Observational study on implications of the COVID-19-pandemic for cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: qualitative and quantitative insights from a model region in Germany.

BACKGROUND: The city of Freiburg has been among the most affected regions by the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. In out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) care, all parts of the rescue system were exposed to profound infrastructural changes. We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of these changes in the resuscitation landscape in the Freiburg region. METHODS: Utstein-style quantitative data on OHCA with CPR initiated, occurring in the first pandemic wave between February 27th, 2020 and April 30th, 2020 were compared to the same time periods between 2016 and 2019. Additionally, qualitative changes in the entire rescue system were analyzed and described. RESULTS: Incidence of OHCA with attempted CPR did not significantly increase during the pandemic period (11.1/100.000 inhabitants/63 days vs 10.4/100.000 inhabitants/63 days, p = 1.000). In witnessed cases, bystander-CPR decreased significantly from 57.7% (30/52) to 25% (4/16) (p = 0.043). A severe pre-existing condition (PEC) was documented more often, 66.7% (16/24) vs 38.2% (39/102) there were longer emergency medical services (EMS) response times, more resuscitation attempts terminated on scene, 62.5% (15/24) vs. 34.3% (35/102) and less patients transported to hospital (p = 0.019). Public basic life support courses, an app-based first-responder alarm system, Kids Save Lives activities and a prehospital extracorporeal CPR (eCPR) service were paused during the peak of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: In our region, bystander CPR in witnessed OHCA cases as well as the number of patients transported to hospital significantly decreased during the first pandemic wave. Several important parts of the resuscitation landscape were paused. The COVID-19 pandemic impedes OHCA care, which leads to additional casualties. Countermeasures should be taken.

Outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in Covid-19 or influenza: A single-center registry study.

Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) is used to sustain blood oxygenation and decarboxylation in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). It is under debate if V-V ECMO is as appropriate for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) ARDS as it is for influenza. In this retrospective study, we analyzed all patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 or influenza A/B infection, ARDS and V-V ECMO, treated at our medical intensive care unit (ICU) between October 2010 and June 2020. Baseline and procedural characteristics as well as survival 30 days after ECMO cannulation were analyzed. A total of 62 V-V ECMO patients were included (15 with Covid-19 and 47 with influenza). Both groups had similar baseline characteristics at cannulation. Thirty days after ECMO cannulation, 13.3% of all patients with Covid-19 were discharged alive from our ICU compared to 44.7% with influenza (P = .03). Patients with Covid-19 had fewer ECMO-free days (0 (0-9.7) days vs. 13.2 (0-22.1) days; P = .05). Cumulative incidences of 30-day-survival showed no significant differences (48.6% in Covid-19 patients, 63.7% in influenza patients; P = .23). ICU treatment duration was significantly longer in ARDS patients with V-V ECMO for Covid-19 compared to influenza. Thirty-day mortality was higher in Covid-19, but not significant.

Comparison of different anticoagulation strategies for renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have a high risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) that requires renal replacement therapy (RRT). A state of hypercoagulability reduces circuit life spans. To maintain circuit patency and therapeutic efficiency, an optimized anticoagulation strategy is needed. This study investigates whether alternative anticoagulation strategies for RRT during COVID-19 are superior to administration of unfractionated heparin (UFH). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study on 71 critically ill COVID-19 patients (≥18 years), admitted to intensive care units at a tertiary health care facility in the southwestern part of Germany between February 26 and May 21, 2020. We collected data on the disease course, AKI, RRT, and thromboembolic events. Four different anticoagulatory regimens were administered. Anticoagulation during continuous veno-venous hemodialysis (CVVHD) was performed with UFH or citrate. Anticoagulation during sustained low-efficiency daily dialysis (SLEDD) was performed with UFH, argatroban, or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Primary outcome is the effect of the anticoagulation regimen on mean treatment times of RRT. RESULTS: In patients receiving CVVHD, mean treatment time in the UFH group was 21.3 h (SEM: ±5.6 h), in the citrate group 45.6 h (SEM: ±2.7 h). Citrate anticoagulation significantly prolonged treatment times by 24.4 h (P = .001). In patients receiving SLEDD, mean treatment time with UFH was 8.1 h (SEM: ±1.3 h), with argatroban 8.0 h (SEM: ±0.9 h), and with LMWH 11.8 h (SEM: ±0.5 h). LMWH significantly prolonged treatment times by 3.7 h (P = .008) and 3.8 h (P = .002), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: UFH fails to prevent early clotting events in the dialysis circuit during COVID-19. For patients, who do not require effective systemic anticoagulation, regional citrate dialysis is the most effective strategy. For patients, who require effective systemic anticoagulation, the usage of LMWH results in the longest circuit life spans. The proposed anticoagulatory strategies are safe, can easily be monitored, and allow an individualized treatment.

Delirium in Critically Ill Patients with and without COVID-19-A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Delirium complicating the course of Intensive care unit (ICU) therapy is a known driver of morbidity and mortality. It has been speculated that infection with the neurotrophic SARS-CoV-2 might promote delirium. METHODS: Retrospective registry analysis including all patients treated at least 48 h on a medical intensive care unit. The primary endpoint was development of delirium as diagnosed by Nursing Delirium screening scale ≥2. Results were confirmed by propensity score matching. RESULTS: 542 patients were included. The primary endpoint was reached in 352/542 (64.9%) patients, without significant differences between COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 patients (51.4% and 65.9%, respectively, p = 0.07) and correlated with prolonged ICU stay in both groups. In a subgroup of patients with ICU stay >10 days delirium was significantly lower in COVID-19 patients (p ≤ 0.01). After adjustment for confounders, COVID-19 correlated independently with less ICU delirium (p ≤ 0.01). In the propensity score matched cohort, patients with COVID-19 had significantly lower delirium incidence compared to the matched control patients (p ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSION: Delirium is frequent in critically ill patients with and without COVID-19 treated at an intensive care unit. Data suggests that COVID-19 itself is not a driver of delirium per se.

Advantages of score-based delirium detection compared to a clinical delirium assessment-a retrospective, monocentric cohort study.

PURPOSE: Delirium is an underdiagnosed complication on intensive care units (ICU). We hypothesized that a score-based delirium detection using the Nudesc score identifies more patients compared to a traditional diagnosis of delirium by ICU physicians. METHODS: In this retrospective study, all patients treated on a general medical ICU with 30 beds in a university hospital in 2019 were analyzed. Primary outcome was a documented physician diagnosis of delirium, or a delirium score ≥2 using the Nudesc. RESULTS: In 205/943 included patients (21.7%), delirium was diagnosed by ICU physicians compared to 438/943 (46.4%; ratio 2.1) by Nudesc≥2. Both assessments were independent predictors of ICU stay (p<0.01). The physician diagnosis however was no independent predictor of mortality (OR 0.98 (0.57-1.72); p = 0.989), in contrast to the score-based diagnosis (OR 2.31 (1.30-4.10); p = 0.004). Subgroup analysis showed that physicians underdiagnosed delirium in case of hypoactive delirium and delirium in patients with female gender and in patients with an age below 60 years. CONCLUSION: Delirium in patients with hypoactive delirium, female patients and those below 60 years was underdiagnosed by physicians. The score-based delirium diagnosis detected delirium more frequently and correlated with ICU mortality and stay.

Incidence and predictors of delirium on the intensive care unit in patients with acute kidney injury, insight from a retrospective registry.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) and delirium are common complications on the intensive care unit (ICU). Few is known about the association of AKI and delirium, as well as about incidence and predictors of delirium in patients with AKI. In this retrospective study, all patients with AKI, as defined by the KDIGO (kidney disease improving global outcome) guideline, treated for more than 24 h on the ICU in an university hospital in 2019 were included and analyzed. Delirium was defined by a NuDesc (Nursing Delirium screening scale) ≥ 2, which is evaluated three times a day in every patient on our ICU as part of daily routine. A total of 383/919 (41.7%) patients developed an AKI during the ICU stay. Delirium was detected in 230/383 (60.1%) patients with AKI. Independent predictors of delirium were: age, psychiatric disease, alcohol abuse, mechanical ventilation, severe shock, and AKI stage II/III (all p < 0.05). The primary cause of illness had no influence on the onset of delirium. Among patients with AKI, the duration of the ICU stay correlated with higher stages of AKI and the presence of delirium (stage I/no delirium: median 1.9 (interquartile range (25th-75th) 1.3-2.9) days; stage II/III/no delirium: 2.6 (1.6-5.5) days; stage I/delirium: 4.1 (2.5-14.3) days; stage II/III/delirium: 6.8 (3.5-11.9) days; all p < 0.01). Delirium, defined as NuDesc ≥ 2 is frequent in patients with AKI on an ICU and independently predicted by higher stages of AKI.

Influence of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors on bleeding events after successful resuscitation and percutaneous coronary intervention.

AIM: Cardiac arrest is the most serious complication in acute coronary syndromes. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) are used in selected acute coronary syndrome patients. If the use of GPI leads to an increase in bleeding events and influences survival in patients after cardiac arrest is unknown. METHODS: We report retrospective data of a single center registry of patients after successful intra- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest between 2002 and 2013. Inclusion criteria were survival for at least 6 h and successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within the first 24 h. Patients treated with other fibrinolytic agents or being supported by an extracorporeal life support system were excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: 310 patients were included in our study. 204 received GPI (GPI+), 106 did not (GPI-). Patients in the GPI+ group were significantly younger (62.8 vs. 68.0 years, p < 0.001) and had larger myocardial infarction sizes (maximum creatine kinase 3407 vs. 1450 U/l, p < 0.001). CPR duration, SOFA score and first lactate did not differ between the groups. Any bleeding occurred significantly more often in the GPI+ group (83.3% vs. 67.0%, p = 0.001). Decline of hemoglobin within the first 24 h was higher in the GPI+ group (-1.59 ± 1.71 mg/dl vs. -0.88 ± 1.95 mg/dl, p = 0.004), number of transfused packed red blood cells in the first 4 days, however, were similar (1.18 ± 0.40 vs. 0.90 ± 0.41 packs, p = 0.378). Survival at ICU discharge was significantly higher in the GPI+ group (77.5% vs. 63.2%, p = 0.008). The use of GPI was an independent predictor of hospital survival (OR 3.07, CI 1.31-7.20, p = 0.010). The positive effect for GPI persisted after nearest neighbor propensity score matching including 144 patients (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.48-7.21, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: After cardiac arrest, bleeding incidence was significantly higher in patients treated with GPI. Incidence of bleedings requiring transfusion, however, was similar. In this retrospective analysis, the use of GPI was an independent predictor of hospital survival. We suggest that GPI may not be withheld from cardiac arrest survivors due to potential risk of bleeding.

Isoflurane or propofol sedation in patients with targeted temperature management after cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A single center study.

PROPOSE: Targeted temperature management improves outcomes in comatose patients after cardiac arrest. Short lasting sedatives might enable rapid awakening after targeted temperature management and therefore early prognostication and extubation. Aim of the present study was to compare sedation with volatile isoflurane to intravenous propofol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients after cardiopulmonary resuscitation undergoing targeted temperature management treated between 01/2014 and 02/2017 at a single tertiary referral hospital were screened. Exclusion criteria included extracorporeal support or a survival below 48 h. RESULTS: Data on 214 patients (median age 66.1 years, 62.6% shockable rhythm, survival 69.6%) are reported, 178 patients on propofol and sufentanil and 36 patients on isoflurane and sufentanil. Median time to first spontaneous breathing (9.3 h vs. 9.5 h, p = .373), median duration on mechanical ventilation in extubated patients (99.4 h vs. 105.7 h, p = .692) and median ICU stay (11.1d vs. 9.8d, p = .320) were similar in patients on propofol or isoflurane, respectively. Findings were confirmed by propensity score matching. Opioid dose was significantly lower in the isoflurane group (p < .001) while norepinephrine dose was significantly higher (p = .004). CONCLUSION: Isoflurane sedation is feasible on during targeted temperature management. Time to spontaneous breathing, mechanical ventilation duration or ICU stay was not reduced by isoflurane.