Dataset Information

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the epidemiology of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly influenced epidemiology, yet its impact on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the impact of the pandemic on the incidence and case fatality rate (CFR) of OHCA. We also evaluated the impact on intermediate outcomes and clinical characteristics.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to May 3, 2021. Studies were included if they compared OHCA processes and outcomes between the pandemic and historical control time periods. Meta-analyses were performed for primary outcomes [annual incidence, mortality, and case fatality rate (CFR)], secondary outcomes [field termination of resuscitation (TOR), return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, and survival to hospital discharge], and clinical characteristics (shockable rhythm and etiologies). This study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42021253879).

Results

The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a 39.5% increase in pooled annual OHCA incidence (p < 0.001). Pooled CFR was increased by 2.65% (p < 0.001), with a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 1.95 for mortality [95% confidence interval (95%CI) 1.51-2.51]. There was increased field TOR (OR = 2.46, 95%CI 1.62-3.74). There were decreased ROSC (OR = 0.65, 95%CI 0.55-0.77), survival to hospital admission (OR = 0.65, 95%CI 0.48-0.89), and survival to discharge (OR = 0.52, 95%CI 0.40-0.69). There was decreased shockable rhythm (OR = 0.73, 95%CI 0.60-0.88) and increased asphyxial etiology of OHCA (OR = 1.17, 95%CI 1.02-1.33).

Conclusion

Compared to the pre-pandemic period, the COVID-19 pandemic period was significantly associated with increased OHCA incidence and worse outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Teoh SE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8649312 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:Background The role of cardiac arrest centers (CACs) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest care systems is continuously evolving. Interpretation of existing literature is limited by heterogeneity in CAC characteristics and types of patients transported to CACs. This study assesses the impact of CACs on survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest according to varying definitions of CAC and prespecified subgroups. Methods and Results Electronic databases were searched from inception to March 9, 2021 for relevant studies. Centers were considered CACs if self-declared by study authors and capable of relevant interventions. Main outcomes were survival and neurologically favorable survival at hospital discharge or 30 days. Meta-analyses were performed for adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and crude odds ratios. Thirty-six studies were analyzed. Survival with favorable neurological outcome significantly improved with treatment at CACs (aOR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.52-2.26]), even when including high-volume centers (aOR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.18-1.91]) or including improved-care centers (aOR, 2.13 [95% CI, 1.75-2.59]) as CACs. Survival significantly increased with treatment at CACs (aOR, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.59-2.32]), even when including high-volume centers (aOR, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.38-2.18]) or when including improved-care centers (aOR, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.71-2.26]) as CACs. The treatment effect was more pronounced among patients with shockable rhythm (P=0.006) and without prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (P=0.005). Conclusions were robust to sensitivity analyses, with no publication bias detected. Conclusions Care at CACs was associated with improved survival and neurological outcomes for patients with nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest regardless of varying CAC definitions. Patients with shockable rhythms and those without prehospital return of spontaneous circulation benefited more from CACs. Evidence for bypassing hospitals or interhospital transfer remains inconclusive.

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.