Coronaviruses cause disease in animals and people around the world. Human coronaviruses (HCoV) are mainly known to cause infections of the upper and lower respiratory tract but the symptoms may also involve the nervous and digestive systems. Since the beginning of December 2019, there has been an epidemic of SARS-CoV-2, which was originally referred to as 2019-nCoV. The most common symptoms are fever and cough, fatigue, sputum production, dyspnea, myalgia, arthralgia or sore throat, headache, nausea, vomiting or diarrhea (30%). The best prevention is to avoid exposure. In addition, contact persons should be subjected to mandatory quarantine. COVID-19 patients should be treated in specialist centers. A significant number of patients with pneumonia require passive oxygen therapy. Non-invasive ventilation and high-flow nasal oxygen therapy can be applied in mild and moderate non-hypercapnia cases. A lung-saving ventilation strategy must be implemented in acute respiratory distress syndrome and mechanically ventilated patients. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is a highly specialized method, available only in selected centers and not applicable to a significant number of cases. Specific pharmacological treatment for COVID-19 is not currently available. Modern medicine is gearing up to fight the new coronavirus pandemic. The key is a holistic approach to the patient including, primarily, the use of personal protective equipment to reduce the risk of further virus transmission, as well as patient management, which consists in both quarantine and, in the absence of specific pharmacological therapy, symptomatic treatment. (Cardiol J 2020; 27, 2: 175-183)

Background:The aim of the study was to evaluate various methods of chest compressions in patients with suspected/confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection conducted by medical students wearing full personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol generating procedures (AGP). Methods: This was prospective, randomized, multicenter, single-blinded, crossover simulation trial. Thirty-five medical students after an advanced cardiovascular life support course, which included performing 2-min continuous chest compression scenarios using three methods: (A) manual chest compression (CC), (B) compression with CPRMeter, (C) compression with LifeLine ARM device. During resuscitation they are wearing full personal protective equipment for aerosol generating procedures. Results: The median chest compression depth using manual CC, CPRMeter and LifeLine ARM varied and amounted to 40 (38-45) vs. 45 (40-50) vs. 51 (50-52) mm, respectively (p = 0.002). The median chest compression rate was 109 (IQR; 102-131) compressions per minute (CPM) for manual CC, 107 (105-127) CPM for CPRMeter, and 102 (101-102) CPM for LifeLine ARM (p = 0.027). The percentage of correct chest recoil was the highest for LifeLine ARM -100% (95-100), 80% (60-90) in CPRMeter group, and the lowest for manual . Conclusions: According to the results of this simulation trial, automated chest compression devices (ACCD) should be used for chest compression of patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19. In the absence of ACCD, it seems reasonable to change the cardiopulmonary resuscitation algorithm (in the context of patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19) by reducing the duration of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation cycle from the current 2-min to 1-min cycles due to a statistically significant reduction in the quality of chest compressions among rescuers wearing PPE AGP.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Medical emergencies in dental offices are considered a problem in most countries owing to dentists' concerns about emergency preparedness, practical skills, lifesaving equipment and staff availability. The prevalence of medical emergencies in dental offices and dentists' preparedness have been analysed in several countries but have never been studied in Poland. Aim To assess the prevalence of medical emergencies in dental offices in Poland, as well as dentists’ preparedness and attitudes towards medical emergencies. Methods An 18‐item questionnaire was completed by 419 dentists. It asked for information on their cardiopulmonary resuscitation training, availability of emergency medical equipment in the dental office, prevalence of medical emergencies and self‐assessed competence in various dental office emergencies. Data were analysed using the Statistica 13.3 software package. Variability was measured with standard deviation. Pearson's linear correlation coefficient was used to determine correlation strength. Results The most common medical emergencies in Polish dental offices were vasovagal syncope (46.30% of study participants experienced at least one case in the preceding 12 months), orthostatic hypotension (18.85%), hyperventilation crisis (18.61%), mild allergic reactions (16.23%), hypoglycaemia (15.99%) and seizures (11.81%). The prevalence of medical emergency situations requiring an emergency medical service call or medical assistance within the preceding 12 months was 0 for 80.66% of dentists, one for 12.65%, two for 4.53%, three for 1.20%, four for 0.48%, 5–10 for 0.48% and more than 10 for 0%. As many as 41.29% of the participants did not feel competent in managing sudden cardiac arrest, 74.47% in managing hypertensive crisis, 55.61% in managing asthma, 55.13% in managing anaphylactic shock and 52.99% in managing seizures. Conclusion The prevalence of medical emergencies in dental offices in Poland is comparable with that in other countries. A large number of dentists do not feel competent enough to manage medical emergencies. Better undergraduate and postgraduate training in medical emergencies is recommended, as well as broader availability of emergency medical equipment in the dental office.

Background:Airway management is a crucial skill essential to paramedics and personnel working in Emergency Medical Services and Emergency Departments: Lack of practice, a difficult airway, or a trauma situation may limit the ability of paramedics to perform direct laryngoscopy during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Videoscope devices are alternatives for airway management in these situations. The ETView VivaSight SL (ETView; ETView Ltd., Misgav, Israel) is a new, single-lumen airway tube with an integrated high-resolution imaging camera. To assess if the ETView VivaSight SL can be a superior alternative to a standard endotracheal tube for intubation in an adult cadaver model, both during and without simulated CPR.Methods:ETView VivaSight SL tube was investigated via an interventional, randomized, crossover, cadaver study. A total of 52 paramedics participated in the intubation of human cadavers in three different scenarios: a normal airway at rest without concomitant chest compression (CC) (scenario A), a normal airway with uninterrupted CC (scenario B) and manual in-line stabilization (scenario C). Time and rate of success for intubation, the glottic view scale, and ease-of-use of ETView vs. sETT intubation were assessed for each emergency scenario.Results:The median time to intubation using ETView vs. sETT was compared for each of the aforementioned scenarios. For scenario A, time to first ventilation was achieved fastest for ETView, 19.5 [IQR, 16.5–22] sec, when compared to that of sETT at 21.5 [IQR, 20–25] sec (p = .013). In scenario B, the time for intubation using ETView was 21 [IQR, 18.5–24.5] sec (p < .001) and sETT was 27 [IQR, 24.5–31.5] sec. Time to first ventilation for scenario C was 23.5 [IQR, 19–25.5] sec for the ETView and 42.5 [IQR, 35–49.5] sec for sETT.Conclusions:In normal airways and situations with continuous chest compressions, the success rate for intubation of cadavers and the time to ventilation were improved with the ETView. The time to glottis view, tube insertion, and cuff block were all found to be shorter with the ETView.Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02733536.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is associated with poor prognosis. Because the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted mortality and morbidity, both on an individual level and the health care system as a whole, our purpose was to determine rates of OHCA survival since the onset of the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the influence of COVID-19 on OHCA survival outcomes according to the PRISMA guidelines. We searched the literature using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials databases from inception to September 2021 and identified 1775 potentially relevant studies, of which thirty-one articles totaling 88,188 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods was 12.3% vs. 8.9%, respectively (OR = 1.40; 95%CI: 1.06–1.87; p < 0.001). Survival to hospital discharge in pre- vs. intra-COVID-19 periods was 11.5% vs. 8.2% (OR = 1.57; 95%CI: 1.37–1.79; p < 0.001). A similar dependency was observed in the case of survival to hospital discharge with the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) 1–2 (6.7% vs. 4.0%; OR = 1.71; 95%CI: 1.35–2.15; p < 0.001), as well as in the 30-day survival rate (9.2% vs. 6.4%; OR = 1.63; 95%CI: 1.13–2.36; p = 0.009). In conclusion, prognosis of OHCA is usually poor and even worse during COVID-19.

No abstract