Mobile phone technologies to alert citizen first responders to out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) were implemented in numerous countries. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to investigate whether activating citizen first responders increases bystanders' interventions and improves outcomes. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 24 November 2021, for studies comparing citizen first responders' activation versus standard emergency response in the case of OHCA. The primary outcome was survival at hospital discharge or 30 days. Secondary outcomes were discharge with favourable neurological outcome, bystander-initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and the use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) before ambulance arrival. Evidence certainty was evaluated with GRADE. Our search strategy yielded 1215 articles. After screening, we included 10 studies for a total of 23 351 patients. OHCAs for which citizen first responders were activated had higher rates of survival at hospital discharge or 30 days compared with standard emergency response [nine studies; 903/9978 (9.1%) vs. 1104/13 247 (8.3%); odds ratio (OR), 1.45; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.21-1.74; P < 0.001], return of spontaneous circulation [nine studies; 2575/9169 (28%) vs. 3445/12 607 (27%); OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.07-1.81; P = 0.01], bystander-initiated CPR [eight studies; 5876/9074 (65%) vs. 6384/11 970 (53%); OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.43-2.15; P < 0.001], and AED use [eight studies; 654/9132 (7.2%) vs. 624/14 848 (4.2%); OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.31-2.53; P < 0.001], but similar rates of neurological intact discharge [three studies; 316/2685 (12%) vs. 276/2972 (9.3%); OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.81-2.33; P = 0.24]. Alerting citizen first responders to OHCA patients is associated with higher rates of bystander-initiated CPR, use of AED before ambulance arrival, and survival at hospital discharge or 30 days.

Background: Volatile anesthetics were used as sedative agents in COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) invasively ventilated patients for their potentially beneficial pharmacological effects and due to the temporary shortages of intravenous agents during the pandemic crisis. Methods: Online databases (PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial) and the “clinicaltrials.gov” website were searched for studies reporting the use of isoflurane, sevoflurane or desflurane. Results: We identified three manuscripts describing the beneficial effects of isoflurane on 41 COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in Germany (n = 2) and in the USA (n = 1), in terms of reduction in the use of opioids and other sedatives. We also found a case report of two patients with transient nephrogenic diabetes insipidus, which started after 6 and 8 days of sevoflurane sedation. We identified two randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 92 patients overall), two observational studies (238 patients) on the use of volatile anesthetics in COVID-19 patients that were completed but not yet published, and one RCT interrupted for a low recruitment ratio (19 patients) and thus not published. We also identified five ongoing RCTs on the use of inhaled sedation in ARDS, which are also likely to be recruiting COVID-19 patients and which have currently enrolled a total of >1643 patients. Conclusion: Isoflurane was the most frequently used volatile agent in COVID-19 patients and allowed a reduction in the use of other sedative and analgesic drugs. Randomized evidence is building up and will be useful to confirm or challenge these findings.

No abstract