Joyce Yeung

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.

Factors affecting team leadership skills and their relationship with quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Objective:This study aims to explore the relationship between team-leadership skills and quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in an adult cardiac-arrest simulation. Factors affecting team-leadership skills were also assessed. Design:Forty advanced life-support providers leading a cardiac arrest team in a standardized cardiac-arrest simulation were videotaped. Background data were collected, including age (in yrs), sex, whether they had received any leadership training in the past, whether they were part of a professional group, the most recent advanced life-support course (in months) they had undergone, advanced life-support instructor/provider status, and whether they had led in any cardiac arrest situation in the preceding 6 months. Measurements and Main Results:Participants were scored using the Cardiac Arrest Simulation test score and Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire for leadership skills. Process-focused quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation data were collected directly from manikin and video recordings. Primary outcomes were complex technical skills (measured as Cardiac Arrest Simulation test score, preshock pause, and hands-off ratio). Secondary outcomes were simple technical skills (chest-compression rate, depth, and ventilation rate). Univariate linear regressions were performed to examine how leadership skills affect quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and bivariate correlations elicited factors affecting team-leadership skills.Teams led by leaders with the best leadership skills performed higher quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation with better technical performance (R2 = 0.75, p < .001), shorter preshock pauses (R2 = 0.18, p < .001), with lower total hands-off ratio (R2 = 0.24, p = .01), and shorter time to first shock (R2 = 0.14, p = .02). Leadership skills were not significantly associated with more simple technical skills such as chest-compression rate, depth, and ventilation rate. Prior training in team leader skills was independently associated with better leadership behavior. Conclusions:There is an association between team leadership skills and cardiac arrest simulation test score, preshock pause, and hands off ratio. Developing leadership skills should be considered an integral part of resuscitation training.

Part 3: Adult Basic Life Support and Automated External Defibrillation

This Part of the 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopul monary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) Science With Treatment Recommendations (CoSTR) presents the consensus on science and treatment recommendations for adult basic life support (BLS) and automated external defibrillation (AED). After the publication of the 2010 CoSTR, the Adult BLS Task Force developed review questions in PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) format.1 This resulted in the generation of 36 PICO questions for systematic reviews. The task force discussed the topics and then voted to prioritize the most important questions to be tackled in 2015. From the pool of 36 questions, 14 were rated low priority and were deferred from this round of evidence evaluation. Two new questions were submitted by task force members, and 1 was submitted via the public portal. Two of these (BLS 856 and BLS 891) were taken forward for evidence review. The third question (368: Foreign-Body Airway Obstruction) was deferred after a preliminary review of the evidence failed to identify compelling evidence that would alter the treatment recommendations made when the topic was last reviewed in 2005.2 Each task force performed a systematic review using detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, based on the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.3 With the assistance of information specialists, a detailed search for relevant articles was performed in each of 3 online databases (PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library). Reviewers were unable to identify any relevant evidence for 3 questions (BLS 811, BLS 373, and BLS 348), and the evidence review was not completed in time for a further question (BLS 370). A revised PICO question was developed for the opioid question (BLS 891). The task force reviewed 23 PICO questions for the …

A randomised control trial of prompt and feedback devices and their impact on quality of chest compressions—A simulation study ☆

AIM This study aims to compare the effect of three CPR prompt and feedback devices on quality of chest compressions amongst healthcare providers. METHODS A single blinded, randomised controlled trial compared a pressure sensor/metronome device (CPREzy), an accelerometer device (Phillips Q-CPR) and simple metronome on the quality of chest compressions on a manikin by trained rescuers. The primary outcome was compression depth. Secondary outcomes were compression rate, proportion of chest compressions with inadequate depth, incomplete release and user satisfaction. RESULTS The pressure sensor device improved compression depth (37.24-43.64 mm, p=0.02), the accelerometer device decreased chest compression depth (37.38-33.19 mm, p=0.04) whilst the metronome had no effect (39.88 mm vs. 40.64 mm, p=0.802). Compression rate fell with all devices (pressure sensor device 114.68-98.84 min(-1), p=0.001, accelerometer 112.04-102.92 min(-1), p=0.072 and metronome 108.24 min(-1) vs. 99.36 min(-1), p=0.009). The pressure sensor feedback device reduced the proportion of compressions with inadequate depth (0.52 vs. 0.24, p=0.013) whilst the accelerometer device and metronome did not have a statistically significant effect. Incomplete release of compressions was common, but unaffected by the CPR feedback devices. Users preferred the accelerometer and metronome devices over the pressure sensor device. A post hoc study showed that de-activating the voice prompt on the accelerometer device prevented the deterioration in compression quality seen in the main study. CONCLUSION CPR feedback devices vary in their ability to improve performance. In this study the pressure sensor device improved compression depth, whilst the accelerometer device reduced it and metronome had no effect.

The impact of airway management on quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation: An observational study in patients during cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND Minimising interruptions in chest compressions is associated with improved survival from cardiac arrest. Current in-hospital guidelines recommend continuous chest compressions after the airway is secured on the premise that this will reduce no flow time. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of advanced airway use on the no flow ratio and other measures of CPR quality. METHODS Consecutive adult patients who sustained an in-hospital cardiac arrest were enrolled in this prospective observational study. The quality of CPR was measured using the Q-CPR device (Phillips, UK) before and after an advanced airway device (endotracheal tube [ET] or laryngeal mask airway [LMA]) was inserted. Patients receiving only bag-mask ventilation were used as the control cohort. The primary outcome was no flow ratio (NFR). Secondary outcomes were chest compression rate, depth, compressions too shallow, compressions with leaning, ventilation rate, inflation time, change in impedance and time required to successfully insert airway device. RESULTS One hundred patients were enrolled in the study (2008-2011). Endotracheal tube and LMA placement took similar durations (median 15.8 s (IQR 6.8-19.4) vs. LMA median 8.0s (IQR 5.5-15.9), p=0.1). The use of an advanced airway was associated with improved no flow ratios (endotracheal tube placement (n=50) improved NFR from baseline median 0.24 IQR 0.17-0.40) to 0.15 to (IQR 0.09-0.28), p=0.012; LMA (n=25) from median 0.28 (IQR 0.23-0.40) to 0.13 (IQR 0.11- 0.19), p=0.0001). There was no change in NFR in patients managed solely with bag valve mask (BVM) (n=25) (median 0.29 (IQR 0.18-0.59) vs. median 0.26 (IQR 0.12-0.37), p=0.888). There was no significant difference in time taken to successfully insert the airway device between the two groups. CONCLUSION The use of an advanced airway (ETT or LMA) during in-hospital cardiac arrest was associated with improved no flow ratio. Further studies are required to determine the effect of airway devices on overall patient outcomes.

Mechanical chest compression devices at in-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM To summarise the evidence in relation to the routine use of mechanical chest compression devices during resuscitation from in-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS We conducted a systematic review of studies which compared the effect of the use of a mechanical chest compression device with manual chest compressions in adults that sustained an in-hospital cardiac arrest. Critical outcomes were survival with good neurological outcome, survival at hospital discharge or 30-days, and short-term survival (ROSC/1-h survival). Important outcomes included physiological outcomes. We synthesised results in a random-effects meta-analysis or narrative synthesis, as appropriate. Evidence quality in relation to each outcome was assessed using the GRADE system. DATA SOURCES Studies were identified using electronic databases searches (Cochrane Central, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL), forward and backward citation searching, and review of reference lists of manufacturer documentation. RESULTS Eight papers, containing nine studies [689 participants], were included. Three studies were randomised controlled trials. Meta-analyses showed an association between use of mechanical chest compression device and improved hospital or 30-day survival (odds ratio 2.34, 95% CI 1.42-3.85) and short-term survival (odds ratio 2.14, 95% CI 1.11-4.13). There was also evidence of improvements in physiological outcomes. Overall evidence quality in relation to all outcomes was very low. CONCLUSIONS Mechanical chest compression devices may improve patient outcome, when used at in-hospital cardiac arrest. However, the quality of current evidence is very low. There is a need for randomised trials to evaluate the effect of mechanical chest compression devices on survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest.

Regional versus general anaesthesia in elderly patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture: protocol for a systematic review

BackgroundWith an ageing population, the incidence of hip fractures requiring surgery is increasing. Post-operative delirium is common following hip fracture surgery. Delirium is associated with high mortality and morbidity, poor long-term functional outcomes and institutionalisation. There is some evidence to suggest that perioperative intervention, specifically the anaesthetic technique employed, may reduce the incidence of delirium in this population. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the impact of anaesthesia type on post-operative delirium.MethodWe will conduct a systematic literature review using Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) bibliographic databases and the ZETOC and Web of Science websites. Authors of these trials will be invited to contribute unpublished data. PROSPERO register and clinical trial registers will also be searched to identify any ongoing reviews and trials. Eligible studies will assess the incidence of post-operative delirium in patients having regional or general anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery. The primary outcome of interest will be post-operative delirium; secondary outcomes will include mortality, measures of functional outcome, quality of life, length of hospital stay, discharge location and adverse events. Two reviewers will independently screen references identified by electronic literature searches. Two independent reviewers will extract data from studies fulfilling our inclusion criteria using a piloted data extraction form. Methodological quality and bias of included randomised controlled trials will be assessed using the ‘Cochrane Collaborations tool for assessing risk of bias’; for non-randomised studies, this will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data on similar outcomes will be pooled when possible. Where possible, meta-analysis will be undertaken using Review Manager (RevMan version 5.3) software.DiscussionThis systematic review will provide an updated evidence base with which to guide clinical practice and research for this group of challenging patients. If the anaesthetic technique employed is shown to reduce the incidence of post-operative cognition dysfunction, then this may lead to a change in evidence-based practice, influence future guidelines and support further randomised controlled trial research. There is no known effective treatment for delirium, creating the urgent need for research into delirium prevention.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42015020166

Randomised controlled pilot study to investigate the effectiveness of thoracic epidural and paravertebral blockade in reducing chronic post-thoracotomy pain: TOPIC feasibility study protocol

Introduction Open chest surgery (thoracotomy) is considered the most painful of surgical procedures. Forceful wound retraction, costochondral dislocation, posterior costovertebral ligament disruption, intercostal nerve trauma and wound movement during respiration combine to produce an acute, severe postoperative pain insult and persistent chronic pain many months after surgery is common. Three recent systematic reviews conclude that unilateral continuous paravertebral blockade (PVB) provides analgesia at least equivalent to thoracic epidural blockade (TEB) in the postoperative period, has a lower failure rate, and symptom relief that lasted months. Crucially, PVB may reduce the development of subsequent chronic pain by intercostal nerve protection or decreased nociceptive input. The overall aim is to determine in patients who undergo thoracotomy whether perioperative PVB results in reducing chronic post-thoracotomy pain (CPTP) compared with TEB. This pilot study will evaluate feasibility of a substantive trial. Methods and analysis TOPIC is a randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of TEB and PVB in reducing CPTP. This is a pilot study to evaluate feasibility of a substantive trial and study processes in 2 adult thoracic centres, Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust (HEFT) and University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust (UHSM). The primary objective is to establish the number of patients randomised as a proportion of those eligible. Secondary objectives include evaluation of study processes. Analyses of feasibility and patient-reported outcomes will primarily take the form of simple descriptive statistics and where appropriate, point estimates of effects sizes and associated 95% CIs. Ethics and dissemination The study has obtained ethical approval from NHS Research Ethics Committee (REC number 14/EM/1280). Dissemination plan includes: informing patients and health professionals; engaging multidisciplinary professionals to support a proposal of a definitive trial and submission for a full HTA application dependent on the success of the study. Trial registration number ISRCTN45041624; Pre-results.

Improving resuscitation quality.

Five decades on from the first descriptions of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) many hundreds of thousands of lives have undoubtedly been saved through widespread adoption of CPR. However for every individual life saved between six and fifty other cardiac arrest victims do not survive.1–3 The Declaration of the European Parliament of 14 June 2012 to establish a European cardiac arrest awareness week set forth the challenge to improve the awareness and education of the general public, physicians and healthcare professionals about CPR.

Pragmatic trials in peri-operative medicine: why, when and how?

We have been asked to write a counter-view to appear alongside an interesting editorial discussing pragmatic trials, particularly in the setting of perioperative care, written by three well respected leaders in our field. We agree that there are common problems with the way randomised trials have been undertaken in the past, especially in anaesthesia and surgery. We also recognise that these problems undermine the value of research as a tool to improve patient care. We propose an alternative view of pragmatic randomised controlled trials in perioperative care and how future research might be improved.