The effect of personal protective equipment on cardiac compression quality

Use of personal protective equipment and cognitive load during cardiopulmonary resuscitation - A randomized cross-over simulation-based study

Background

The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is essential during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to prevent disease transmission, but its impact on rescuer fatigue and CPR quality remains debated.

Aim

To simultaneously evaluate the effect of PPE on cognitive load and resuscitation quality.

Methods

In a simulation-based trial at a German tertiary care hospital, 31 healthcare workers performed two 2-minute chest compression (CC) cycles on a manikin, once with PPE and once without. Compression quality (rate, depth, hand position, chest recoil) was assessed. Cognitive load was measured post-task using NASA- and Simulation Task Load Index (NASA- and SIM-TLX). Primary outcome was the difference in cognitive load with and without PPE, and secondary outcomes included differences in CC quality parameters.

Results

SIM-TLX identified a significant impact of PPE on task complexity and perceptual strain, while situational stress, distractions, task control, and NASA-TLX parameters (mental, physical, temporal demand, frustration, effort, performance) showed no significant differences. No significant differences were found in compression rate (113 bpm without PPE vs. 109 bpm with PPE), depth (61 mm without vs. 62 mm with PPE), correct hand position (81% without vs. 78% with PPE), and complete chest recoil (94% without vs. 84% with PPE). However not significant, PPE use showed more negative outliers in hand position and chest recoil.

Conclusion

PPE increases values on two subscales of the SIM-TLX (task complexity and perceptual strain), but does not significantly impact chest compression quality in CPR simulations.

Changes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation quality during and after the COVID-19 pandemic

AIM

The impact of personal protective equipment (PPE) on resuscitation quality is largely unknown. We sought to examine the effect of PPE requirements on CPR quality and resuscitation interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic in Victoria, Australia.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult OHCA patients of medical aetiology who received attempted resuscitation. The study consisted of three periods; a pre-COVID-19 period (1st March 2019 to 15th March 2020), the COVID-19 period (16th March 2020 to 12th October 2022) and a post-COVID-19 period (13th October 2022 to 30th June 2023). Multivariable quantile and logistic regression were used to examine changes in CPR metrics and time to resuscitation interventions across the three periods.

RESULTS

We included 8,956 patients (2,389 pre-COVID-19, 4,935 during COVID-19 and 1,632 post-COVID-19). A number of CPR quality metrics deteriorated during the COVID-19 period compared to the pre-COVID-19 period, including: chest compression fraction (median difference [MD] -0.81 percentage points; 95% CI -1.07,-0.56), release velocity (MD -5.26 mm per second; 95% CI -9.79, -0.72) and resuscitation duration (MD -2.2 min; 95% CI -3.39, -1.05). The COVID-19 period was also associated with longer post-shock pauses (MD 0.22 s; 95% CI 0.05, 0.38), and a reduction in the risk-adjusted odds of receiving adrenaline administration within 5 mins (AOR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 - 0.82) and laryngeal mask insertion within 10 mins of arrival (AOR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74 - 0.94). These factors, with the exception of resuscitation duration and time to larygeal mask insertion, remained significantly different from baseline for the post-COVID-19 period.

CONCLUSION

Several CPR quality metrics declined during the COVID-19 period and some remain below pre-pandemic levels. Further research is needed to understand these impacts on OHCA outcomes.

2023 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Pediatric Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; and First Aid Task Forces

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation engages in a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed, published cardiopulmonary resuscitation and first aid science. Draft Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations are posted online throughout the year, and this annual summary provides more concise versions of the final Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations from all task forces for the year. Topics addressed by systematic reviews this year include resuscitation of cardiac arrest from drowning, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adults and children, calcium during cardiac arrest, double sequential defibrillation, neuroprognostication after cardiac arrest for adults and children, maintaining normal temperature after preterm birth, heart rate monitoring methods for diagnostics in neonates, detection of exhaled carbon dioxide in neonates, family presence during resuscitation of adults, and a stepwise approach to resuscitation skills training. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces list priority knowledge gaps for further research. Additional topics are addressed with scoping reviews and evidence updates.

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.

2023 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Pediatric Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; and First Aid Task Forces

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation engages in a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed, published cardiopulmonary resuscitation and first aid science. Draft Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations are posted online throughout the year, and this annual summary provides more concise versions of the final Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations from all task forces for the year. Topics addressed by systematic reviews this year include resuscitation of cardiac arrest from drowning, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adults and children, calcium during cardiac arrest, double sequential defibrillation, neuroprognostication after cardiac arrest for adults and children, maintaining normal temperature after preterm birth, heart rate monitoring methods for diagnostics in neonates, detection of exhaled carbon dioxide in neonates, family presence during resuscitation of adults, and a stepwise approach to resuscitation skills training. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces list priority knowledge gaps for further research. Additional topics are addressed with scoping reviews and evidence updates.

Effects of personal protective equipment on cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and outcomes: A systematic review

Background

The impact of wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on CPR quality and patient outcomes is unclear. This systematic review aimed to examine whether wearing PPE during resuscitation affects patient outcomes, CPR quality and rescuer fatigue.

Methods

In this review registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022347746), we searched Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane library between 2000 and 2022. The inclusion criteria were studies: in actual or simulated cardiac arrest; comparing PPE with no PPE; and randomised controlled trials and observational studies with a English abstract. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias-2 and ROBINS-I tools and outcomes assessed with GRADE. We conducted a meta-analysis according to the study design. Quantitative data synthesis was done using a random-effect model incorporating the potential heterogeneity.

Results

A total of 17 simulation-based studies and 1 clinical study were included. All outcomes were judged to be very low certainty of evidence, subject to high risk of bias. The clinical study showed no difference in survival comparing enhanced and conventional PPE. Meta-analysis of 11 RCTs and 6 observational studies found no difference in CPR quality in rescuers wearing PPE compared with no PPE. Pooled rescuer fatigue was significantly worse in the PPE group (mean difference, 2.7 VAS score out of 10; 95% CI, 1.4-4.0).

Conclusions

PPE was not associated with reduced CPR quality or lower cardiac arrest survival. Rescuers wearing PPE may report more fatigue. This finding was mainly derived from simulation studies, additional clinical studies are needed.