Effects of COVID-19 on a mature citizen first responder system in the German district of Gütersloh: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the response rate of community-first-responders (CFR) and other out-of-hospital-cardiac-arrest (OHCA) outcomes using the smartphone-first-responder-system (SFRS) "Mobile Retter." METHODS: All adult non-traumatic OHCA in the district of Gütersloh between 01.01.2018-31.12.2021 were included. Periods of interest were 1) prior to the first COVID-19-lockdown; to 2) both lockdowns; and 3) the time in between, as well as after the COVID-19-lockdowns (pre-COVID-19, COVID-19-lockdown and COVID-19-pandemic respectively). The primary outcome was the CFR response rate defined as proportion of CFR alerts that were accepted by a CFR and in which at least one CFR arrived on scene of the emergency out of all CFR alerts. Secondary outcomes included the rate of CFR alerts, defined as proportion of OHCA to which CFR were summoned by the emergency medical dispatcher, as well as the rate of return-of-spontaneous-circulation (ROSC) and rate of survival until hospital discharge. We also examined the incidence COVID-19-infection of CFR in context of the SFRS. RESULTS: A total of 1064 OHCA-patients (mean age: 71.4±14.5 years; female: 33.8%) were included in the study (Pre-COVID-19: 539; COVID-19-lockdown: 109; COVID-19-pandemic: 416). The response rate was 64.0% (pre-COVID-19: 58.7%; COVID-19-lockdown: 63.5%; COVID-19-pandemic: 71.8%, P=0.002 vs. pre-COVID-19). The alert rate was 52.7% (pre-COVID-19: 56.2%; COVID-19-lockdown: 47.7%, P=0.04 vs. Pre-COVID-19; COVID-19-Pandemic: 49.5%, P=0.02 vs. pre-COVID-19). The ROSC-rate was 40.4% (pre-COVID-19: 41.0%; COVID-19-lockdown: 33.9%; COVID-19-pandemic: 41.4%) and hospital discharge rate 31.2% (Pre-COVID-19: 33.0%; COVID-19-lockdown: 36.8%; COVID-19-pandemic: 28.7%). The use of CFR was associated with favorable effects in terms of hospital admission (odds ratio [OR]: 0.654 (CI95: 0.444-0.963), P=0.03), hospital discharge (OR: 2.343 (CI95: 1.002-5.475), P=0.04). None of the CFR became infected with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: "Mobile-Retter" was associated with high response rates, improved outcome in OHCA patients and no COVID-19-infections of CFR during the COVID-19-pandemic and -lockdowns.

Midazolam for Post-Arrest Sedation in Pre-Hospital Emergency Care­a Multicenter Propensity Score Analysis.

BACKGROUND: An out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) may need to be treated with airway management, emergency ventilation, invasive interventions, and post-arrest sedation. We investigated the influence of the use of midazolam for post-arrest sedation on achieving post-resuscitation care targets and the associated risk of hemodynamic complications. METHODS: All emergency rescue missions of the Dresden, Gütersloh, and Lippe medical rescue services in the years 2019-2021 were reviewed to identify adult patients who had OHCA, unconsciousness, and sustained ROSC with spontaneous circulation until arrival at the hospital; the findings were supplemented with data from the German Resuscitation Registry. Patients who received midazolam (alone or in combination with other anesthetic agents) for post-arrest sedation were compared with those who did not. The endpoints were the regaining of a systolic blood pressure ≥ 100 mmHg, end-tidal pCO2 35-45 mmHg, and oxygen saturation (SpO2) 94-98%. A propensity score analysis was used to adjust for age, sex, and variables potentially affecting hemodynamic status or the targets for oxygenation and ventilation. RESULTS: There were 2335 cases of OHCA among 391 305 emergency rescue missions. 571 patients had ROSC before arrival in the hospital (24.5%; female, 33.6%; age, 68 ± 14 years). Of the 395 among them (69.2%) who were treated with post-arrest sedation, 249 (63.0%) received midazolam. Patients who received midazolam reached the guideline-recommended targets for oxygenation, ventilation, and blood pressure more frequently than those who were not sedated: the respective odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were 2.00 [1.20; 3.34], 1.57 [0.99; 2.48], and 1.41 [0.89; 2.21]. CONCLUSION: The pre-hospital administration of midazolam leads to more frequent pre-hospital attainment of the oxygenation and ventilation targets in post-resuscitation care, without any evidence of an elevated risk of hemodynamic complications.

Impact of COVID-19-adapted guidelines using different airway management strategies on resuscitation quality in out-of-hospital-cardiac-arrest - a randomised manikin study.

BACKGROUND: Although airway management for paramedics has moved away from endotracheal intubation towards extraglottic airway devices in recent years, in the context of COVID-19, endotracheal intubation has seen a revival. Endotracheal intubation has been recommended again under the assumption that it provides better protection against aerosol liberation and infection risk for care providers than extraglottic airway devices accepting an increase in no-flow time and possibly worsen patient outcomes. METHODS: In this manikin study paramedics performed advanced cardiac life support with non-shockable (Non-VF) and shockable rhythms (VF) in four settings: ERC guidelines 2021 (control), COVID-19-guidelines using videolaryngoscopic intubation (COVID-19-intubation), laryngeal mask (COVID-19-Laryngeal-Mask) or a modified laryngeal mask modified with a shower cap (COVID-19-showercap) to reduce aerosol liberation simulated by a fog machine. Primary endpoint was no-flow-time, secondary endpoints included data on airway management as well as the participants' subjective assessment of aerosol release using a Likert-scale (0 = no release-10 = maximum release) were collected and statistically compared. Continuous Data was presented as mean ± standard deviation. Interval-scaled Data were presented as median and Q1 and Q3. RESULTS: A total of 120 resuscitation scenarios were completed. Compared to control (Non-VF:11 ± 3 s, VF:12 ± 3 s) application of COVID-19-adapted guidelines lead to prolonged no-flow times in all groups (COVID-19-Intubation: Non-VF:17 ± 11 s, VF:19 ± 5 s;p ≤ 0.001; COVID-19-laryngeal-mask: VF:15 ± 5 s,p ≤ 0.01; COVID-19-showercap: VF:15 ± 3 s,p ≤ 0.01). Compared to COVID-19-Intubation, the use of the laryngeal mask and its modification with a showercap both led to a reduction of no-flow-time(COVID-19-laryngeal-mask: Non-VF:p = 0.002;VF:p ≤ 0.001; COVID-19-Showercap: Non-VF:p ≤ 0.001;VF:p = 0.002) due to a reduced duration of intubation (COVID-19-Intubation: Non-VF:40 ± 19 s;VF:33 ± 17 s; both p ≤ 0.01 vs. control, COVID-19-Laryngeal-Mask (Non-VF:15 ± 7 s;VF:13 ± 5 s;p > 0.05) and COVID-19-Shower-cap (Non-VF:15 ± 5 s;VF:17 ± 5 s;p > 0.05). The participants rated aerosol liberation lowest in COVID-19-intubation (median:0;Q1:0,Q3:2;p < 0.001vs.COVID-19-laryngeal-mask and COVID-19-showercap) compared to COVID-19-shower-cap (median:3;Q1:1,Q3:3 p < 0.001vs.COVID-19-laryngeal-mask) or COVID-19-laryngeal-mask (median:9;Q1:6,Q3:8). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19-adapted guidelines using videolaryngoscopic intubation lead to a prolongation of no-flow time. The use of a modified laryngeal mask with a shower cap seems to be a suitable compromise combining minimal impact on no-flowtime and reduced aerosol exposure for the involved providers.