No abstract

No abstract

Aim To study the characteristics and outcome among cardiac arrest cases with COVID-19 and differences between the pre-pandemic and the pandemic period in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). Method and results We included all patients reported to the Swedish Registry for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation from 1 January to 20 July 2020. We defined 16 March 2020 as the start of the pandemic. We assessed overall and 30-day mortality using Cox regression and logistic regression, respectively. We studied 1946 cases of OHCA and 1080 cases of IHCA during the entire period. During the pandemic, 88 (10.0%) of OHCAs and 72 (16.1%) of IHCAs had ongoing COVID-19. With regards to OHCA during the pandemic, the odds ratio for 30-day mortality in COVID-19-positive cases, compared with COVID-19-negative cases, was 3.40 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31–11.64]; the corresponding hazard ratio was 1.45 (95% CI 1.13–1.85). Adjusted 30-day survival was 4.7% for patients with COVID-19, 9.8% for patients without COVID-19, and 7.6% in the pre-pandemic period. With regards to IHCA during the pandemic, the odds ratio for COVID-19-positive cases, compared with COVID-19-negative cases, was 2.27 (95% CI 1.27–4.24); the corresponding hazard ratio was 1.48 (95% CI 1.09–2.01). Adjusted 30-day survival was 23.1% in COVID-19-positive cases, 39.5% in patients without COVID-19, and 36.4% in the pre-pandemic period. Conclusion During the pandemic phase, COVID-19 was involved in at least 10% of all OHCAs and 16% of IHCAs, and, among COVID-19 cases, 30-day mortality was increased 3.4-fold in OHCA and 2.3-fold in IHCA.

The results of EuReCa ONE highlight that OHCA is still a major public health problem accounting for a substantial number of deaths in Europe. EuReCa ONE very clearly demonstrates marked differences in the processes for data collection and reported outcomes following OHCA all over Europe. Using these data and analyses, different countries, regions, systems, and concepts can benchmark themselves and may learn from each other to further improve survival following one of our major health care events.

From a long-term perspective, 30-day survival after OHCA in Sweden more than doubled. The increase in survival was most marked among patients found in a shockable rhythm and those hospitalized with ROSC. There were improvements in all four links in the chain of survival, which might explain the improved outcome.

BackgroundPrehospital emergency care has developed rapidly during the past decades. The care is given in a complex context which makes prehospital care a potential high-risk activity when it comes to patient safety. Patient safety in the prehospital setting has been only sparsely investigated. The aims of the present study were 1) To investigate the incidence of adverse events (AEs) in prehospital care and 2) To investigate the factors contributing to AEs in prehospital care.MethodsWe used a retrospective study design where 30 randomly selected prehospital medical records were screened for AEs each month in three prehospital organizations in Sweden during a period of one year. A total of 1080 prehospital medical records were included. The record review was based on the use of 11 screening criteria.ResultsThe reviewers identified 46 AEs in 46 of 1080 (4.3%) prehospital medical records. Of the 46 AEs, 43 were classified as potential for harm (AE1) (4.0, 95% CI = 2.9–5.4) and three as harm identified (AE2) (0.3, 95% CI = 0.1–0.9). However, among patients with a life-threatening condition (priority 1), the risk of AE was higher (16.5%). The most common factors contributing to AEs were deviations from standard of care and missing, incomplete, or unclear documentation. The most common cause of AEs was the result of action(s) or inaction(s) by the emergency medical service (EMS) crew.ConclusionsThere were 4.3 AEs per 100 ambulance missions in Swedish prehospital care. The majority of AEs originated from deviations from standard of care and incomplete documentation. There was an increase in the risk of AE among patients who the EMS team assessed as having a life-threatening condition. Most AEs were possible to avoid.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12873-019-0228-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract