OBJECTIVES: To describe and compare survival among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest as a function of their status for coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: We performed an observational study of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients between March 2020 and December 2020. Coronavirus disease 2019 status (confirmed, suspected, or negative) was defined according to the World Health Organization’s criteria. SETTING: Information on the patients and their care was extracted from the French national out-of-hospital cardiac arrest registry. The French prehospital emergency medical system has two tiers: the fire department intervenes rapidly to provide basic life support, and mobile ICUs provide advanced life support. The study data (including each patient’s coronavirus disease 2019 status) were collected by 95 mobile ICUs throughout France. PATIENTS: We included 6,624 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: 127 cases with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019, 473 with suspected coronavirus disease 2019, and 6,024 negative for coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The “confirmed” and “suspected” groups of coronavirus disease 2019 patients had similar characteristics and were more likely to have suffered an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with a respiratory cause (confirmed: 53.7%, suspected coronavirus disease 2019: 56.5%; p = 0.472) than noncoronavirus disease 2019 patients (14.0%; p < 0.001 vs confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 patients). Advanced life support was initiated for 57.5% of the confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 patients, compared with 64.5% of the suspected coronavirus disease 2019 patients ( p = 0.149) and 70.6% of the noncoronavirus disease 2019 ones ( p = 0.002). The survival rate at 30-day postout-of-hospital cardiac arrest was 0% in the confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 group, 0.9% in the suspected coronavirus disease 2019 group ( p = 0.583 vs confirmed), and 3.5% ( p = 0.023) in the noncoronavirus disease 2019 group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlighted a zero survival rate in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. This finding raises important questions with regard to the futility of resuscitation for coronavirus disease 2019 patients and the management of the associated risks.

For many patients, notably among elderly nursing home residents, no plans about end-of-life decisions and palliative care are made. Consequently, when these patients experience life-threatening events, decisions to withhold or withdraw life-support raise major challenges for emergency healthcare professionals. Emergency department premises are not designed for providing the psychological and technical components of end-of-life care. The continuous inflow of large numbers of patients leaves little time for detailed assessments, and emergency department staff often lack training in end-of-life issues. For prehospital medical teams (in France, the physician-staffed mobile emergency and intensive care units known as SMURs), implementing treatment withholding and withdrawal decisions that may have been made before the acute event is not the main focus. The challenge lies in circumventing the apparent contradiction between the need to make immediate decisions and the requirement to set up a complex treatment project that may lead to treatment withholding and/or withdrawal. Laws and recommendations are of little assistance for making treatment withholding and withdrawal decisions in the emergency setting. The French Intensive Care Society (Société de Réanimation de Langue Française, SRLF) and French Society of Emergency Medicine (Société Française de Médecine d’Urgence, SFMU) tasked a panel of emergency physicians and intensivists with developing a document to serve both as a position paper on life-support withholding and withdrawal in the emergency setting and as a guide for professionals providing emergency care. The task force based its work on the available legislation and recommendations and on a review of published studies.

Les trottinettes connaissent un engouement croissant avec la mise en place des trottinettes en libre-service. Toutefois, leur usage n’est pas sans conséquence sur le risque traumatique. Cette étude a pour objectif de décrire la population et les types de lésions des usagers de trottinettes. Matériel et méthode : Les données proviennent du registre des victimes d’accident de la circulation du département du Rhône qui inclut toute personne blessée ou tuée à la suite d’un accident de la route survenu dans le département du Rhône et pris en charge dans une structure sanitaire privée ou publique. La période étudiée concerne l’année 2019. Les informations recueillies concernent les caractéristiques individuelles, accidentelles, lésionnelles de la victime ainsi que son devenir. Les lésions sont codées grâce à l’Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). Les blessés graves sont définis par des lésions d’AIS 3 et plus. Résultats : Au total, 1 186 accidents de trottinette ayant entraîné 1 197 usagers blessés ont été recensés, dont 90 % dans l’hypercentre urbain, avec un nombre d’accidents de trottinettes multiplié par 7,3 entre 2018 et 2019. Cette augmentation a été observée depuis l’été 2018 avec l’introduction de sociétés proposant des locations de trottinettes. L’accident s’est produit seul, sans antagoniste dans 77 % des cas (n = 920). Le port du casque était rare (n = 72 ; 6 %). La grande majorité (n = 869 ; 73 %) des blessés était âgée de 10 à 34 ans, et les 20 à 24 ans (n = 301) représentaient le quart de l’effectif. Pour 11 accidents, il y avait deux blessés usagers de la même trottinette. Il y avait en moyenne deux lésions par victime. Les atteintes graves (MAIS 3 et plus) représentaient 3,8 % des lésions, et il n’y avait pas de différence statistiquement significative pour les lésions graves entre trottinette électrique et trottinette à propulsion humaine (p = 0,20). Comparées aux lésions des cyclistes dont les caractéristiques des accidents sont proches, les blessures de l’extrémité céphalique prédominent chez les usagers de trottinette (37 vs 27 % ; p < 0,001). Conclusion : Devant l’utilisation grandissante des trottinettes parmi les modes de déplacement, une évaluation scientifique des victimes de traumatismes est nécessaire pour proposer des recommandations visant à limiter les traumatismes graves. Ce travail constitue une première étape vers la surveillance épidémiologique tant en termes de recommandations que d’évolution.

Background: Survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is still low. For every minute without resuscitation the likelihood of survival decreases.One critical step is initiation of immediate, high quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The aim of this subgroup analysis of data collected for the European Registry of Cardiac Arrest Study number 2 (EuReCa TWO) was to investigate the association between OHCA survival and two types of bystander CPR namely: chest compression only CPR (CConly) and CPR with chest compressions and ventilations (FullCPR).Method: In this subgroup analysis of EuReCa TWO, all patients who received bystander CPR were included. Outcomes were return of spontaneous circulation and survival to 30-days or hospital discharge. A multilevel binary logistic regression analysis with survival as the dependent variable was performed.Results: A total of 5884 patients were included in the analysis, varying between countries from 21 to 1444. Survival was 320 (8%) in the CConly group and 174 (13%) in the FullCPR group. After adjustment for age, sex, location, rhythm, cause, time to scene, witnessed collapse and country, patients who received FullCPR had a significantly higher survival rate when compared to those who received CConly (adjusted odds ration 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.17À1.83). Conclusion:In this analysis, FullCPR was associated with higher survival compared to CConly. Guidelines should continue to emphasise the importance of compressions and ventilations during resuscitation for patients who suffer OHCA and CPR courses should continue to teach both.

No abstract