Dataset Information

Bystanders are less willing to resuscitate out-of-hospital cardiac arrest victims during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

The COVID-19 pandemic may influence the willingness of bystanders to engage in resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We sought to determine if and how the pandemic has changed willingness to intervene, and the impact of personal protective equipment (PPE).

Methods

We distributed a 12-item survey to the general public through social media channels from June 4 to 23, 2020. We used 100-point scales to inquire about participants' willingness to perform interventions on "strangers or unfamiliar persons" and "family members or familiar persons", and compared mean willingness during time periods prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic using paired t-tests.

Results

Survey participants (n = 1360) were from 26 countries; the median age was 38 years (IQR 24-50) and 45% were female. Compared to prior to the pandemic, there were significant decreases in willingness to check for breathing or a pulse (mean difference -10.7% [95%CI -11.8, -9.6] for stranger/unfamiliar persons, -1.2% [95%CI -1.6, -0.8] for family/familiar persons), perform chest compressions (-14.3% [95%CI -15.6, -13.0], -1.6% [95%CI -2.1, -1.1]), provide rescue breaths (-19.5% [95%CI -20.9, -18.1], -5.5% [95%CI -6.4, -4.6]), and apply an automated external defibrillator (-4.8% [95%CI -5.7, -4.0], -0.9% [95%CI -1.3, -0.5]) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Willingness to intervene increased significantly if PPE was available (+8.3% [95%CI 7.2, 9.5] for stranger/unfamiliar, and +1.4% [95%CI 0.8, 1.9] for family/familiar persons).

Conclusion

Willingness to perform bystander resuscitation during the pandemic decreased, however this was ameliorated if simple PPE were available.

SUBMITTER: Grunau B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7534822 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesOutcome from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) highly depends on bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with high-quality chest compressions (CCs). Precondition is a supine position of the victim on a firm surface. Until now, no study has systematically analysed whether bystanders of OHCA apply appropriate positions to victims and whether the position is associated with a particular outcome.DesignProspective observational cohort study.SettingMetropolitan emergency medical services (EMS) serving a population of 400 000; dispatcher-assisted CPR was implemented. We obtained information from the first EMS vehicle arriving on scene and matched this with data from semi-structured interviews with witnesses of the arrest.ParticipantsBystanders of all OHCAs occurring during a 12-month period (July 2006-July 2007). From 201 eligible missions, 200 missions were fully reported by EMS. Data from 138 bystander interviews were included.Primary and secondary outcome measuresProportion of positions suitable for effective CCs; related survival with favourable neurological outcome at 3 months.ResultsPositioning of victims at EMS arrival was 'supine on firm surface' in 64 cases (32.0%), 'recovery position (RP)' in 37 cases (18.5%) and other positions unsuitable for CCs in 99 cases (49.5%). Survival with favourable outcome at 3 months was 17.2% when 'supine position' had been applied, 13.5% with 'RP' and 6.1% with 'other positions unsuitable for CCs'; a statistically significant association could not be shown (p=0.740, Fisher's exact test). However, after 'effective CCs' favourable outcome at 3 months was 32.0% compared with 5.3% if no actions were taken. The OR was 5.87 (p=0.02).ConclusionIn OHCA, two-thirds of all victims were found in positions not suitable for effective CCs. This was associated with inferior outcomes. A substantial proportion of the victims was placed in RP. More attention should be paid to the correct positioning of victims in OHCA. This applies to CPR training for laypersons and dispatcher-assisted CPR.

Project description:ImportanceOut-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) health care provision may be a good indicator of the recovery of the health care system involved in OHCA care following the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a lack of data regarding outcomes capable of verifying this recovery.ObjectiveTo determine whether return to spontaneous circulation, overall survival, and survival with good neurological outcome increased in patients with OHCA since the COVID-19 pandemic was brought under control in 2022 compared with prepandemic and pandemic levels.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational cohort study was conducted to examine health care response and survival with good neurological outcome at hospital discharge in patients treated following OHCA. A 3-month period, including the first wave of the pandemic (February 1 to April 30, 2020), was compared with 2 periods before (April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018) and after (January 1 to December 31, 2022) the pandemic. Data analysis was performed in July 2023. Emergency medical services (EMS) serving a population of more than 28 million inhabitants across 10 Spanish regions participated. Patients with OHCA were included if participating EMS initiated resuscitation or continued resuscitation initiated by a first responder.ExposureThe pandemic was considered to be under control following the official declaration that infection with SARS-CoV-2 was to be considered another acute respiratory infection.Main outcome and measuresThe main outcomes were return of spontaneous circulation, overall survival, and survival at hospital discharge with good neurological outcome, expressed as unimpaired or minimally impaired cerebral performance.ResultsA total of 14 732 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.2 [17.2] years; 10 451 [71.2%] male) were included, with 6372 OHCAs occurring during the prepandemic period, 1409 OHCAs during the pandemic period, and 6951 OHCAs during the postpandemic period. There was a higher incidence of OHCAs with a resuscitation attempt in the postpandemic period compared with the pandemic period (rate ratio, 4.93; 95% CI, 4.66-5.22; P < .001), with lower incidence of futile resuscitation for OHCAs (2.1 per 100 000 person-years vs 1.3 per 100 000 person-years; rate ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.92; P < .001). Recovery of spontaneous circulation at hospital admission increased from 20.5% in the pandemic period to 30.5% in the postpandemic period (relative risk [RR], 1.08; 95% CI, 1.06-1.10; P < .001). In the same way, overall survival at discharge increased from 7.6% to 11.2% (RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.21-1.75; P < .001), with 6.6% of patients being discharged with good neurological status (Cerebral Performance Category Scale categories 1-2) in the pandemic period compared with 9.6% of patients in the postpandemic period (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.10; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, survival with good neurological outcome at hospital discharge following OHCA increased significantly after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:AimThe COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted Emergency Medical Services (EMS) operations throughout the country. Some studies described variation in total volume of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) during the pandemic. We aimed to describe the changes in volume and characteristics of OHCA patients and resuscitations in one urban EMS system.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort analysis of all recorded atraumatic OHCA in Marion County, Indiana, from January 1, 2019 to June 30, 2019 and from January 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020. We described patient, arrest, EMS response, and survival characteristics. We performed paired and unpaired t-tests to evaluate the changes in those characteristics during COVID-19 as compared to the prior year. Data were matched by month to control for seasonal variation.ResultsThe total number of arrests increased from 884 in 2019 to 1034 in 2020 (p = 0.016). Comparing 2019 to 2020, there was little difference in age [median 62 (IQR 59-73) and 60 (IQR 47-72), p = 0.086], gender (38.5% and 39.8% female, p = 0.7466, witness to arrest (44.3% and 39.6%, p = 0.092), bystander AED use (10.1% and 11.4% p = 0.379), bystander CPR (48.7% and 51.4%, p = 0.242). Patients with a shockable initial rhythm (19.2% and 15.4%, p = 0.044) both decreased in 2020, and response time increased by 18 s [6.0 min (IQR 4.5-7.7) and 6.3 min (IQR 4.7-8.0), p = 0.008]. 47.7% and 54.8% (p = 0.001) of OHCA patients died in the field, 19.7% and 19.3% (p = 0.809) died in the Emergency Department, 21.8% and 18.5% (p = 0.044) died in the hospital, 10.8% and 7.4% (p = 0.012) were discharged from the hospital, and 9.3% and 5.9% (p = 0.005) were discharged with Cerebral Performance Category score ≤ 2.ConclusionTotal OHCA increased during the COVID-19 pandemic when compared with the prior year. Although patient characteristics were similar, initial shockable rhythm, and proportion of patients who died in the hospital decreased during the pandemic. Further investigation will explore etiologies of those findings.

Project description:BackgroundandObjectives: This retrospective study evaluated the clinical impact of enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) on the clinical outcomes in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Moreover, by focusing on the use of a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR), we investigated the medical personnel's perceptions of wearing PAPR during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Materialsand Methods: According to the arrival time at the emergency department, the patients were categorized into a conventional PPE group (1 August 2019 to 20 January 2020) and an enhanced PPE group (21 January 2020, to 31 August 2020). The primary outcomes of this analysis were the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate. Additionally, subjective perception of the medical staff regarding the effect of wearing enhanced PPE during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was evaluated by conducting a survey. Results: This study included 130 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, with 73 and 57 patients in the conventional and enhanced PPE groups, respectively. The median time intervals to first intubation and to report the first arterial blood gas analysis results were longer in the enhanced PPE group than in the conventional PPE group (3 min vs. 2 min; p = 0.020 and 8 min vs. 3 min; p < 0.001, respectively). However, there were no significant differences in the ROSC rate (odds ratio (OR) = 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38-1.67; p = 0.542) and 1 month survival (OR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.07-2.10; p = 0.266) between the two groups. In total, 67 emergent department (ED) professionals responded to the questionnaire. Although a significant number of respondents experienced inconveniences with PAPR use, they agreed that PAPR was necessary during the CPR procedure for protection and reduction of infection transmission. Conclusion: The use of enhanced PPE, including PAPR, affected the performance of CPR to some extent but did not alter patient outcomes. PAPR use during the resuscitation of OHCA patients might positively impact the psychological stability of the medical staff.