Management of adult cardiac arrest in the COVID-19 era: consensus statement from the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine.

INTRODUCTION: The global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused significant worldwide disruption. Although Australia and New Zealand have not been affected as much as some other countries, resuscitation may still pose a risk to health care workers and necessitates a change to our traditional approach. This consensus statement for adult cardiac arrest in the setting of COVID-19 has been produced by the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM) and aligns with national and international recommendations. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: In a setting of low community transmission, most cardiac arrests are not due to COVID-19. Early defibrillation saves lives and is not considered an aerosol generating procedure. Compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation is thought to be a low risk procedure and can be safely initiated with the patient's mouth and nose covered. All other resuscitative procedures are considered aerosol generating and require the use of airborne personal protective equipment (PPE). It is important to balance the appropriateness of resuscitation against the risk of infection. Methods to reduce nosocomial transmission of COVID-19 include a physical barrier such as a towel or mask over the patient's mouth and nose, appropriate use of PPE, minimising the staff involved in resuscitation, and use of mechanical chest compression devices when available. If COVID-19 significantly affects hospital resource availability, the ethics of resource allocation must be considered. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT: The changes outlined in this document require a significant adaptation for many doctors, nurses and paramedics. It is critically important that all health care workers have regular PPE and advanced life support training, are able to access in situ simulation sessions, and receive extensive debriefing after actual resuscitations. This will ensure safe, timely and effective management of the patients with cardiac arrest in the COVID-19 era.

Timing and methods of frailty assessments in geriatric trauma patients: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The trauma population is aging and better prognostic measures for geriatric trauma patients are required. Frailty rather than age appears to be associated with poor outcomes. This systematic review aimed to identify the optimum frailty assessment instrument and timing of assessment in patients aged over 65 years admitted to hospital after traumatic injury. The secondary aim was to evaluate outcomes associated with frailty in elderly trauma populations. METHODS: This systematic review was registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018090620). A MEDLINE and EMBASE literature search was conducted from inception to June 2019 combining the concepts of injury, geriatric, frailty, assessment and prognosis. Included studies were in patients 65 years or older hospitalised after injury and exposed to an instrument meeting consensus definition for frailty assessment. Study quality was assessed using criteria for review of prognostic studies combined with a GRADE approach. RESULTS: Twenty-eight papers met inclusion criteria. Twenty-eight frailty or component instruments were reported, and assessments of pre-injury frailty were made up to 1-year post injury. Pre-injury frailty prevalence varied from 13% (13/100) to 94% (17/18), with in-hospital mortality rates from 2% (5/250) to 33% (6/18). Eleven studies found an association between frailty and mortality. Eleven studies reported an association between frailty and a composite outcome of mortality and adverse discharge destination. Generalisability and assessment of strength of associations was limited by single centre studies with inconsistent findings and overlapping cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Associations between frailty and adverse outcomes including mortality in geriatric trauma patients were demonstrated despite a range of frailty instruments, administering clinicians, time of assessment and data sources. Although evidence gaps remain, incorporating frailty assessment into trauma systems is likely to identify geriatric patients at risk of adverse outcomes. Consistency in frailty instruments and long-term geriatric specific outcome measures will improve research relevance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III prognostic.