| Literature DB >> 32525022 |
J P Nolan1, K G Monsieurs2, L Bossaert3, B W Böttiger4, R Greif5, C Lott6, J Madar7, T M Olasveengen8, C C Roehr9, F Semeraro10, J Soar11, P Van de Voorde12, D A Zideman13, G D Perkins14.
Abstract
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a substantial impact on the incidence of cardiac arrest and survival. The challenge is to find the correct balance between the risk to the rescuer when undertaking cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on a person with possible COVID-19 and the risk to that person if CPR is delayed. These guidelines focus specifically on patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. The guidelines include the delivery of basic and advanced life support in adults and children and recommendations for delivering training during the pandemic. Where uncertainty exists treatment should be informed by a dynamic risk assessment which may consider current COVID-19 prevalence, the person's presentation (e.g. history of COVID-19 contact, COVID-19 symptoms), likelihood that treatment will be effective, availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) and personal risks for those providing treatment. These guidelines will be subject to evolving knowledge and experience of COVID-19. As countries are at different stages of the pandemic, there may some international variation in practice.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Cardiac arrest; Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Personal protective equipment
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32525022 PMCID: PMC7276132 DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.06.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Resuscitation ISSN: 0300-9572 Impact factor: 5.262
ILCOR treatment recommendations for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in patients with COVID-19.
| • We suggest that chest compressions and cardiopulmonary resuscitation have the potential to generate aerosols (weak recommendation, very low certainty evidence). |
| • We suggest that in the current COVID-19 pandemic lay rescuers consider compression-only resuscitation and public-access defibrillation (good practice statement). |
| • We suggest that in the current COVID-19 pandemic, lay rescuers who are willing, trained and able to do so, may wish to deliver rescue breaths to children in addition to chest compressions (good practice statement). |
| • We suggest that in the current COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare professionals should use personal protective equipment for aerosol-generating procedures during resuscitation (weak recommendation, very low certainty evidence). |
| • We suggest that it may be reasonable for healthcare providers to consider defibrillation before donning aerosol generating personal protective equipment in situations where the provider assesses the benefits may exceed the risks (good practice statement). |
Recommendations for Personal Protective Equipment.
| Minimum | Minimum |
|---|---|
Gloves Short-sleeved apron Fluid-resistant surgical mask Eye and face protection (fluid-resistant surgical mask with integrated visor or full-face shield/visor or polycarbonate safety glasses or equivalent). | Gloves Long-sleeved gown Filtering facepiece 3 (FFP3) or N99 mask/respirator (FFP2 or N95 if FFP3 not available) Eye and face protection (full-face shield/visor or polycarbonate safety glasses or equivalent). Alternatively, powered air purifying respirators (PAPRs) with hoods may be used. |
The European Standard (EN 149:2001) classifies FFP respirators into three classes: FFP1, FFP2, and FFP3 with corresponding minimum filtration efficiencies of 80%, 94%, and 99%. The US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) classifies particulate filtering facepiece respirators into nine categories based on their resistance to oil and their efficiency in filtering airborne particles. N indicates not resistant to oil; R is moderately resistant to oil; and P is strongly resistant to oil – ‘oil proof’. The letters N, R or P are followed by numerical designations 95, 99, or 100, which indicate the filter’s minimum filtration efficiency of 95%, 99%, and 99.97% of airborne particles (<0.3 microns).29, 30.