Uncovering the effects of COVID-19 on in-hospital cardiac arrest - a living systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused a global pandemic and had a negative impact on the entire health care system. To understand the effect of COVID-19 on outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA), a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies was designed to compare the pre- and intra-pandemic periods of adult patients who suffered cardiac arrest, and additionally by performing a sub-analysis related to COVID-19 positive vs. negative patients in the same group of patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: To evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on IHCA outcomes a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Pubmed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane database were searched for articles published from 1 January 2020 - 8 April 2023. RESULTS: Return of spontaneous circulation events among IHCA patients in pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 pandemic periods varied and amounted to 64.0% vs. 60.0%, respectively (OR=1.23; 95%CI: 1.19 to 1.26; p<0.001). Re-arrest occurrence was 4.5% vs. 4.9%, respectively (OR=1.24; 95%CI: 1.00 to 1.53; p=0.05). Survival to hospital discharge (SHD) was 25.1% compared to 20.9% for COVID-19 period (OR = 1.17; 95%CI: 0.96 to 1.41; p=0.12). During the COVID-19 period, SHD in COVID-19 positive patients was 14.0% compared to 25.9% for patients without COVID-19 (OR=0.72; 95%CI: 0.28 to 1.86; p=0.50). 30-day survival rate among COVID-19 positive vs. negative patients was 62.6% vs. 58.3%, respectively (OR =0.99; 95%CI: 0.23 to 4.24; p=0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection had reduced rates of ROSC and SDH, as well as poorer neurologic outcomes and increased in hospital re-arrests during the COVID-19 period. However, the 30-day survival rate was similar in SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patients.

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.

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, Pub- Med, 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 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). Survival to hospital discharge 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.

Outcomes of audio-instructed and video-instructed dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The present meta-analysis of clinical and simulation trials aimed to compare video-instructed dispatcher-assisted bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (V-DACPR) with conventional audio-instructed dispatcher-assisted bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (C-DACPR). METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Collaboration databases and Scopus from inception until June 10, 2021. The primary outcomes were the prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital discharge, and survival to hospital discharge with a good neurological outcome for clinical trials, and chest compression quality for simulation trials. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) indicated the pooled effect. The analyses were performed with the RevMan 5.4 and STATA 14 software. RESULTS: Overall, 2 clinical and 8 simulation trials were included in this meta-analysis. In clinical trials, C-DACPR and V-DACPR were characterised by, respectively, 11.8% vs. 24.3% of prehospital ROSC (OR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.69; I2 = 66%; p < .001), 10.7% vs. 22.3% of survival to hospital discharge (OR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.70; I2 = 69%; p < .001), and 6.3% vs. 16.0% of survival to hospital discharge with a good neurological outcome (OR = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.67; I2 = 73%; p < .001). In simulation trials, chest compression rate per minute equalled 91.3 ± 22.6 for C-DACPR and 107.8 ± 12.6 for V-DACPR (MD = -13.40; 95% CI: -21.86, -4.95; I2 = 97%; p = .002). The respective values for chest compression depth were 38.7 ± 14.3 and 41.8 ± 12.5 mm (MD = -2.67; 95% CI: -8.35, 3.01; I2 = 98%; p = .36). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with C-DACPR, V-DACPR significantly increased prehospital ROSC and survival to hospital discharge. Under simulated resuscitation conditions, V-DACPR exhibited a higher rate of adequate chest compressions than C-DACPR.Key messagesBystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation parameters significantly depend on the dispatcher's support and the manner of the support provided.Video-instructed dispatcher-assisted bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation can increase the rate of prehospital return of spontaneous circulation and survival to hospital discharge.Video-instructed dispatcher-assisted bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation improves the quality of chest compressions compared with dispatcher-assisted resuscitation without video instruction.

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.

The Influence of COVID-19 on Out-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Survival Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is associated with poor prognosis. Because the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted mortality and morbidity, both on an individual level and the health care system as a whole, our purpose was to determine rates of OHCA survival since the onset of the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the influence of COVID-19 on OHCA survival outcomes according to the PRISMA guidelines. We searched the literature using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials databases from inception to September 2021 and identified 1775 potentially relevant studies, of which thirty-one articles totaling 88,188 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods was 12.3% vs. 8.9%, respectively (OR = 1.40; 95%CI: 1.06-1.87; p < 0.001). Survival to hospital discharge in pre- vs. intra-COVID-19 periods was 11.5% vs. 8.2% (OR = 1.57; 95%CI: 1.37-1.79; p < 0.001). A similar dependency was observed in the case of survival to hospital discharge with the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) 1-2 (6.7% vs. 4.0%; OR = 1.71; 95%CI: 1.35-2.15; p < 0.001), as well as in the 30-day survival rate (9.2% vs. 6.4%; OR = 1.63; 95%CI: 1.13-2.36; p = 0.009). In conclusion, prognosis of OHCA is usually poor and even worse during COVID-19.

Intraosseous versus intravenous access while wearing personal protective equipment: a meta-analysis in the era of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining vascular access is one of the key procedures performed in patients in emergency settings. AIMS: The study was conducted as a meta­analysis and a systematic review and aimed to address the following question: which intravascular access method should be used in patients with COVID­19 when wearing full personal protective equipment (PPE)? METHODS: We performed a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases for randomized controlled trials that compared intravascular access methods used by operators wearing full level C PPE. We evaluated procedure duration and the success rate of intraosseous and peripheral intravenous accesses. RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials were included in quantitative synthesis. The use of PPE during intravascular access procedures had an impact on procedure duration in the case of intraosseous access (mean difference [MD], 11.69; 95% CI, 6.47-16.92; P <0.001), as well as reduced the success rate of intraosseous access by 0.8% and intravenous access by 10.1%. Under PPE conditions, intraosseous access, compared with peripheral intravenous access, offered a shorter procedure time (MD, -41.43; 95% CI, -62.36 to -24.47; P <0.001). CONCLUSION: This comprehensive meta­analysis suggested that the use of PPE significantly extends the duration of intravascular procedures. However, under PPE conditions, operators were able to obtain intraosseous access in a shorter time and with a higher success rate than in the case of intravenous access.

Impact of COVID-19 on in-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes: An updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The main purposes of this meta-analysis are to update the information about the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) and to investigate the impact of being infected by by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on IHCA outcomes. METHODS: The current meta-analysis is an update and follows the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). RESULTS: In analyses, pre- and intra-COVID-19 periods were observed for: shockable rhythms in 17.6% vs. 16.2% (odds ratio [OR]: 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-1.72; p = 0.65), return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in 47.4% vs. 44.0% (OR: 1.36; 95% CI: 0.90-2.07; p = 0.15), 30-day mortality in 59.8% vs. 60.9% (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.75-1.22; p = 0.69) and overall mortality 75.8% vs. 74.7% (OR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.49-1.28; p = 0.35), respectively. In analyses, SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patients were observed for: shockable rhythms in 9.6% vs. 19.8% (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.35-0.73; p < 0.001), ROSC in 33.9% vs. 52.1% (OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.30-0.73; p < 0.001), 30-day mortality in 77.2% vs. 59.7% (OR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.28-3.38; p = 0.003) and overall mortality in 94.9% vs. 76.7% (OR: 3.20; 95% CI: 0.98-10.49; p = 0.05), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite ROSC, 30-day and overall mortality rate were not statistically different in pre- vs. intra-COVID-19 periods, a lower incidence of ROSC and higher 20-day mortality rate were observed in SARS-CoV-2 (+) compared to SARS-CoV-2 (-) patients.

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 basic skills for lifeguards. The aim of the study was to assess the influence of chest compression frequency on the quality of the parameters of chest compressions performed by lifeguards. METHODS: This prospective observational, randomized, crossover simulation study was performed with 40 lifeguards working in Warsaw, Wroclaw, and Poznan, Poland. The subjects then participated in a target study, in which they were asked to perform 2-min cycles of metronome-guided chest compressions at 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 manikin software 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 lower for rates exceeding 120 CPM. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of 100-120 CPM, as recommended by international guidelines, is the optimal chest compression rate for cardiopulmonary resuscitation performed by lifeguards. A rate above 120 CPM was associated with a dramatic decrease in chest compression depth and overall chest compression quality. The role of full chest recoil should be emphasized in basic life support training.

Comparison of four different intraosseous access devices during simulated pediatric resuscitation. A randomized crossover manikin trial.

The aim of the study was to compare the success rate, procedure time, and user satisfaction of pediatric NIO™ compared to Pediatric BIG®, EZ-IO®, and Jamshidi intraosseous access devices. This was a randomized, crossover manikin trial with 87 paramedics. The correct location of intraosseous access when using NIO, BIG, EZ-IO, and Jamshidi was varied and was respectively 100, 90, 90, and 90%. The time required to obtain intravascular access (time T1) in the case of NIO, BIG, EZ-IO, and Jamshidi was varied and amounted to 9 s [IQR, 8-12] for NIO, 12 s [IQR, 9-16] for BIG, 13.5 s [IQR, 11-17] for the EZ-IO, and 15 s [IQR, 13-19] for Jamshidi. The paramedics evaluated each device on the subjective ease with which they performed the procedures. The intraosseous device, which proved the easiest to use was NIO, which in the case of CPR received a median rating of 1.5 (IQR, 0.5-1.5) points. CONCLUSION: Our study found that NIO® is superior to BIG®, EZ-IO®, and Jamshidi. NIO® achieved the highest first attempt success rate. NIO® also required the least time to insert and easiest to operate even by novice users. Further study is needed to test our findings in cadavers or human subjects. Based on our findings, NIO® is a promising intraosseous device for use in pediatric resuscitation. What is Known: • Venous access in acutely ill pediatric patients, such as those undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation, is needed for prompt administration of drugs and fluids. • Intraosseous access is recommended by American Heart Association and European Resuscitation council if vascular access is not readily obtainable to prevent delay in treatment. What is New: • This simulated pediatric resuscitation compared performance of four commercially available pediatric intraosseous devices in a manikin model. • NIO® outperformed BIG®, EZ-IO®, and Jamshidi in first attempt success rates and time of procedure among novice users.

Evaluation of a newly developed infant chest compression technique: A randomized crossover manikin trial.

BACKGROUND: Providing adequate chest compression is essential during infant cardio-pulmonary-resuscitation (CPR) but was reported to be performed poor. The "new 2-thumb technique" (nTTT), which consists in using 2 thumbs directed at the angle of 90° to the chest while closing the fingers of both hands in a fist, was recently introduced. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare 3 chest compression techniques, namely, the 2-finger-technique (TFT), the 2-thumb-technique (TTHT), and the nTTT in an randomized infant-CPR manikin setting. METHODS: A total of 73 paramedics with at least 1 year of clinical experience performed 3 CPR settings with a chest compression:ventilation ratio of 15:2, according to current guidelines. Chest compression was performed with 1 out of the 3 chest compression techniques in a randomized sequence. Chest compression rate and depth, chest decompression, and adequate ventilation after chest compression served as outcome parameters. RESULTS: The chest compression depth was 29 (IQR, 28-29) mm in the TFT group, 42 (40-43) mm in the TTHT group, and 40 (39-40) mm in the nTTT group (TFT vs TTHT, P < 0.001; TFT vs nTTT, P < 0.001; TTHT vs nTTT, P < 0.01). The median compression rate with TFT, TTHT, and nTTT varied and amounted to 136 (IQR, 133-144) min versus 117 (115-121) min versus 111 (109-113) min. There was a statistically significant difference in the compression rate between TFT and TTHT (P < 0.001), TFT and nTTT (P < 0.001), as well as TTHT and nTTT (P < 0.001). Incorrect decompressions after CC were significantly increased in the TTHT group compared with the TFT (P < 0.001) and the nTTT (P < 0.001) group. CONCLUSIONS: The nTTT provides adequate chest compression depth and rate and was associated with adequate chest decompression and possibility to adequately ventilate the infant manikin. Further clinical studies are necessary to confirm these initial findings.