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.

Background The present meta-analysis of clinical and simulation trials aimed to compare video-instructed dispatcher-assisted bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (V-DACPR) with conventional audio-instructed dispatcher-assisted bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (C-DACPR). Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Collaboration databases and Scopus from inception until June 10, 2021. The primary outcomes were the prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital discharge, and survival to hospital discharge with a good neurological outcome for clinical trials, and chest compression quality for simulation trials. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) indicated the pooled effect. The analyses were performed with the RevMan 5.4 and STATA 14 software. Results Overall, 2 clinical and 8 simulation trials were included in this meta-analysis. In clinical trials, C-DACPR and V-DACPR were characterised by, respectively, 11.8% vs. 24.3% of prehospital ROSC (OR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.69; I 2 = 66%; p < .001), 10.7% vs. 22.3% of survival to hospital discharge (OR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.70; I 2 = 69%; p < .001), and 6.3% vs. 16.0% of survival to hospital discharge with a good neurological outcome (OR = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.67; I 2 = 73%; p < .001). In simulation trials, chest compression rate per minute equalled 91.3 ± 22.6 for C-DACPR and 107.8 ± 12.6 for V-DACPR (MD = −13.40; 95% CI: −21.86, −4.95; I 2 = 97%; p = .002). The respective values for chest compression depth were 38.7 ± 14.3 and 41.8 ± 12.5 mm (MD = −2.67; 95% CI: −8.35, 3.01; I 2 = 98%; p = .36). Conclusions As compared with C-DACPR, V-DACPR significantly increased prehospital ROSC and survival to hospital discharge. Under simulated resuscitation conditions, V-DACPR exhibited a higher rate of adequate chest compressions than C-DACPR. Key messages Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation parameters significantly depend on the dispatcher’s support and the manner of the support provided. Video-instructed dispatcher-assisted bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation can increase the rate of prehospital return of spontaneous circulation and survival to hospital discharge. Video-instructed dispatcher-assisted bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation improves the quality of chest compressions compared with dispatcher-assisted resuscitation without video instruction.

The aim of the study was to compare the success rate, procedure time, and user satisfaction of pediatric NIO™ compared to Pediatric BIG®, EZ-IO®, and Jamshidi intraosseous access devices. This was a randomized, crossover manikin trial with 87 paramedics. The correct location of intraosseous access when using NIO, BIG, EZ-IO, and Jamshidi was varied and was respectively 100, 90, 90, and 90%. The time required to obtain intravascular access (time T1) in the case of NIO, BIG, EZ-IO, and Jamshidi was varied and amounted to 9 s [IQR, 8–12] for NIO, 12 s [IQR, 9–16] for BIG, 13.5 s [IQR, 11–17] for the EZ-IO, and 15 s [IQR, 13–19] for Jamshidi. The paramedics evaluated each device on the subjective ease with which they performed the procedures. The intraosseous device, which proved the easiest to use was NIO, which in the case of CPR received a median rating of 1.5 (IQR, 0.5–1.5) points. Conclusion: Our study found that NIO® is superior to BIG®, EZ-IO®, and Jamshidi. NIO® achieved the highest first attempt success rate. NIO® also required the least time to insert and easiest to operate even by novice users. Further study is needed to test our findings in cadavers or human subjects. Based on our findings, NIO® is a promising intraosseous device for use in pediatric resuscitation. What is Known: • Venous access in acutely ill pediatric patients, such as those undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation, is needed for prompt administration of drugs and fluids.• Intraosseous access is recommended by American Heart Association and European Resuscitation council if vascular access is not readily obtainable to prevent delay in treatment. What is New: • This simulated pediatric resuscitation compared performance of four commercially available pediatric intraosseous devices in a manikin model.• NIO® outperformed BIG®, EZ-IO®, and Jamshidi in first attempt success rates and time of procedure among novice users.

Background:Providing adequate chest compression is essential during infant cardio-pulmonary-resuscitation (CPR) but was reported to be performed poor. The “new 2-thumb technique” (nTTT), which consists in using 2 thumbs directed at the angle of 90° to the chest while closing the fingers of both hands in a fist, was recently introduced. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare 3 chest compression techniques, namely, the 2-finger-technique (TFT), the 2-thumb-technique (TTHT), and the nTTT in an randomized infant-CPR manikin setting.Methods:A total of 73 paramedics with at least 1 year of clinical experience performed 3 CPR settings with a chest compression:ventilation ratio of 15:2, according to current guidelines. Chest compression was performed with 1 out of the 3 chest compression techniques in a randomized sequence. Chest compression rate and depth, chest decompression, and adequate ventilation after chest compression served as outcome parameters.Results:The chest compression depth was 29 (IQR, 28–29) mm in the TFT group, 42 (40–43) mm in the TTHT group, and 40 (39–40) mm in the nTTT group (TFT vs TTHT, P < 0.001; TFT vs nTTT, P < 0.001; TTHT vs nTTT, P < 0.01). The median compression rate with TFT, TTHT, and nTTT varied and amounted to 136 (IQR, 133–144) min–1 versus 117 (115–121) min–1 versus 111 (109–113) min–1. There was a statistically significant difference in the compression rate between TFT and TTHT (P < 0.001), TFT and nTTT (P < 0.001), as well as TTHT and nTTT (P < 0.001). Incorrect decompressions after CC were significantly increased in the TTHT group compared with the TFT (P < 0.001) and the nTTT (P < 0.001) group.Conclusions:The nTTT provides adequate chest compression depth and rate and was associated with adequate chest decompression and possibility to adequately ventilate the infant manikin. Further clinical studies are necessary to confirm these initial findings.

This article has been peer reviewed and published immediately upon acceptance.It is an open access article, which means that it can be downloaded, printed, and distributed freely, provided the work is properly cited. Articles in "Cardiology Journal" are listed in PubMed.