Christian Vaillancourt

Chest Compression Fraction Determines Survival in Patients With Out-of-Hospital Ventricular Fibrillation

Background— Quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation contributes to cardiac arrest survival. The proportion of time in which chest compressions are performed in each minute of cardiopulmonary resuscitation is an important modifiable aspect of quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We sought to estimate the effect of an increasing proportion of time spent performing chest compressions during cardiac arrest on survival to hospital discharge in patients with out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. Methods and Results— This is a prospective observational cohort study of adult patients from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Cardiac Arrest Epistry with confirmed ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia, no defibrillation before emergency medical services arrival, electronically recorded cardiopulmonary resuscitation before the first shock, and a confirmed outcome. Patients were followed up to discharge from the hospital or death. Of the 506 cases, the mean age was 64 years, 80% were male, 71% were witnessed by a bystander, 51% received bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 34% occurred in a public location, and 23% survived. After adjustment for age, gender, location, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, bystander witness status, and response time, the odds ratios of surviving to hospital discharge in the 2 highest categories of chest compression fraction compared with the reference category were 3.01 (95% confidence interval 1.37 to 6.58) and 2.33 (95% confidence interval 0.96 to 5.63). The estimated adjusted linear effect on odds ratio of survival for a 10% change in chest compression fraction was 1.11 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.21). Conclusions— An increased chest compression fraction is independently predictive of better survival in patients who experience a prehospital ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia cardiac arrest.

What is the Role of Chest Compression Depth during Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation?

Background:The 2010 international guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation recently recommended an increase in the minimum compression depth from 38 to 50 mm, although there are limited human data to support this. We sought to study patterns of cardiopulmonary resuscitation compression depth and their associations with patient outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest cases treated by the 2005 guideline standards. Design:Prospective cohort. Setting:Seven U.S. and Canadian urban regions. Patients:We studied emergency medical services treated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Epistry–Cardiac Arrest for whom electronic cardiopulmonary resuscitation compression depth data were available, from May 2006 to June 2009. Measurements:We calculated anterior chest wall depression in millimeters and the period of active cardiopulmonary resuscitation (chest compression fraction) for each minute of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We controlled for covariates including compression rate and calculated adjusted odds ratios for any return of spontaneous circulation, 1-day survival, and hospital discharge. Main Results:We included 1029 adult patients from seven U.S. and Canadian cities with the following characteristics: Mean age 68 yrs; male 62%; bystander witnessed 40%; bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation 37%; initial rhythms: Ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia 24%, pulseless electrical activity 16%, asystole 48%, other nonshockable 12%; outcomes: Return of spontaneous circulation 26%, 1-day survival 18%, discharge 5%. For all patients, median compression rate was 106 per minute, median compression fraction 0.65, and median compression depth 37.3 mm with 52.8% of cases having depth <38 mm and 91.6% having depth <50 mm. We found an inverse association between depth and compression rate ( p < .001). Adjusted odds ratios for all depth measures (mean values, categories, and range) showed strong trends toward better outcomes with increased depth for all three survival measures. Conclusions:We found suboptimal compression depth in half of patients by 2005 guideline standards and almost all by 2010 standards as well as an inverse association between compression depth and rate. We found a strong association between survival outcomes and increased compression depth but no clear evidence to support or refute the 2010 recommendations of >50 mm. Although compression depth is an important component of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and should be measured routinely, the most effective depth is currently unknown. (Crit Care Med 2012; 40:–1198)

Early versus Later Rhythm Analysis in Patients with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

BACKGROUND In a departure from the previous strategy of immediate defibrillation, the 2005 resuscitation guidelines from the American Heart Association-International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation suggested that emergency medical service (EMS) personnel could provide 2 minutes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) before the first analysis of cardiac rhythm. We compared the strategy of a brief period of CPR with early analysis of rhythm with the strategy of a longer period of CPR with delayed analysis of rhythm. METHODS We conducted a cluster-randomized trial involving adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at 10 Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium sites in the United States and Canada. Patients in the early-analysis group were assigned to receive 30 to 60 seconds of EMS-administered CPR and those in the later-analysis group were assigned to receive 180 seconds of CPR, before the initial electrocardiographic analysis. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge with satisfactory functional status (a modified Rankin scale score of ≤3, on a scale of 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability). RESULTS We included 9933 patients, of whom 5290 were assigned to early analysis of cardiac rhythm and 4643 to later analysis. A total of 273 patients (5.9%) in the later-analysis group and 310 patients (5.9%) in the early-analysis group met the criteria for the primary outcome, with a cluster-adjusted difference of -0.2 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -1.1 to 0.7; P=0.59). Analyses of the data with adjustment for confounding factors, as well as subgroup analyses, also showed no survival benefit for either study group. CONCLUSIONS Among patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, we found no difference in the outcomes with a brief period, as compared with a longer period, of EMS-administered CPR before the first analysis of cardiac rhythm. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ROC PRIMED ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00394706.).

The impact of increased chest compression fraction on return of spontaneous circulation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients not in ventricular fibrillation

OBJECTIVE Greater chest compression fraction (CCF, or proportion of CPR time spent providing compressions) is associated with better survival for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) patients in ventricular fibrillation (VF). We evaluated the effect of CCF on return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in OOHCA patients with non-VF ECG rhythms in the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Epistry. METHODS This prospective cohort study included OOHCA patients if: not witnessed by EMS, no automated external defibrillator (AED) shock prior to EMS arrival, received >1 min of CPR with CPR process measures available, and initial non-VF rhythm. We reviewed the first 5 min of electronic CPR records following defibrillator application, measuring the proportion of compressions/min during the resuscitation. RESULTS Demographics of 2103 adult patients from 10 U.S. and Canadian centers were: mean age 67.8; male 61.2%; public location 10.6%; bystander witnessed 32.9%; bystander CPR 35.4%; median interval from 911 to defibrillator turned on 8 min:27 s; initial rhythm asystole 64.0%, PEA 28.0%, other non-shockable 8.0%; median compression rate 110/min; median CCF 71%; ROSC 24.2%; survival to hospital discharge 2.0%. The estimated linear effect on adjusted odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (OR; 95%CI) of ROSC for each 10% increase in CCF was (1.05; 0.99, 1.12). Adjusted (OR; 95%CI) of ROSC for each CCF category were: 0-40% (reference group); 41-60% (1.14; 0.72, 1.81); 61-80% (1.42; 0.92, 2.20); and 81-100% (1.48; 0.94, 2.32). CONCLUSIONS This is the first study to demonstrate that increased CCF among non-VF OOHCA patients is associated with a trend toward increased likelihood of ROSC.

Understanding and improving low bystander CPR rates: a systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVES Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a crucial yet weak link in the chain of survival for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We sought to understand the determinants of bystander CPR and the factors associated with successful training. METHODS For this systematic review, we searched 11 electronic databases, 1 trial registry and 9 scientific websites. We performed hand searches and contacted 6 content experts. We reviewed without restriction all communications pertaining to who should learn CPR, what should be taught, when to repeat training, where to give CPR instructions and why people lack the motivation to learn and perform CPR. We used standardized forms to review papers for inclusion, quality and data extraction. We grouped publications by category and classified recommendations using a standardized classification system that was based on level of evidence. RESULTS We reviewed 2409 articles and selected 411 for complete evaluation. We included 252 of the 411 papers in this systematic review. Differences in their study design precluded a meta-analysis. We classified 22 recommendations; those with the highest scores were 1) 9-1-1 dispatch- assisted CPR instructions, 2) teaching CPR to family members of cardiac patients, 3) Braslows self-training video, 4) maximizing time spent using manikins and 5) teaching the concepts of ambiguity and diffusion of responsibility. Recommendations not supported by evidence include mass training events, pulse taking prior to CPR by laymen and CPR using chest compressions alone. CONCLUSION We evaluated and classified the potential impact of interventions that have been proposed to improve bystander CPR rates. Our results may help communities design interventions to improve their bystander CPR rates.

What is the optimal chest compression depth during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation of adult patients?

Background— The 2010 American Heart Association guidelines suggested an increase in cardiopulmonary resuscitation compression depth with a target >50 mm and no upper limit. This target is based on limited evidence, and we sought to determine the optimal compression depth range. Methods and Results— We studied emergency medical services–treated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Prehospital Resuscitation Impedance Valve and Early Versus Delayed Analysis clinical trial and the Epistry-Cardiac Arrest database. We calculated adjusted odds ratios for survival to hospital discharge, 1-day survival, and any return of circulation. We included 9136 adult patients from 9 US and Canadian cities with a mean age of 67.5 years, mean compression depth of 41.9 mm, and a return of circulation of 31.3%, 1-day survival of 22.8%, and survival to hospital discharge of 7.3%. For survival to discharge, the adjusted odds ratios were 1.04 (95% CI, 1.00–1.08) for each 5-mm increment in compression depth, 1.45 (95% CI, 1.20–1.76) for cases within 2005 depth range (>38 mm), and 1.05 (95% CI, 1.03–1.08) for percentage of minutes in depth range (10% change). Covariate-adjusted spline curves revealed that the maximum survival is at a depth of 45.6 mm (15-mm interval with highest survival between 40.3 and 55.3 mm) with no differences between men and women. Conclusions— This large study of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients demonstrated that increased cardiopulmonary resuscitation compression depth is strongly associated with better survival. Our adjusted analyses, however, found that maximum survival was in the depth interval of 40.3 to 55.3 mm (peak, 45.6 mm), suggesting that the 2010 American Heart Association cardiopulmonary resuscitation guideline target may be too high. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00394706.

Part 3: Adult Basic Life Support and Automated External Defibrillation: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations

This review comprises the most extensive literature search and evidence evaluation to date on the most important international BLS interventions, diagnostics, and prognostic factors for cardiac arrest victims. It reemphasizes that the critical lifesaving steps of BLS are (1) prevention, (2) immediate recognition and activation of the emergency response system, (3) early high-quality CPR, and (4) rapid defibrillation for shockable rhythms. Highlights in prevention indicate the rational and judicious deployment of search-and-rescue operations in drowning victims and the importance of education on opioid-associated emergencies. Other 2015 highlights in recognition and activation include the critical role of dispatcher recognition and dispatch-assisted chest compressions, which has been demonstrated in multiple international jurisdictions with consistent improvements in cardiac arrest survival. Similar to the 2010 ILCOR BLS treatment recommendations, the importance of high quality was reemphasized across all measures of CPR quality: rate, depth, recoil, and minimal chest compression pauses, with a universal understanding that we all should be providing chest compressions to all victims of cardiac arrest. This review continued to focus on the interface of BLS sequencing and ensuring high-quality CPR with other important BLS interventions, such as ventilation and defibrillation. In addition, this consensus statement highlights the importance of EMS systems, which employ bundles of care focusing on providing high-quality chest compressions while extricating the patient from the scene to the next level of care. Highlights in defibrillation indicate the global importance of increasing the number of sites with public-access defibrillation programs. Whereas the 2010 ILCOR Consensus on Science provided important direction for the “what” in resuscitation (ie, what to do), the 2015 consensus has begun with the GRADE methodology to provide direction for the quality of resuscitation. We hope that resuscitation councils and other stakeholders will be able to translate this body of knowledge of international consensus statements to build their own effective resuscitation guidelines.

Trial of Continuous or Interrupted Chest Compressions during CPR

BACKGROUND During cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the interruption of manual chest compressions for rescue breathing reduces blood flow and possibly survival. We assessed whether outcomes after continuous compressions with positive-pressure ventilation differed from those after compressions that were interrupted for ventilations at a ratio of 30 compressions to two ventilations. METHODS This cluster-randomized trial with crossover included 114 emergency medical service (EMS) agencies. Adults with non-trauma-related cardiac arrest who were treated by EMS providers received continuous chest compressions (intervention group) or interrupted chest compressions (control group). The primary outcome was the rate of survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included the modified Rankin scale score (on a scale from 0 to 6, with a score of ≤3 indicating favorable neurologic function). CPR process was measured to assess compliance. RESULTS Of 23,711 patients included in the primary analysis, 12,653 were assigned to the intervention group and 11,058 to the control group. A total of 1129 of 12,613 patients with available data (9.0%) in the intervention group and 1072 of 11,035 with available data (9.7%) in the control group survived until discharge (difference, -0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.5 to 0.1; P=0.07); 7.0% of the patients in the intervention group and 7.7% of those in the control group survived with favorable neurologic function at discharge (difference, -0.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.4 to 0.1, P=0.09). Hospital-free survival was significantly shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (mean difference, -0.2 days; 95% CI, -0.3 to -0.1; P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS In patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, continuous chest compressions during CPR performed by EMS providers did not result in significantly higher rates of survival or favorable neurologic function than did interrupted chest compressions. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ROC CCC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01372748.).

Amiodarone, Lidocaine, or Placebo in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

BACKGROUND Antiarrhythmic drugs are used commonly in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest for shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia, but without proven survival benefit. METHODS In this randomized, double-blind trial, we compared parenteral amiodarone, lidocaine, and saline placebo, along with standard care, in adults who had nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia after at least one shock, and vascular access. Paramedics enrolled patients at 10 North American sites. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge; the secondary outcome was favorable neurologic function at discharge. The per-protocol (primary analysis) population included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received any dose of a trial drug and whose initial cardiac-arrest rhythm of ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia was refractory to shock. RESULTS In the per-protocol population, 3026 patients were randomly assigned to amiodarone (974), lidocaine (993), or placebo (1059); of those, 24.4%, 23.7%, and 21.0%, respectively, survived to hospital discharge. The difference in survival rate for amiodarone versus placebo was 3.2 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.4 to 7.0; P=0.08); for lidocaine versus placebo, 2.6 percentage points (95% CI, -1.0 to 6.3; P=0.16); and for amiodarone versus lidocaine, 0.7 percentage points (95% CI, -3.2 to 4.7; P=0.70). Neurologic outcome at discharge was similar in the three groups. There was heterogeneity of treatment effect with respect to whether the arrest was witnessed (P=0.05); active drugs were associated with a survival rate that was significantly higher than the rate with placebo among patients with bystander-witnessed arrest but not among those with unwitnessed arrest. More amiodarone recipients required temporary cardiac pacing than did recipients of lidocaine or placebo. CONCLUSIONS Overall, neither amiodarone nor lidocaine resulted in a significantly higher rate of survival or favorable neurologic outcome than the rate with placebo among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to initial shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01401647.).

The impact of peri-shock pause on survival from out-of-hospital shockable cardiac arrest during the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium PRIMED trial.

BACKGROUND Previous research has demonstrated significant relationships between peri-shock pause and survival to discharge from out-of-hospital shockable cardiac arrest (OHCA). OBJECTIVE To determine the impact of peri-shock pause on survival from OHCA during the ROC PRIMED randomized controlled trial. METHODS We included patients in the ROC PRIMED trial who suffered OHCA between June 2007 and November 2009, presented with a shockable rhythm and had CPR process data for at least one shock. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine the association between peri-shock pause duration and survival to hospital discharge. RESULTS Among 2006 patients studied, the median (IQR) shock pause duration was: pre-shock pause 15s (8, 22); post-shock pause 6s (4, 9); and peri-shock pause 22.0 s (14, 31). After adjusting for Utstein predictors of survival as well as CPR quality measures, the odds of survival to hospital discharge were significantly higher for patients with pre-shock pause <10s (OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.09, 2.11) and peri-shock pause <20s (OR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.17, 2.85) when compared to patients with pre-shock pause ≥ 20s and peri-shock pause ≥ 40s. Post-shock pause was not significantly associated with survival to hospital discharge. Results for neurologically intact survival (Modified Rankin Score ≤ 3) were similar to our primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS In patients with cardiac arrest presenting in a shockable rhythm during the ROC PRIMED trial, shorter pre- and peri-shock pauses were significantly associated with higher odds of survival. Future cardiopulmonary education and technology should focus on minimizing all peri-shock pauses.