June 23/30, 2020 e933 Existing American Heart Association cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) guidelines do not address the challenges of providing resuscitation in the setting of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic, wherein rescuers must continuously balance the immediate needs of the patients with their own safety. To address this gap, the American Heart Association, in collaboration with the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association for Respiratory Care, American College of Emergency Physicians, The Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists, and American Society of Anesthesiologists, and with the support of the American Association of Critical Care Nurses and National Association of EMS Physicians, has compiled interim guidance to help rescuers treat individuals with cardiac arrest with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.Over the past 2 decades, there has been a steady improvement in survival after cardiac arrest occurring both inside and outside the hospital. 1 That success has relied on initiating proven resuscitation interventions such as high-quality chest compressions and defibrillation within seconds to minutes. The evolving and expanding outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections has created important challenges to such resuscitation efforts and requires potential modifications of established processes and practices. The challenge is to ensure that patients with or without COVID-19 who experience cardiac arrest get the best possible chance of survival without compromising the safety of rescuers, who will be needed to care for future patients. Complicating the emergency response to both out-of-hospital and in-hospital cardiac arrest is that COVID-19 is highly transmissible, particularly during resuscitation, and carries a high morbidity and mortality.Approximately 12% to 19% of COVID-positive patients require hospital admission, and 3% to 6% become critically ill. [2][3][4] Hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to acute respiratory distress syndrome, myocardial injury, ventricular arrhythmias, and shock are common among critically ill patients and predispose them to cardiac arrest, [5][6][7][8] as do some of the proposed treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, which can prolong the QT. 9 With infections currently growing exponentially in the United States and internationally, the percentage of patients with cardiac arrests and COVID-19 is likely to increase.Healthcare workers are already the highest-risk profession for contracting the disease. 10 This risk is compounded by worldwide shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE). Resuscitations carry added risk to healthcare workers for many reasons. First, the administration of CPR involves performing numerous aerosol-generating procedures, including chest compressions, positive-pressure ventilation, and establishment of an advanced airway. During those procedures, viral particles can remain suspended in the air with a half-life of ≈1 hour and

More than 20 000 infants and children have a cardiac arrest per year in the United States. 1-4 In 2015, emergency medical service-documented out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) occurred in more than 7000 infants and children. 4

This focused update to the American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiovascular care follows the Pediatric Task Force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation evidence review. It aligns with the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation’s continuous evidence review process, and updates are published when the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation completes a literature review based on new science. This update provides the evidence review and treatment recommendation for chest compression–only CPR versus CPR using chest compressions with rescue breaths for children <18 years of age. Four large database studies were available for review, including 2 published after the “2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.” Two demonstrated worse 30-day outcomes with chest compression–only CPR for children 1 through 18 years of age, whereas 2 studies documented no difference between chest compression–only CPR and CPR using chest compressions with rescue breaths. When the results were analyzed for infants <1 year of age, CPR using chest compressions with rescue breaths was better than no CPR but was no different from chest compression–only CPR in 1 study, whereas another study observed no differences among chest compression–only CPR, CPR using chest compressions with rescue breaths, and no CPR. CPR using chest compressions with rescue breaths should be provided for infants and children in cardiac arrest. If bystanders are unwilling or unable to deliver rescue breaths, we recommend that rescuers provide chest compressions for infants and children.

No abstract

Objective:In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals have developed visitor restriction policies in order to mitigate spread of infection. We reviewed hospital visitor restriction policies for consistency and to develop recommendations to highlight fair and transparent restrictions, exceptions, and appeals in policy development and implementation. Design: Collection and analysis of public-facing visitor restriction policies during the first 3 months of the pandemic. Setting: General acute care hospitals representing 23 states across all 4 major regions of the United States. Participants: A cohort of the 70 largest hospitals by total bed capacity. Measurements: Characteristics of visitor restriction policies including general visitor restriction statement, changes/ updates to policies over time, exceptions to policies, and restrictions specific to COVID-19-positive patients. Results: Sixty-five of the 70 hospitals reviewed had public-facing visitor restriction policies. Forty-nine of these 65 policies had general "no-visitor" statements, whereas 16 allowed at least 1 visitor to accompany all patients. Sixty-three of 65 hospitals included exceptions to their visitor restriction policies. Setting-specific exceptions included pediatrics, obstetrics/gynecology, emergency department, behavioral health, inpatient rehabilitation, surgery, and outpatient clinics. Exceptions that applied across settings included patients at end of life and patients with disabilities. Conclusion:Visitor restriction policies varied significantly among hospitals in this review. These variances create challenges in that their fair application may be problematic and ethical issues related to allocation may arise. Five recommendations are offered for hospitals revising or creating such policies, including that offering transparent, accessible, public-facing policies can minimize ethical dilemmas. In addition, hospitals would benefit from communicating with each other in the development of visitor policies to ensure uniformity and support patients and family members as they navigate hospital visitation.