Keith Couper

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.

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 …

Mechanical chest compression for out of hospital cardiac arrest: Systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM To summarise the evidence from randomised controlled trials of mechanical chest compression devices used during resuscitation after out of hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS Systematic review of studies evaluating the effectiveness of mechanical chest compression. We included randomised controlled trials or cluster randomised trials that compared mechanical chest compression (using any device) with manual chest compression for adult patients following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Outcome measures were return of spontaneous circulation, survival of event, overall survival, survival with good neurological outcome. Results were combined using random-effects meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES Studies were identified by searches of electronic databases, reference lists of other studies and review articles. RESULTS Five trials were included, of which three evaluated the LUCAS or LUCAS-2 device and two evaluated the AutoPulse device. The results did not show an advantage to the use of mechanical chest compression devices for survival to discharge/30 days (average OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77, 1.02) and survival with good neurological outcome (average OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53, 1.11). CONCLUSIONS Existing studies do not suggest that mechanical chest compression devices are superior to manual chest compression, when used during resuscitation after out of hospital cardiac arrest.

Debriefing after resuscitation.

Purpose of reviewEvidence of suboptimal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) delivery in practice has driven interest in strategies to improve CPR quality. Early data suggest that debriefing may be an effective strategy. In this review, we analyse types of debriefing and the evidence to support their usage. Recent findingsThere is a general lack of standardization in terminology and methods used for debriefing that limits evaluation. Debriefing interventions generally take two different formats. Hot debriefing is one where individuals or teams are provided with debriefing immediately after the event. Although perhaps the most widely used and easiest to implement, research evidence for its effectiveness is scant. Cold debriefing, where individuals or teams are provided with feedback sometime after the event, is associated with improvements in process and patient outcomes. Such feedback usually involves the use of objective performance data, such as defibrillator downloads or videotape records. Before and after cohort studies have found that both verbal debriefing in groups and individual written feedback seem to be associated with an improvement in performance. SummaryDebriefing is a useful strategy to improve resuscitation performance, but the optimal delivery method remains unclear. Future high-quality research is required to identify the most effective form of debriefing.

Mechanical devices for chest compression: to use or not to use?

Purpose of reviewThe delivery of high-quality manual chest compressions is rarely achieved in practice. Mechanical chest compression devices can consistently deliver high-quality chest compressions. The recent publication of large prehospital trials of these devices provides important new information about the role of these devices. Recent findingsThe Circulation Improving Resuscitation Care (CIRC), LUCAS in cardiac arrest (LINC) and Prehospital Randomized Assessment of a Mechanical Compression Device (PARAMEDIC) trials have recently been published. All these large prehospital trials found that the routine use of mechanical compression devices in the prehospital setting did not improve survival rates compared to those observed with manual chest compressions. There remain limited data on the routine use of devices during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Observational studies report favourable outcomes with the use of mechanical devices in special circumstances, including as a bridge to advanced therapies such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. SummaryMechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) results in similar survival rates to manual CPR in out of hospital cardiac arrest. There are insufficient data to support or refute the routine use of mechanical CPR devices during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Observational studies demonstrate the feasibility of using mechanical CPR when manual CPR is difficult or impossible, and as a bridge to advanced therapies.

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.

The System-Wide Effect of Real-Time Audiovisual Feedback and Postevent Debriefing for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: The Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Quality Improvement Initiative*

Objective: To evaluate the effect of implementing real-time audiovisual feedback with and without postevent debriefing on survival and quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality at in-hospital cardiac arrest. Design: A two-phase, multicentre prospective cohort study. Setting: Three UK hospitals, all part of one National Health Service Acute Trust. Patients: One thousand three hundred and ninety-five adult patients who sustained an in-hospital cardiac arrest at the study hospitals and were treated by hospital emergency teams between November 2009 and May 2013. Interventions: During phase 1, quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and patient outcomes were measured with no intervention implemented. During phase 2, staff at hospital 1 received real-time audiovisual feedback, whereas staff at hospital 2 received real-time audiovisual feedback supplemented by postevent debriefing. No intervention was implemented at hospital 3 during phase 2. Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome was return of spontaneous circulation. Secondary endpoints included other patient-focused outcomes, such as survival to hospital discharge, and process-focused outcomes, such as chest compression depth. Random-effect logistic and linear regression models, adjusted for baseline patient characteristics, were used to analyze the effect of the interventions on study outcomes. In comparison with no intervention, neither real-time audiovisual feedback (adjusted odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.31–1.22; p = 0.17) nor real-time audiovisual feedback supplemented by postevent debriefing (adjusted odds ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.35–1.21; p = 0.17) was associated with a statistically significant improvement in return of spontaneous circulation or any process-focused outcome. Despite this, there was evidence of a system-wide improvement in phase 2, leading to improvements in return of spontaneous circulation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.06–3.30; p = 0.03) and process-focused outcomes. Conclusions: Implementation of real-time audiovisual feedback with or without postevent debriefing did not lead to a measured improvement in patient or process-focused outcomes at individual hospital sites. However, there was an unexplained system-wide improvement in return of spontaneous circulation and process-focused outcomes during the second phase of the study.

A simple solution for improving reliability of cardiac arrest equipment provision in hospital.

INTRODUCTION Effective and safe cardiac arrest care in the hospital setting is reliant on the immediate availability of emergency equipment. The patient safety literature highlights deficiencies in current approaches to resuscitation equipment provision, highlighting the need for innovative solutions to this problem. METHODS We conducted a before-after study at a large NHS trust to evaluate the effect of a sealed tray system and database on resuscitation equipment provision. The system was evaluated by a series of unannounced inspections to assess resuscitation trolley compliance with local policy prior to and following system implementation. The time taken to check trolleys was assessed by timing clinicians checking both types of trolley in a simulation setting. RESULTS The sealed tray system was implemented in 2010, and led to a significant increase in the number of resuscitation trolleys without missing, surplus, or expired items (2009: n=1 (4.76%) vs 2011: n=37 (100%), p<0.001). It also significantly reduced the time required to check each resuscitation trolley in the simulation setting (12.86 (95% CI: 10.02-15.71) vs 3.15 (95% CI: 1.19-4.51)min, p<0.001), but had no effect on the number of resuscitation trolleys checked every day over the previous month (2009: n=8 (38.10%) vs 2011: n=11 (29.73%), p=0.514). CONCLUSION The implementation of a sealed tray system led to a significant and sustained improvement in resuscitation equipment provision, but had no effect on resuscitation trolley checking frequency.

An evaluation of three methods of in-hospital cardiac arrest educational debriefing: The cardiopulmonary resuscitation debriefing study

BACKGROUND The use of cardiac arrest educational debriefing has been associated with improvements in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) quality and patient outcome. The practical challenges associated with delivering some debriefing approaches may not be generalisable to the UK health setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the deliverability and effectiveness of three cardiac arrest debriefing approaches that were tailored to UK working practice. METHODS We undertook a before/after study at three hospital sites. During the post-intervention period of the study, three cardiac arrest educational debriefing models were implemented at study hospitals (one model per hospital). To evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions, CPR quality and patient outcome data were collected from consecutive adult cardiac arrest events attended by the hospital cardiac arrest team. The primary outcome was chest compression depth. RESULTS Between November 2011 and July 2014, 1198 cardiac arrest events were eligible for study inclusion (782 pre-intervention; 416 post-intervention). The quality of CPR was high at baseline. During the post-intervention period, cardiac arrest debriefing interventions were delivered to 191 clinicians on 344 occasions. Debriefing interventions were deliverable in practice, but were not associated with a clinically important improvement in CPR quality. The interventions had no effect on patient outcome. CONCLUSION The delivery of these cardiac arrest educational debriefing strategies was feasible, but did not have a large effect on CPR quality. This may be attributable to the high-quality of CPR being delivered in study hospitals at baseline. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN39758339.

The implementation of cardiac arrest treatment recommendations in English acute NHS trusts: a national survey

Purpose of the study There are approximately 35 000 in-hospital cardiac arrests in the UK each year. Successful resuscitation requires integration of the medical science, training and education of clinicians and implementation of best practice in the clinical setting. In 2015, the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) published its latest resuscitation treatment recommendations. It is currently unknown the extent to which these treatment recommendations have been successfully implemented in practice in English NHS acute hospital trusts. Methods We conducted an electronic survey of English acute NHS trusts to assess the implementation of key ILCOR resuscitation treatment recommendations in relation to in-hospital cardiac arrest practice at English NHS acute hospital trusts. Results Of 137 eligible trusts, 73 responded to the survey (response rate 53.3%). The survey identified significant variation in the implementation of ILCOR recommendations. In particular, the use of waveform capnography (n=33, 45.2%) and ultrasound (n=29, 39.7%) was often reported to be available only in specialist areas. Post-resuscitation debriefing occurs following every in-hospital cardiac arrest in few trusts (5.5%, n=4), despite a strong ILCOR recommendation. In contrast, participation in a range of quality improvement strategies such as the National Cardiac Arrest Audit (90.4%, n=66) and resuscitation equipment provision/audit (91.8%, n=67) were high. Financial restrictions were identified by 65.8% (n=48) as the main barrier to guideline implementation. Conclusion Our survey found that ILCOR treatment recommendations had not been fully implemented in most English NHS acute hospital trusts. Further work is required to better understand barriers to implementation.