Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on trauma care: a nationwide observational study.

PURPOSE: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic severely disrupted society and the health care system. In addition to epidemiological changes, little is known about the pandemic's effects on the trauma care chain. Therefore, in addition to epidemiology and aetiology, this study aims to describe the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on prehospital times, resource use and outcome. METHODS: A multicentre observational cohort study based on the Dutch Nationwide Trauma Registry was performed. Characteristics, resource usage, and outcomes of trauma patients treated at all trauma-receiving hospitals during the first (W1, March 12 through May 11) and second waves (W2, May 12 through September 23), as well as the interbellum period in between (INT, September 23 through December 31), were compared with those treated from the same periods in 2018 and 2019. RESULTS: The trauma caseload was reduced by 20% during the W1 period and 11% during the W2 period. The median length of stay was significantly shortened for hip fracture and major trauma patients (ISS ≥ 16). A 33% and 66% increase in the prevalence of minor self-harm-related injuries was recorded during the W1 and W2 periods, respectively, and a 36% increase in violence-related injuries was recorded during the INT. Mortality was significantly higher in the W1 (2.9% vs. 2.2%) and W2 (3.2% vs. 2.7%) periods. CONCLUSION: The imposed restrictions in response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic led to diminished numbers of acute trauma admissions in the Netherlands. The long-lasting pressing demand for resources, including ICU services, has negatively affected trauma care. Further caution is warranted regarding the increased incidence of injuries related to violence and self-harm.

The contribution of comorbidity and medication use to poor outcome from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at home locations.

INTRODUCTION: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) at home is associated with lower rates of shockable initial rhythm and survival than OHCA in a public location. We determined whether medical history and medication use explain the association between OHCA location and presence of shockable initial rhythm and survival rate. METHODS: Data from ARREST, an OHCA registry in the Netherlands, were used (January 2009-December 2012). We assessed if OHCA location remained associated with a) presence of shockable initial rhythm and b) survival when taking medical history, medication use, resuscitation characteristics and demographics into account in a multivariable regression analysis. The relative contributions of the above mentioned variables to variance in both outcome measures was estimated using the Nagelkerke test. RESULTS: We included 1404 patients (1034 [73.6%] home OHCA, 370 [26.4%] public OHCA). OHCA location remained significantly associated with shockable initial rhythm (home 42.7%, public 78.1%; P < 0.01) and survival to hospital discharge (home 14.0%, public 45.7%; P < 0.01). Adding resuscitation characteristics to models of shockable initial rhythm and survival rate resulted in an increase in explained variance (13.0%-23.6%), whereas adding medical history or medication use to these models resulted in only a limited increase in explained variance (medical history to 27.6%, medication use to 30.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidity and medication use do not substantially contribute in explaining the poor outcome from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest occurring at home. Even when adjusted for medical history, medication use, resuscitation characteristics, and demographics, a large gap of unexplained variance in shockable initial rhythm and survival remains.

Transfer of essential AED information to treating hospital (TREAT).

BACKGROUND: Defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is increasingly performed by using an Automated External Defibrillator (AED). Therefore presence of a shockable rhythm is recurrently only documented by the AED. However, AED-information is rarely available to the treating physician. PURPOSE: To determine (1) how often a shockable rhythm was recorded only in the AED; (2) if so, how often information that a shockable rhythm had been present reached the physician. METHODS: Data on OHCA patients with (presumed) cardiac cause with an AED connected in the years 2012-2014 (Study period 1) and 2016 (Study period 2) in the Amsterdam Resuscitation Study (ARREST) database were collected. We determined how often only the AED had defibrillated. In these patients, we retrospectively analyzed EMS run sheets and hospital discharge letters to determine if a shockable rhythm and/or AED use was correctly noted. In Study period 2, we prospectively contacted the physicians to study whether AED defibrillation was known. RESULTS: In Study period 1, of 2840 OHCA CPR attempts with (presumed) cardiac cause, 1521 (54%) patients had a shockable rhythm, with 356 patients (13%) receiving AED defibrillation only. Of these patients, 11 hospital discharge letters (4%) contained no information about a shockable rhythm. In Study period 2, 125/1128 patients (11%) received AED defibrillation only; of these, in two cases the shockable rhythm was unknown by the physician. CONCLUSION: In 11-13% of OHCAs, a shockable rhythm is only seen on the AED-ECG. Adequate transfer to the physician of vital AED-information is essential but not always accomplished.

High haemoglobin A1c level is a possible risk factor for ventricular fibrillation in sudden cardiac arrest among non-diabetic individuals in the general population.

AIMS: This study aimed to establish whether higher levels of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) are associated with increased sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) risk in non-diabetic individuals. METHODS AND RESULTS: Case-control study in non-diabetic individuals (HbA1c < 6.5%) in the Netherlands. Cases were SCA patients with electrocardiogram (ECG)-documented ventricular fibrillation (VF, the predominant cause of SCA) and HbA1c measurements immediately after VF, prospectively included in September 2009-December 2012. Controls (up to 10 per case) were age/sex-matched non-SCA individuals, included in July 2006-November 2007. We studied 306 cases (56.4 ± 6.8 years, 79.1% male) and 1722 controls (54.0 ± 6.8 years, 64.8% male). HbA1c levels were higher in cases than in controls (5.8 ± 0.3% vs. 5.4 ± 0.3%, P < 0.001). The proportion of increased HbA1c (≥5.7%) was 63.1% in cases and 19.3% in controls (P < 0.001). Multivariate regression models indicated that increased HbA1c was associated with a > six-fold increased VF risk [adjusted odds ratio (ORadj) 6.74 (5.00-9.09)] and that 0.1% increase in HbA1c level was associated with 1.4-fold increase in VF risk, independent of concomitant cardiovascular risk factors. Increased VF risk at higher HbA1c is associated with acute myocardial infarction (MI) as cause of VF [OR 1.14 (1.04-1.24)], but the association between HbA1c and VF was similar in non-MI patients [OR 1.32 (1.21-1.44)] and MI patients [OR 1.47 (1.37-1.58)]. CONCLUSION: Among non-diabetic individuals, risk of VF increased with rising HbA1c levels, independent of concomitant cardiovascular disease. Future studies should establish whether HbA1c level may be used as biomarker to recognize individuals at risk for VF.