Real-world comparison between mechanical and manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant challenges to healthcare systems worldwide, including an increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA). Healthcare providers are now required to use personal protective equipment (PPE) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Additionally, mechanical CPR devices have been introduced to reduce the number of personnel required for resuscitation. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of CPR performed with a mechanical device and the outcomes of manual CPR performed by personnel wearing PPE. METHODS: This multicenter observational study utilized data from the Korean Cardiac Arrest Research Consortium registry. The study population consisted of OHCA patients who underwent CPR in emergency departments (EDs) between March 2020 and June 2021. Patients were divided into two equal propensity score matched groups: mechanical CPR group (n = 421) and PPE-equipped manual CPR group (n = 421). Primary outcomes included survival rates and favorable neurological outcomes at discharge. Total CPR duration in the ED was also assessed. RESULTS: There were no significant between-group differences with respect to survival rate at discharge (mechanical CPR: 7.4% vs PPE-equipped manual CPR: 8.3%) or favorable neurological outcomes (3.3% vs. 3.8%, respectively). However, the mechanical CPR group had a longer duration of CPR in the ED compared to the manual CPR group. CONCLUSION: This study found no significant differences in survival rates and neurological outcomes between mechanical CPR and PPE-equipped manual CPR in the ED setting. However, a longer total CPR duration was observed in the mechanical CPR group. Further research is required to explore the impact of PPE on healthcare providers' performance and fatigue during CPR in the context of the pandemic and beyond.

Successful control of an extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae ST307 outbreak in a neonatal intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we evaluated the genetic relatedness of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae (ESBL-KPN) isolates from an outbreak in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) in August 2017, We implemented an active countermeasure to control this outbreak successfully. METHODS: The incidence of healthcare-associated ESBL-KPN bacteremia was evaluated before and after initiating enhanced infection control (IC) practices in January 2018. Surveillance cultures were set up and monitored for neonates, medical personnel, and NICU environments. Molecular analyses, including pulse-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), sequence typing, and ESBL genotyping, were performed for the isolated KPN strains. RESULTS: After implementing the enhanced IC procedures, the healthcare-associated bacteremia rate decreased from 6.0 to 0.0 per 1000 patient-days. Samples from neonates (n = 11/15, 73.3%), medical personnel (n = 1/41, 2.4%), and medical devices and the environments (6/181, 3.3%) tested positive for ESBL-KPN in the surveillance cultures in December 2017. Active surveillance cultures revealed that 23 of 72 neonates who were screened (31.9%) were colonized with ESBL-KPN between January and March 2018. All the isolates demonstrated closely related PFGE patterns and were identified as ST307 strain carrying the CTX-M-15 gene. CONCLUSIONS: Contaminated NICU environments and medical devices, as well as transmission by medical personnel, appeared to be the source of the outbreak of ESBL-KPN infection. We employed an enhanced IC strategy during January-March 2018 and successfully controlled the clonal outbreak of CTX-M-15-positive KPN. ST307 has emerged as an important bacteremia-causing pathogen in the NICU and should be carefully monitored.