Impact of Personal Protective Equipment on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Rescuer Safety

Abstract

Background: High-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a key element in the rescue of cardiac arrest patients but is difficult to achieve in circumstances involving aerosol transmission, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods: This prospective randomized crossover trial included 30 experienced health care providers to evaluate the impact of personal protective equipment (PPE) on CPR quality and rescuer safety. Participants were asked to perform continuous CPR for 5 minutes on a manikin with three types of PPE: level D-PPE, level C-PPE, and PAPR. The primary outcome was effective chest compression per minute. Secondary outcomes were the fit factor by PortaCount, vital signs and fatigue scores before and after CPR, and perceptions related to wearing PPE. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used, and a two-tailed test value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: The rates of effective chest compressions for 5 minutes with level D-PPE, level C-PPE, and PAPRs were 82.0 ± 0.2%, 78.4 ± 0.2%, and 78.0 ± 0.2%, respectively (p = 0.584). The fit-factor test values of level C-PPE and PAPRs were 182.9 ± 39.9 vs. 198.9 ± 9.2 (p < 0.001). The differences in vital signs before and after CPR were not significantly different among the groups. In addition, the fatigue and total perception scores of wearing PPE were significantly higher for level C-PPE than PAPRs: 3.8 ± 1.6 vs. 3.0 ± 1.6 (p < 0.001) and 27.9 ± 5.4 vs. 26.0 ± 5.3 (p < 0.001), respectively.

Conclusion: PAPRs are recommended when performing CPR in situations where aerosol transmission is suspected. When PAPRs are in short supply, individual fit-tested N95 masks are an alternative. This trial is registered with NCT04802109.