 which was related to SARS-CoV-2 in 4/87 (4.6%). Contact to COVID-19 positive relatives at home was stated by 22/502 (4.4%). This was the only significant risk factor for Covid-19 infection (Fisher ' s exact test, p = 0.0005). N95 masks and eye protection devices were available for 87% and 73%, respectively. A total of 254/502 (51%) had been vaccinated against seasonal influenza. The overall SARS-CoV-2 infection rate of german physicians from intensive care and emergency medicine was low compared to reports from other countries and settings. This finding may be explained by the fact that the German health care system was not overwhelmed by the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic