Background and objectives: Characterization of pediatric coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is necessary to control the pandemic, as asymptomatic or mildly infected children may act as carriers. To date, there are limited reports describing differences in clinical, laboratory, and radiological characteristics between asymptomatic and symptomatic infection, and between younger and older pediatric patients. The objective of this study is to compare characteristics among: (1) asymptomatic versus symptomatic and (2) less than 10 versus greater or equal to 10 years old pediatric COVID-19 patients. Materials and Methods: We searched for all terms related to pediatric COVID-19 in electronic databases (Embase, Medline, PubMed, and Web of Science) for articles from January 2020. This protocol followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Results: Eligible study designs included case reports and series, while we excluded comments/letters, reviews, and literature not written in English. Initially, 817 articles were identified. Forty-three articles encompassing 158 confirmed pediatric COVID-19 cases were included in the final analyses. Lymphocytosis and high CRP were associated with symptomatic infection. Abnormal chest CT more accurately detected asymptomatic COVID-19 in older patients than in younger ones, but clinical characteristics were similar between older and younger patients. Conclusions: Chest CT scan findings are untrustworthy in younger children with COVID-19 as compared with clinical findings, or significant differences in findings between asymptomatic to symptomatic children. Further studies evaluating pediatric COVID-19 could contribute to potential therapeutic interventions and preventive strategies to limit spreading.

No abstract

Background: Chest compression and defibrillation are essential components of cardiac arrest treatment. Mechanical chest compression devices (MCCD) and automated external defibrillators (AED) are used separately in clinical practice. We developed an automated compression–defibrillation apparatus (ACDA) that performs mechanical chest compression and automated defibrillation. We investigated the performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with automatic CPR (A-CPR) compared to that with MCCD and AED (conventional CPR: C-CPR). Methods: Pigs were randomized into A-CPR or C-CPR groups: The A-CPR group received CPR+ACDA, and the C-CPR group received CPR+MCCD+AED. Hemodynamic parameters, outcomes, and time variables were measured. During a simulation study, healthcare providers performed a basic life support scenario for manikins with an ACDA, MCCD, and AED, and time variables and chest compression parameters were measured. Results: The animals showed no significant in hemodynamic effects, including aortic pressures, coronary perfusion pressure, carotid blood flow, and end-tidal CO2, and resuscitation outcomes between the two groups. In both animal and simulation studies, the time to defibrillation, time to chest compression, and hands-off time were significantly shorter in the A-CPR group than those in the C-CPR group. Conclusions: CPR using ACDA showed similar hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes as CPR using AED and MCCD separately, with the advantages of a reduction in the time to compression, time to defibrillation, and hands-off time.