Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Clinical Updates and Perspectives.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) stands as a cornerstone in emergency care, representing the crucial link between life and death for victims of cardiac arrest [...].

Under Armour - Use of personal protective equipment for simulated CPR of COVID-19 patients: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Personal protective equipment (PPE) protects healthcare workers and patients. Data on guideline compliance on how to dress (donning) or remove (doffing) PPE and the assistance among multiple participants (buddying) are limited. This study assesses the quality of donning, doffing, and buddying of PPE in a simulated medical emergency. METHOD: Physicians handling a simulated cardiac arrest of a COVID-19 patient. Adjacent to the victim, PPE was available. The appropriateness of PPE choice was assessed by using video recordings, with each individual participant being analyzed from the beginning of the simulation scenario from two perspectives regarding the selection of items during donning and doffing, hygiene aspects, time, and team support (buddying). The primary outcome was the number of participants being appropriately protected, defined as both wearing (a) all PPE items provided, and (b) all PPE items correctly at the time of first patient contact (FPC). Secondary outcomes included the timing of participants being appropriately protected. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 28). Mann-Whitney test, chi-square test, and linear regression analysis were performed as appropriate. RESULTS: At first patient contact 21% (91/437) were correctly protected. One or more incorrect PPE items were found in 4% (19/437), whereas 61% (265/437) wore one or more PPE items incorrectly. In 14% (62/437), one or more PPE items were missing. The time interval between donning start and FPC was 66 (55-78) sec. Time to FPC was longer in correctly than in incorrectly protected participants 77 (66-87) vs. 64 (54-75) sec; p < 0.001) and decreased by 7 ± 2 s per PPE item omitted (P = 0.002). Correct doffing was observed in 192/345 (56%), while buddying occurred in 120 participants (27%), indicating that they either assisted other participants in some manner (verbally or physically) or received assistance themselves. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings imply a need for education in correct and timely PPE donning and doffing. Donning PPE as intended delayed FPC. This and the influence of buddying needs further investigation (German study register number DRKS00023184).

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation during hyperbaric oxygen therapy: a comprehensive review and recommendations for practice.

BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) presents unique challenges due to limited access to patients in cardiac arrest (CA) and the distinct physiological conditions present during hyperbaric therapy. Despite these challenges, guidelines specifically addressing CPR during HBOT are lacking. This review aims to consolidate the available evidence and offer recommendations for clinical practice in this context. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL using the search string: "(pressure chamber OR decompression OR hyperbaric) AND (cardiac arrest OR cardiopulmonary resuscitation OR advanced life support OR ALS OR life support OR chest compression OR ventricular fibrillation OR heart arrest OR heart massage OR resuscitation)". Additionally, relevant publications and book chapters not identified through this search were included. RESULTS: The search yielded 10,223 publications, with 41 deemed relevant to the topic. Among these, 18 articles (primarily case reports) described CPR or defibrillation in 22 patients undergoing HBOT. The remaining 23 articles provided information or recommendations pertaining to CPR during HBOT. Given the unique physiological factors during HBOT, the limitations of current resuscitation guidelines are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: CPR in the context of HBOT is a rare, yet critical event requiring special considerations. Existing guidelines should be adapted to address these unique circumstances and integrated into regular training for HBOT practitioners. This review serves as a valuable contribution to the literature on "CPR under special circumstances".

A SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) Analysis of ChatGPT in the Medical Literature: Concise Review.

BACKGROUND: ChatGPT is a 175-billion-parameter natural language processing model that is already involved in scientific content and publications. Its influence ranges from providing quick access to information on medical topics, assisting in generating medical and scientific articles and papers, performing medical data analyses, and even interpreting complex data sets. OBJECTIVE: The future role of ChatGPT remains uncertain and a matter of debate already shortly after its release. This review aimed to analyze the role of ChatGPT in the medical literature during the first 3 months after its release. METHODS: We performed a concise review of literature published in PubMed from December 1, 2022, to March 31, 2023. To find all publications related to ChatGPT or considering ChatGPT, the search term was kept simple ("ChatGPT" in AllFields). All publications available as full text in German or English were included. All accessible publications were evaluated according to specifications by the author team (eg, impact factor, publication modus, article type, publication speed, and type of ChatGPT integration or content). The conclusions of the articles were used for later SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. All data were analyzed on a descriptive basis. RESULTS: Of 178 studies in total, 160 met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. The average impact factor was 4.423 (range 0-96.216), and the average publication speed was 16 (range 0-83) days. Among the articles, there were 77 editorials (48,1%), 43 essays (26.9%), 21 studies (13.1%), 6 reviews (3.8%), 6 case reports (3.8%), 6 news (3.8%), and 1 meta-analysis (0.6%). Of those, 54.4% (n=87) were published as open access, with 5% (n=8) provided on preprint servers. Over 400 quotes with information on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats were detected. By far, most (n=142, 34.8%) were related to weaknesses. ChatGPT excels in its ability to express ideas clearly and formulate general contexts comprehensibly. It performs so well that even experts in the field have difficulty identifying abstracts generated by ChatGPT. However, the time-limited scope and the need for corrections by experts were mentioned as weaknesses and threats of ChatGPT. Opportunities include assistance in formulating medical issues for nonnative English speakers, as well as the possibility of timely participation in the development of such artificial intelligence tools since it is in its early stages and can therefore still be influenced. CONCLUSIONS: Artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT are already part of the medical publishing landscape. Despite their apparent opportunities, policies and guidelines must be implemented to ensure benefits in education, clinical practice, and research and protect against threats such as scientific misconduct, plagiarism, and inaccuracy.

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).

Manual and Mechanical Induced Peri-Resuscitation Injuries-Post-Mortem and Clinical Findings.

(1) Background: Injuries related to resuscitation are not usually systematically recorded and documented. By evaluating this data, conclusions could be drawn about the quality of the resuscitation, with the aim of improving patient care and safety. (2) Methods: We are planning to conduct a multicentric, retrospective 3-phased study consisting of (1) a worldwide literature review (scoping review), (2) an analysis of anatomical pathological findings from local institutions in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany to assess the transferability of the review data to the German healthcare system, and (3) depending on the results, possibly establishing potential prospective indicators for resuscitation-related injuries as part of quality assurance measures. (3) Conclusions: From the comparison of literature and local data, the picture of resuscitation-related injuries will be focused on and quality indicators will be derived.

Simulation-based randomized trial of medical emergency cognitive aids.

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.

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).

A beginner's view of end of life care on German intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about importance and implementation of end-of-life care (EOLC) in German intensive care units (ICU). This survey analyses preferences and differences in training between "medical" (internal medicine, neurology) and "surgical" (surgery, anaesthesiology) residents during intensive care rotation. METHODS: This is a point-prevalence study, in which intensive care medicine course participants of one educational course were surveyed. Physicians from multiple ICU and university as well as non-university hospitals and all care levels were asked to participate. The questionnaire was composed of a paper and an electronic part. Demographic and structural data were prompted and EOLC data (48 questions) were grouped into six categories considering importance and implementation: category 1 (important, always implemented), 2 (important, sometimes implemented), 3 (important, never implemented) and 4-6 (unimportant, implementation always, sometimes, never). The trial is registered at the "Deutsches Register für klinische Studien (DRKS)", Study number DRKS00026619, registered on September 10th 2021, www.drks.de . RESULTS: Overall, 194/ 220 (88%) participants responded. Mean age was 29.7 years, 55% were female and 60% had scant ICU working experience. There were 64% medical and 35% surgical residents. Level of care and size of ICU differed significantly between medical and surgical (both p < 0.001). Sufficient implementation was stated for 66% of EOLC questions, room for improvement (category 2 and 3) was seen in 25, and 8% were classified as irrelevant (category 6). Areas with the most potential for improvement included prognosis and outcome and patient autonomy. There were no significant differences between medical and surgical residents. CONCLUSIONS: Even though EOLC is predominantly regarded as sufficiently implemented in German ICU of all specialties, our survey unveiled still 25% room for improvement for medical as well as surgical ICU residents. This is important, as areas of improvement potential may be addressed with reasonable effort, like individualizing EOLC procedures or setting up EOLC teams. Health care providers as well as medical societies should emphasize EOLC training in their curricula.

Impact of family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation on team performance and perceived task load: a prospective randomised simulator-based trial.

OBJECTIVES: Guidelines recommend family presence to be offered during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Data on the effects of family presence on the quality of CPR and rescuers' workload and stress levels are sparse and conflicting. This randomised trial investigated the effects of family presence on quality of CPR, and rescuers' perceived stress. DESIGN: Prospective randomised single-blind trial. SETTING: Voluntary workshops of educational courses. PARTICIPANTS: 1085 physicians (565 men) randomised to 325 teams entered the trial. 318 teams completed the trial without protocol violation. INTERVENTIONS: Teams were randomised to a family presence group (n=160) or a control group (n=158) and to three versions of leadership: (a) designated at random, (b) designated by the team or (c) left open. Thereafter, teams were confronted with a simulated cardiac arrest which was video-recorded. Trained actors played a family member according a scripted role. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was hands-on time. Secondary outcomes included interaction time, rescuers' perceived task load and adherence to CPR algorithms. RESULTS: Teams interacted with the family member during 24 (17-36) % of the time spent for resuscitation. Family presence had no effect on hands-on time (88% (84%-91%) vs 89% (85%-91%); p=0.18). Family presence increased frustration (60 (30-75) vs 45 (30-70); p<0.001) and perceived temporal (75 (55-85) vs 70 (50-80); p=0.001) and mental demands (75 (60-85) vs 70 (55-80); p=0.009), but had no relevant effect on CPR performance markers. Leadership condition had no effects. CONCLUSIONS: Interacting with a family member occupied about a quarter of the time spent for CPR. While this additional task was associated with an increase in frustration and perceived temporal and mental demands, family presence had no relevant negative effect on the quality of CPR. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00024759.

Massive hemoptysis two months after an otherwise mild SARS-CoV-2 disease (COVID-19) treated with bronchial artery embolization - A case report.

An otherwise healthy young man presented with massive hemoptysis 2 month following a mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and with no other identifiable cause of illness. The patient was successfully treated with bronchial artery embolization. We are strongly convinced that hemoptysis in this case was COVID-related. This unusual case of delayed COVID-related hemoptysis reveals new aspects in the understanding of mid-term and presumable auto-immune triggered effects in patients with initially only mild symptoms of the disease.

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, 3 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.

Machine learning identifies ICU outcome predictors in a multicenter COVID-19 cohort.

BACKGROUND: Intensive Care Resources are heavily utilized during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, risk stratification and prediction of SARS-CoV-2 patient clinical outcomes upon ICU admission remain inadequate. This study aimed to develop a machine learning model, based on retrospective & prospective clinical data, to stratify patient risk and predict ICU survival and outcomes. METHODS: A Germany-wide electronic registry was established to pseudonymously collect admission, therapeutic and discharge information of SARS-CoV-2 ICU patients retrospectively and prospectively. Machine learning approaches were evaluated for the accuracy and interpretability of predictions. The Explainable Boosting Machine approach was selected as the most suitable method. Individual, non-linear shape functions for predictive parameters and parameter interactions are reported. RESULTS: 1039 patients were included in the Explainable Boosting Machine model, 596 patients retrospectively collected, and 443 patients prospectively collected. The model for prediction of general ICU outcome was shown to be more reliable to predict "survival". Age, inflammatory and thrombotic activity, and severity of ARDS at ICU admission were shown to be predictive of ICU survival. Patients' age, pulmonary dysfunction and transfer from an external institution were predictors for ECMO therapy. The interaction of patient age with D-dimer levels on admission and creatinine levels with SOFA score without GCS were predictors for renal replacement therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Using Explainable Boosting Machine analysis, we confirmed and weighed previously reported and identified novel predictors for outcome in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Using this strategy, predictive modeling of COVID-19 ICU patient outcomes can be performed overcoming the limitations of linear regression models. Trial registration "ClinicalTrials" (clinicaltrials.gov) under NCT04455451.

[Noninvasive ventilation and positional therapy in COVID-19 : Case report and literature review]. / Nichtinvasive Beatmungs- und Lagerungstherapie bei COVID-19 : Kasuistik und Literaturübersicht.

If noninvasive ventilation (NIV or high-flow CPAP) fails in severe cases of COVID-19, escalation of treatment with orotracheal intubation and intermitted prone positioning is provided as standard care. The present case reports show two COVID-19 patients with severe refractory hypoxemia despite NIV treatment during the first wave (first half year 2020) and the resulting influence on the treatment regimen during the second wave (since October 2020) of the pandemic. Both patients (aged 63 years and 77 years) voluntarily positioned themselves on the side or in a prone position without prior sedation and oral intubation. Positional treatment promptly improved the arterial oxygenation level. The oxygenation index improved in the following days with continued NIV and intermittent prone and side position. The recovered patients were transferred from the intensive care unit at days 5 and 14, respectively after admission. The case reports, along with other reports, show that prone or lateral positioning may be important in the treatment of SARS-CoV­2 pneumonia in awake and not yet intubated patients.

Diagnostic Errors Induced by a Wrong a Priori Diagnosis: A Prospective Randomized Simulator-Based Trial.

Preventive strategies against diagnostic errors require the knowledge of underlying mechanisms. We examined the effects of a wrong a priori diagnosis on diagnostic accuracy of a focussed assessment in an acute myocardial infarction scenario. One-hundred-and-fifty-six medical students (cohort 1) were randomized to three study arms differing in the a priori diagnosis revealed: no diagnosis (control group), myocardial infarction (correct diagnosis group), and pulmonary embolism (wrong diagnosis group). Forty-four physicians (cohort 2) were randomized to the control group and the wrong diagnosis group. Primary endpoint was the participants' final presumptive diagnosis. Among students, the correct diagnosis of an acute myocardial infarction was made by 48/52 (92%) in the control group, 49/52 (94%) in the correct diagnosis group, and 14/52 (27%) in the wrong diagnosis group (p < 0.001 vs. both other groups). Among physicians, the correct diagnosis was made by 20/21 (95%) in the control group and 15/23 (65%) in the wrong diagnosis group (p = 0.023). In the wrong diagnosis group, 31/52 (60%) students and 6/23 (19%) physicians indicated their initially given wrong a priori diagnosis pulmonary embolism as final diagnosis. A wrong a priori diagnosis significantly increases the likelihood of a diagnostic error during a subsequent patient encounter.

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.

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.