Chest compression methods in simulated Covid-19 patient resuscitation: a randomized cross-over simulation trial

Background: High-quality chest compression is one of the key elements of resuscitation to return of spontaneous circulation. In the COVID-19 era, medical personnel should wear personal protective equipment (PPE) against aerosol generating procedures (AGP) during resuscitation. However, the use of this personal protection equipment may reduce the effectiveness of medical procedures performed. Objective: We aimed to compare chest compression quality parameters between standard manual chest compression and chest compression with TrueCPR feedback device performed by medical students wearing full personal protractive equipment against aerosol generating procedure. Methods: The study was designed as a randomized, cross-over, single-blinded simulation study. Thirty-two medical students wearing PPE-AGP performed 2-min continuous chest compression on an adult simulator with and without TrueCPR feedback device. Results: Median chest compression depth with and without TrueCPR feedback device varied and amounted to 46 (IQR; 42-53) vs. 41 (IQR; 36-45) mm (MCC vs. TrueCPR, respectively). The manual chest compression rate was 117 (IQR; 112-125) compressions per minute (CPM) and was higher than with TrueCPR feedback device - 107 (IQR; 102- 115; p = 0.017). Full chest relaxation in the manual's chest compression technique (without TrueCPR) was 33 (IQR; 26-42)% and was lower than with chest compression with TrueCPR feedback device - 58 (IQR; 40-75)% (p=0.002). Conclusions: We conclude that a TrueCPR feedback device improves chest compression quality during simulated COVID-19 resuscitation performed by medical students wearing PPE-AGP

Intraosseous access — future, present and everyday life

Today, intraosseous access (IO) is not only an alternative method of administration of pharmacotherapy or fluids; it is often used in life-threatening conditions. Although previously, it was a method commonly used in paediatrics or in the military, for several years it has been advocated as the primary access point for patients in a critical condition. While this applies mainly to children, it may also include adults in a hospital setting, as well as in the emergency department. Oftentimes it is used when intravenous access is difficult or the patient is seriously ill. Many scientific circles at the American Heart Association (AHA) and European Resuscitation Council (ERC) approve this method

Legal and organizational aspects of organ donation after irreversible cardiac arrest

Sudden cardiac arrest is a challenge for medical personnel. Donation after circulatory death (DCD) hasopened new perspectives and could be a valuable option to expand the brain-dead donors. The purposeof this review is to provide an overview of current legal and organizational aspects of organ donation afterirreversible cardiac arrest. The article presents basic issues related to the epidemiology of sudden cardiacarrest, criteria for the diagnosis of irreversible cardiac arrest. It also discusses special situations related tocardiac arrest and determining irreversible cardiac arrest in practice. Much attention has been paid to donororgan transplantation after irreversible cardiac arrest in the context of scientific research. This articleaimed to present the Polish statutory and administrative regulations concerning donation after circulatorydeath. Following the 2010 Minister of Health’s Notice on Criteria and Methods of Determining IrreversibleCardiac arrest, it should be stated that it legally allows for all types of donation included in the Mastrichtclassification

Pre-filled syringes with adrenaline during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in nonshockable rhythms. Pilot randomised crossover simulation study

Background: Pre-filled syringes are increasingly popular in medicine, especially in emergency medicine, where fast intervention is crucial. Additionally, as indicated by numerous studies, the use of drugs in prefilled syringes reduces the risk of medical errors associated with inadequate preparation of the drug and reduces the risk of contamination as a result of tissue injury due to rupture of a standard ampoule with the drug. The aim of the study was to compare the use of pre-filled syringes with adrenaline and standard adrenalinę in ampoules during simulated CPR during simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation in non-shockable rhythms performed by two-person teams.   Methods: The study was a randomised cross-over study and was based on medical simulation. The study involved 40 paramedics assigned randomly to 20 two-person rescue teams. These teams were to perform 10-minute cardiopulmonary resuscitation in three research scenarios: Scenario A — During CPR, access to the median basilic vein and preparation and administration of adrenaline infusions from generally available ampoules at concentration 1:1000 were required (Adrenaline WZF 0.1%; Polfa, Warsaw, Poland) with a standard syringe; Scenario B — During resuscitation, the median basilic vein was accessed and adrenalinę was to be administered from an adrenaline pre-filled syringe (Aguettant Santé, Lyon, France); Scenario C — During CPR, intraosseous tibial vascular access was obtained using a NIO Adult kit, and adrenaline was administered using a pre-filled syringe with adrenaline (Aguettant Santé, Lyon, France). Both the order of resuscitation and medication administration as well as the order of participants were random.   Results : The time to obtain vascular access in the examined scenarios varied and was 240 sec [IQR; 220–265] for Scenario A, 236 sec [IQR; 210–270] for Scenario B, and 165 sec [IQR; 90–180] for Scenario C; A vs. C, (p < 0.001), B vs. C (p < 0.001). In scenarios A, B, and C, the duration of adrenaline administration varied and was 55 sec [IQR; 50–85] vs. 20 sec [IQR; 18–35] vs. 20 sec [IQR; 20–30] (A vs. B, and A vs. C, p < 0.001).   Conclusion: A simulation study has shown that paramedics in two-person teams are unable to deliver adrenaline at the time recommended by CPR guidelines. The delay of CPM adrenaline supply compared to PFS adrenaline is statistically significant. In the opinion of paramedics participating in the study, adrenalinę during resuscitation should be administered by means of pre-filled syringes, which eliminates the delays in rescue operations resulting from the time needed to prepare drugs as well as limited human resources in rescue teams

The effect of chest compression frequency on the quality of resuscitation by lifeguards. A prospective randomized crossover multicenter simulation trial

Background: The ability to perform high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation is one of the basicskills for lifeguards. The aim of the study was to assess the influence of chest compression frequency onthe quality of the parameters of chest compressions performed by lifeguards.Methods: This prospective observational, randomized, crossover simulation study was performed with40 lifeguards working in Warsaw, Wroclaw, and Poznan, Poland. The subjects then participated ina target study, in which they were asked to perform 2-min cycles of metronome-guided chest compressionsat different rates: 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 130, 140, and 150 compressions per minute (CPM).Results: The study involved 40 lifeguards. Optimal chest compression score calculated by manikinsoftware was achieved for 110–120 CPM. Chest compression depth achieved 53 (interquartile range[IQR] 52–54) mm, 56 (IQR 54–57) mm, 52.5 (IQR 50–54) mm, 53 (IQR 52–53) mm, 50 (IQR 49–51)mm, 47 (IQR 44–51) mm, 41 (IQR 40–42) mm, 38 (IQR 38–43) mm for 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 130,140 and 150 CPM, respectively. The percentage of chest compressions with the correct depth was lowerfor rates exceeding 120 CPM.Conclusions: The rate of 100–120 CPM, as recommended by international guidelines, is the optimalchest compression rate for cardiopulmonary resuscitation performed by lifeguards. A rate above 120 CPMwas associated with a dramatic decrease in chest compression depth and overall chest compressionquality. The role of full chest recoil should be emphasized in basic life support training

Comparison of different chest compression positions for use while wearing CBRN-PPE: a randomized crossover simulation trial

Background: The prevailing COVID-19 pandemic forces paramedics to take medical rescue operations using personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol-generating procedures (AGP). The use of PPE-AGP may reduce the effectiveness of the procedures performed, including airway management, intravascular access, or chest compression. The goal of the current study was to compare the quality by which a chest compression during simulated COVID-19 resuscitation while wearing PPE-AGP. A secondary goal was to assess provider preferences with standard versus OHD chest compression methods while wearing PPE-AGP.   Methods: This is a randomized cross-over single-blinded study involving 37 paramedics performing 2-min continuous chest compression using two methods: the standard chest compression (CC) method during which the rescuer takes a position to the side of the victim (STD) and over-the-head position (OHD). During cardiopulmonary resuscitation, study participants wore Class C PPE-AGP. Both the order of study participants and compression methods were random. The results were blinded before statistical analysis. The compression rate per minute (CPM), CC depth as well as full chest recoil were measured. The analysis was undertaken using STATISTICA (V13.3EN).   Results : Mean chest compression depth using distinct CC methods varied and amounted to 42 ± 2mm for STD vs. 46 ± 4mm for OHD (p < 0.001). Chest compressions based on the OHD method were associated with a lower frequency of chest compressions (107 ± 7CPM) compared with STD (114.5 ± 8; p< 0.001). A higher percentage of full chest recoil was observed in the case of STD (42 ± 6%) than in the case of OHD (34 ± 10%).   Conclusions: Based on the current simulation trial, it is impossible to clearly determine which method (STD vs. OHD) is more effective in resuscitation with PPE-AGP. Paramedics wearing PPE-AGP achieved better chest compression depth for OHD compared to the STD, however, OHD resuscitation causes a lower degree of full chest relaxation. A further well-designed clinical study looking at efficacy, safety, and outcomes is needed to confirm current results

Meta-analysis of chest compression-only versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders for adult with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Background: According to the guidelines of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) conducted by bystanders, two methods of CPR are feasible: standard CPR (sCPR) with mouth-to-mouth ventilations and continuous chest compression-only CPR (CCC) without rescue breathing. The goal herein, was to evaluate the effect of sCPR (30:2) and CCC on resuscitation outcomes in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients. Methods: This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis. Using standardized criteria, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE and Cochrane Collaboration were searched for trials assessing the effect of sCPR vs. CCC on resuscitation outcomes after adult OHCA. Random-effects model meta-analysis was applied to calculate the mean deviation (MD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Overall, 3 randomized controlled trials and 12 non-randomized trials met the inclusion criteria. Survival to hospital discharge ( SHD) with sCPR was 10.2% compared to 9.3% in the CCC group (OR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.93–1.16; p = 0.46). SHD with good neurological outcome measured with the cerebral performance category (CPC 1 or 2) was 6.5% for sCPR vs. 5.8% for CCC (OR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.84–1.20; p = 0.98). Prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in sCPR and CCC groups was 15.9% and 14.8%, respectively (OR = 1.13; 95% CI: 0.91–1.39; p = 0.26). Survival to hospital admission with ROSC occurred in 29.5% of the sCPR group compared to 28.4% in CCC group (OR = 1.20; 95% CI: 0.89–1.63; p = 0.24). Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that there were no significant differences in the resuscitation outcomes between the use of standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation and chest compression only

Meta-analysis of chest compression-only versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders for adult with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

Background: According to the guidelines of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) conducted by bystanders, two methods of CPR are feasible: standard CPR (sCPR) with mouth-to-mouth ventilations and continuous chest compression-only CPR (CCC) without rescue breathing. The goal herein, was to evaluate the effect of sCPR (30:2) and CCC on resuscitation outcomes in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients. Methods: This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis. Using standardized criteria, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE and Cochrane Collaboration were searched for trials assessing the effect of sCPR vs. CCC on resuscitation outcomes after adult OHCA. Random-effects model meta-analysis was applied to calculate the mean deviation (MD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Overall, 3 randomized controlled trials and 12 non-randomized trials met the inclusion criteria. Survival to hospital discharge (SHD) with sCPR was 10.2% compared to 9.3% in the CCC group (OR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.93–1.16; p = 0.46). SHD with good neurological outcome measured with the cerebral performance category (CPC 1 or 2) was 6.5% for sCPR vs. 5.8% for CCC (OR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.84–1.20; p = 0.98). Prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in sCPR and CCC groups was 15.9% and 14.8%, respectively (OR = 1.13; 95% CI: 0.91–1.39; p = 0.26). Survival to hospital admission with ROSC occurred in 29.5% of the sCPR group compared to 28.4% in CCC group (OR = 1.20; 95% CI: 0.89–1.63; p = 0.24). Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that there were no significant differences in the resuscitation outcomes between the use of standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation and chest compression only

Vitamin D supplementation to treat SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. Evidence from meta-analysis

Background: Vitamin D is a likely candidate for treatment as its immune modulating characteristics have effects on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. It was  sought herein, to summarize the studies published to date regarding the vitamin D supplementation to treat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive patients. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The primary outcome were 14-day and in-hospital mortality reported as an odds ratio (OR) with the associated 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Eight articles were included in the review with a combined total of 2,322 individual patients, 786 in the vitamin D supplementation group and 1,536 in the control group. The use of vitamin D compared to the group without vitamin D supplementation was associated with a lower 14-day mortality (18.8% vs. 31.3%, respectively; OR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.12–2.19; p = 0.36), a lower in-hospital mortality (5.6% vs. 16.1%; OR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.23–1.37; I2 = 74%; p = 0.20), the rarer intensive care unit admission (6.4% vs. 23.4%; OR = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.06–0.54; I2 = 77%; p = 0.002) as well as rarer mechanical ventilation (6.5% vs. 18.9%; OR = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.16–0.80; I2 = 0.48; p = 0.01). Conclusions: Vitamin D supplementation in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients has the potential to positively impact patients with both mild and severe symptoms. As several high-quality randomized control studies have demonstrated a benefit in hospital mortality, vitamin D should be considered a supplemental therapy of strong interest. Should vitamin D prove to reduce hospitalization rates and symptoms outside of the hospital setting, the cost and benefit to global pandemic mitigation efforts would be substantial