A Randomized-controlled Simulation-based Pilot Trial of Patient Barrier Devices on Resuscitation Quality for Patients Under Investigation for COVID-19

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic had placed constraints on cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), including early intubation, minimizing bag-valve mask ventilation1, and using protective equipment and barriers during resuscitation. Patient barrier devices have been introduced in emergency departments and operating rooms, consisting of plastic drapes over the patient9, or the use of an acrylic box.2 Both of these adjuncts reduce aerosolization of oropharyngeal particles from the patient, and can facilitate video-based intubation.2,3 However, it is unknown whether these devices help or hinder the ultimate resuscitation quality in cardiopulmonary arrest patients. Our specific question addresses the effect of a patient barrier device and COVID-19 resuscitation recommendations on resuscitation quality. We hypothesize that a simple patient barrier consisting of a plastic drape reduces healthcare worker (HCW) contamination without affecting resuscitation quality.

Methods: This was a single-center randomized controlled pilot trial, in which in-hospital teams of 4 to 6 HCWs were randomized to either use a plastic drape (intervention) or no plastic drape (control) for a simulated adolescent cardiopulmonary arrest. The manikin was modified to emanate simulated viral particles (GloGerm®, Moab, UT) from the trachea detectable using ultraviolet light. Teams managed a cardiopulmonary arrest until intubation, using Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and PALS/ACLS algorithms. Data were captured via arbitrated video review. Resuscitation data included time-to-bagging, time-to-intubation, and chest compression quality metrics – depth, rate, and lean. Contamination data were collected visually, marking the number of PPE equipment with visible fluorescence. Mean NASA-TLX and NOTECHS scores measured workload and team performance. Descriptive and univariate statistics were used to determine differences between intervention and control teams.

Results: Fifteen simulations were conducted from 2020 to 2021; one was excluded from analysis as a performance outlier, leaving 7 intervention vs. 7 control teams. Scenarios lasted an average of 10.4+/- 3 minutes. Time-to-bagging, time-to-intubation, and intubation duration were not different between groups (72.1+/-22.4 vs 56.7+/-30.9 sec, 536+/-289 vs 544+/-127 sec, 78.9+/-73.0 vs 95.7+/-113 sec, p>0.3), and CPR quality for mean depth, rate, and lean were also not different (36.1+/-11.6 vs 30.9+/-13.2 cm, 108+/-13 vs 112+/-8 /min, 8.7+/-5.2 vs 4.5+/-4.3 cm, p>0.14). Contamination rates were lower for the intubating physician (2.3+/-0.5 vs 4.1+/-0.9 surfaces, p<0.001) and for all participants (2.8+/-0.7 vs 3.7+/-0.9 surfaces, p=0.05) when using a barrier. No other contamination rate changes were observed. Participants noted no differences in team performance (22.4+/-1.6 vs 20.8+/-1.8, p=0.5) but a slight trend towards higher workload with the plastic barrier (+9.5+/-7.7 vs -0.1+/-11.5, p=0.09).

Conclusion: The use of a plastic drape as a patient barrier appears to reduce simulated virus contamination for HCWs, particularly for the intubation physician during a simulated cardiopulmonary arrest without affecting resuscitation performance.  Perceived workload increases with the drape, and further studies are needed to substantiate these findings in larger samples and in different settings.