Outcomes and mortality associated with atrial arrhythmias among patients hospitalized with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in the adult population. Herein, is a systematic review with meta-analysis to determine the impact of AF/atrial flutter (AFL) on mortality, as well as individual complications in patients hospitalized with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A systematic search of the SCOPUS, Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane databases was performed. The a priori primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. A random-effects model was used to pool study results. RESULTS: Nineteen studies which included 33,296 patients were involved in this meta-analysis. Inhospital mortality for AF/AFL vs. no-AF/AFL groups varied and amounted to 32.8% vs. 14.2%, respectively (risk ratio [RR]: 2.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.79-2.65; p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality in new onset AF/AFL compared to no-AFAFL was 22.0% vs. 18.8% (RR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.54-2.24; p < 0.001). Intensive care unit (ICU) admission was required for 17.7% of patients with AF/AFL compared to 10.8% for patients without AF/AFL (RR: 1.94; 95% CI: 1.04-3.62; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The present study reveals that AF/AFL is associated with increased in-hospital mortality and worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and may be used as a negative prognostic factor in these patients. Patients with AF/AFL are at higher risk of hospitalization in ICU. The presence of AF/AFL in individuals with COVID-19 is associated with higher risk of complications, such as bleeding, acute kidney injury and heart failure. AF/AFL may be associated with unfavorable outcomes due to the hemodynamic compromise of cardiac function itself or hyperinflammatory state typical of these conditions.

Direct vs. Video-Laryngoscopy for Intubation by Paramedics of Simulated COVID-19 Patients under Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Randomized Crossover Trial.

A safe way of securing the airway with an endotracheal tube is one of the priorities of an advanced cardiovascular life support algorithm for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to compare intubation success rates (ISR) and intubation time (IT) of different laryngoscopes for simulated COVID-19 patients under cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, crossover trial. Fifty four active paramedics performed endotracheal intubation with a Macintosh direct laryngoscope (MAC) and McGrath videolaryngoscope (McGrath) with and without personal protective equipment (PPE). Without PPE, ISRs were 87% and 98% for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p = 0.32). ITs were 22.5 s (IQR: 19-26) and 19.5 s (IQR: 17-21) for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p = 0.005). With PPE, first-pass ISR were 30% and 89% with MAC and McGrath, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall success rates were 83% vs. 100% (p = 0.002). Median ITs were 34.0 s (IQR: 29.5-38.5) and 24.8 s (IQR: 21-29) for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the McGrath videolaryngoscope appears to possess significant advantages over the Macintosh direct laryngoscope when used by paramedics in suspected or confirmed COVID-19 intubation scenarios.

Characteristics and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest in COVID-19. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose herein, was to perform a systematic review of interventional outcome studies in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period. METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed of publications meeting the following PICOS criteria: (1) participants, patients > 18 years of age with cardiac arrest due to any causes; (2) intervention, cardiac arrest in COVID-19 period; (3) comparison, cardiac arrest in pre-COVID-19 period; (4) outcomes, detailed information for survival; (5) study design, randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized or observational studies comparing cardiac arrest in COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 period for their effects in patients with cardiac arrest. RESULTS: Survival to hospital discharge for the pre-pandemic and pandemic period was reported in 3 studies (n =1432 patients) and was similar in the pre-pandemic vs. the pandemic period, 35.6% vs. 32.1%, respectively (odds ratio [OR] 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-3.65; p = 0.16; I2 = 72%). Return of spontaneous circulation was reported by all 4 studies and were also similar in the pre and during COVID-19 periods, 51.9% vs. 48.7% (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.78-2.07; p = 0.33; I2 = 71%), respectively. Pooled analysis of cardiac arrest recurrence was also similar, 24.9% and 17.9% (OR 1.60; 95% CI 0.99-2.57; p = 0.06; I2 = 32%) in the pre and during COVID-19 cohorts. Survival with Cerebral Performance Category 1 or 2 was higher in pre vs. during pandemic groups (27.3 vs. 9.1%; OR 3.75; 95% CI 1.26-11.20; p = 0.02). Finally, overall mortality was similar in the pre vs. pandemic groups, 65.9% and 67.2%, respectively (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.33-1.34; p = 0.25; I2 = 76%). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the pre-pandemic period, in hospital cardiac arrest in COVID-19 patients was numerically higher but had statistically similar outcomes.

The effect of chest compression frequency on the quality of resuscitation by lifeguards. A prospective randomized crossover multicenter simulation trial.

BACKGROUND: The ability to perform high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation is one of the basic skills for lifeguards. The aim of the study was to assess the influence of chest compression frequency on the quality of the parameters of chest compressions performed by lifeguards. METHODS: This prospective observational, randomized, crossover simulation study was performed with 40 lifeguards working in Warsaw, Wroclaw, and Poznan, Poland. The subjects then participated in a target study, in which they were asked to perform 2-min cycles of metronome-guided chest compressions at different rates: 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 130, 140, and 150 compressions per minute (CPM). RESULTS: The study involved 40 lifeguards. Optimal chest compression score calculated by manikin software was achieved for 110-120 CPM. Chest compression depth achieved 53 (interquartile range [IQR] 52-54) mm, 56 (IQR 54-57) mm, 52.5 (IQR 50-54) mm, 53 (IQR 52-53) mm, 50 (IQR 49-51) mm, 47 (IQR 44-51) mm, 41 (IQR 40-42) mm, 38 (IQR 38-43) mm for 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 130, 140 and 150 CPM, respectively. The percentage of chest compressions with the correct depth was lower for rates exceeding 120 CPM. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of 100-120 CPM, as recommended by international guidelines, is the optimal chest compression rate for cardiopulmonary resuscitation performed by lifeguards. A rate above 120 CPM was associated with a dramatic decrease in chest compression depth and overall chest compression quality. The role of full chest recoil should be emphasized in basic life support training.

The impact of the use of a CPRMeter monitor on quality of chest compressions: a prospective randomised trial, cross-simulation.

BACKGROUND: Drowning is a common issue at many pools and beaches, and in seas all over the world. Lifeguards often act as bystanders, and therefore adequate training in high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and use of adequate equip-ment by lifeguards is essential. AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the recently introduced CPRMeter (Laerdal, Stavanger, Norway) on quality of CPR, if used by moderately experienced CPR providers. In particular, we tested the hypothesis that using the CPRMeter improves quality of chest compression by lifeguards compared to standard non-feedback CPR. METHODS: The study was designed as prospective, randomised, cross-over manikin trial. Fifty lifeguards of the Volunteer Water Rescue Service (WOPR), a Polish nationwide association specialised in water rescue, participated in this study. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to one of two groups: a feedback group and a non-feedback group. Participants swim a distance of 25 m in the pool, and then they were asked to haul a manikin for the second 25 m, simulating rescuing a drowning victim. Once participants finished the second 25-m distance, participants were asked to initiate 2-min basic life support according to the randomisation. RESULTS: The median quality of CPR score for the 2-min CPR session without feedback was 69 (33-77) compared to 84 (55-93) in the feedback group (p < 0.001). Compression score, mean depth, rate of adequate chest compressions/min, and overall mean rate during the CPR session improved significantly in the feedback group, compared to the non-feedback group. CONCLUSIONS: Using the visual real-time feedback device significantly improved quality of CPR in our relatively unexperienced CPR providers. Better quality of bystander CPR is essential for clinical outcomes, and therefore feedback devices should be considered. Further clinical studies are needed to assess the effect of real-time visual devices, especially in bystander-CPR.