Background. Timely treatment is important for patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). However, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak may have caused delays in patient management. Therefore, we analyzed the prognosis and the time spent at the prehospital and hospital stages in managing patients diagnosed with AIS during the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods. This retrospective study evaluated patients diagnosed with AIS in the emergency department (ED) at five medical centers in Daegu city between February 18 and April 17 each year from 2018 to 2020. Data on the patients’ clinical features and time spent on management were collected and compared according to COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 summaries. Results. From a total of 533 patients diagnosed with AIS, 399 patients visited the ED before COVID-19 and 134 during the COVID-19 outbreak. During the COVID-19 outbreak, compared with pre-COVID-19, AIS patients had poor National Institute of Health Stroke Scale scores at the initial hospital visit (6 vs. 4, ) and discharge (3 vs. 2, ). During the COVID-19 outbreak, the proportion of direct visits to hospitals through public emergency medical services (EMS) increased, and the onset of symptoms-to-ED door time via the public EMS was delayed (87 min vs. 68 min, ). Conclusions. The prognosis of AIS patients during the COVID-19 outbreak was worse than that of pre-COVID-19 patients with delays at the prehospital stage, despite the need for timely care.

Kim JH, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2019 May;34(19):e141. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e141

Kim C, et al. Infect Chemother. 2020 Dec;52(4):562-572. https://doi.org/10.3947/ic.2020.52.4.562

Objective High-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation with chest compression is important for good neurologic outcomes during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Several types of mechanical chest compression devices have recently been implemented in Korean emergency medical services. This study aimed to identify the effect of prehospital mechanical chest compression device use on the outcomes of OHCA patients.Methods We retrospectively analyzed data drawn from the regional cardiac arrest registry in Daegu, Korea. This registry prospectively collected data from January 2017 to December 2020. Patients aged 18 years or older who experienced cardiac arrest presumed to have a medical etiology were included. The exposure variable was the use of a prehospital mechanical device during transportation by emergency medical technicians. The outcomes measured were neurologic outcomes and survival to discharge. Logistic regression analysis was used.Results Among 3,230 OHCA patients, 1,111 (34.4%) and 2,119 (65.6%) were managed with manual chest compression and with a mechanical chest compression device, respectively. The mechanical chest compression group showed poorer neurologic outcomes than the manual chest compression group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.04–0.33) and decreased survival to discharge (adjusted odds ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.19–0.82) after adjustment for confounding variables.Conclusion Prehospital mechanical chest compression device use in OHCA was associated with poorer neurologic outcomes and survival to discharge compared to manual chest compression.

Background: Futile resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients in the coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 era can lead to risk of disease transmission and unnecessary transport. Various existing basic or advanced life support (BLS or ALS, respectively) rules for the termination of resuscitation (TOR) have been derived and validated in North America and Asian countries. This study aimed to evaluate the external validation of these rules in predicting the survival outcomes of OHCA patients in the COVID-19 era. Methods: This was a multicenter observational study using the WinCOVID-19 Daegu registry data collected during February 18–March 31, 2020. The subjects were patients who showed cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac etiology. The outcomes of each rule were compared to the actual patient survival outcomes. The sensitivity, specificity, false positive value (FPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) of each TOR rule were evaluated. Results: In total, 170 of the 184 OHCA patients were eligible and evaluated. TOR was recommended for 122 patients based on the international basic life support termination of resuscitation (BLS-TOR) rule, which showed 85% specificity, 74% sensitivity, 0.8% FPV, and 99% PPV for predicting unfavorable survival outcomes. When the traditional BLS-TOR rules and KoCARC TOR rule II were applied to our registry, one patient met the TOR criteria but survived at hospital discharge. With regard to the FPV (upper limit of 95% confidence interval < 5%), specificity (100%), and PPV (> 99%) criteria, only the KoCARC TOR rule I, which included a combination of three factors including not being witnessed by emergency medical technicians, presenting with an asystole at the scene, and not experiencing prehospital shock delivery or return of spontaneous circulation, was found to be superior to all other TOR rules. Conclusion: Among the previous nine BLS and ALS TOR rules, KoCARC TOR rule I was most suitable for predicting poor survival outcomes and showed improved diagnostic performance. Further research on variations in resources and treatment protocols among facilities, regions, and cultures will be useful in determining the feasibility of TOR rules for COVID-19 patients worldwide.

Background and Objectives: Frontline medical staff usually experience high levels of stress, which could greatly impact their work output. We conducted a survey to investigate the level of stress and its association with job types, work departments, and medical centers among COVID-19 pandemic frontline medical personnel. Materials and Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey using a self-administered questionnaire among 307 frontline medical staff who cared for COVID-19 patients in Daegu city. We used a 33-item questionnaire to assess respondents’ general characteristics, job stress, personal effects associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, and their stress level. A general health questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) was included in our questionnaire. Results: Majority (74.3%) of the respondents were in the stress group. The mean GHQ-12 score was 14.31 ± 4.96. More females (67.4%, p < 0.05) and nurses (73.3%, p = 0.001) were in the stress group compared to males and doctors. Medical staff in the general ward considered the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic situation higher. Nurses perceived work changes (p < 0.05), work burden (p < 0.05), and personal impact (p < 0.05) more serious than doctors. Medical staff in Level 3 emergency department (ED) perceived a lack of real-time information (p = 0.012), a lack of resources, and negative personal impacts associated with the pandemic as more serious than staff in Level 1 and Level 2 EDs. Medical staff in the intensive care unit perceived work changes (p < 0.05), work burden (p < 0.05), and lack of personal protective equipment (p = 0.002) as more serious than staff in the ED and general ward. Conclusion: Providing real-time information and resources for reducing work burden and negative personal impact is central to maximizing the work output of the COVID-19 pandemic frontline medical staff. Supporting their mental health through regular programs and intervention is also imperative.