Marvin A. Wayne

Standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation with augmentation of negative intrathoracic pressure for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with decreased intrathoracic pressure in the decompression phase can lead to improved haemodynamics compared with standard CPR. We aimed to assess effectiveness and safety of this intervention on survival with favourable neurological function after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS In our randomised trial of 46 emergency medical service agencies (serving 2·3 million people) in urban, suburban, and rural areas of the USA, we assessed outcomes for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest according to Utstein guidelines. We provisionally enrolled patients to receive standard CPR or active compression-decompression CPR with augmented negative intrathoracic pressure (via an impedance-threshold device) with a computer-generated block randomisation weekly schedule in a one-to-one ratio. Adults (presumed age or age ≥18 years) who had a non-traumatic arrest of presumed cardiac cause and met initial and final selection criteria received designated CPR and were included in the final analyses. The primary endpoint was survival to hospital discharge with favourable neurological function (modified Rankin scale score of ≤3). All investigators apart from initial rescuers were masked to treatment group assignment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00189423. FINDINGS 2470 provisionally enrolled patients were randomly allocated to treatment groups. 813 (68%) of 1201 patients assigned to the standard CPR group (controls) and 840 (66%) of 1269 assigned to intervention CPR received designated CPR and were included in the final analyses. 47 (6%) of 813 controls survived to hospital discharge with favourable neurological function compared with 75 (9%) of 840 patients in the intervention group (odds ratio 1·58, 95% CI 1·07-2·36; p=0·019]. 74 (9%) of 840 patients survived to 1 year in the intervention group compared with 48 (6%) of 813 controls (p=0·03), with equivalent cognitive skills, disability ratings, and emotional-psychological statuses in both groups. The overall major adverse event rate did not differ between groups, but more patients had pulmonary oedema in the intervention group (94 [11%] of 840) than did controls (62 [7%] of 813; p=0·015). INTERPRETATION On the basis of our findings showing increased effectiveness and generalisability of the study intervention, active compression-decompression CPR with augmentation of negative intrathoracic pressure should be considered as an alternative to standard CPR to increase long-term survival after cardiac arrest. FUNDING US National Institutes of Health grant R44-HL065851-03, Advanced Circulatory Systems.

Out-of-Hospital Administration of Intravenous Glucose-Insulin-Potassium in Patients With Suspected Acute Coronary Syndromes: The IMMEDIATE Randomized Controlled Trial

CONTEXT Laboratory studies suggest that in the setting of cardiac ischemia, immediate intravenous glucose-insulin-potassium (GIK) reduces ischemia-related arrhythmias and myocardial injury. Clinical trials have not consistently shown these benefits, possibly due to delayed administration. OBJECTIVE To test out-of hospital emergency medical service (EMS) administration of GIK in the first hours of suspected acute coronary syndromes (ACS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind effectiveness trial in 13 US cities (36 EMS agencies), from December 2006 through July 31, 2011, in which paramedics, aided by electrocardiograph (ECG)-based decision support, randomized 911 (871 enrolled) patients (mean age, 63.6 years; 71.0% men) with high probability of ACS. INTERVENTION Intravenous GIK solution (n = 411) or identical-appearing 5% glucose placebo (n = 460) administered by paramedics in the out-of-hospital setting and continued for 12 hours. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The prespecified primary end point was progression of ACS to myocardial infarction (MI) within 24 hours, as assessed by biomarkers and ECG evidence. Prespecified secondary end points included survival at 30 days and a composite of prehospital or in-hospital cardiac arrest or in-hospital mortality, analyzed by intent-to-treat and by presentation with ST-segment elevation. RESULTS There was no significant difference in the rate of progression to MI among patients who received GIK (n = 200; 48.7%) vs those who received placebo (n = 242; 52.6%) (odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.66-1.13; P = .28). Thirty-day mortality was 4.4% with GIK vs 6.1% with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.40-1.29; P = .27). The composite of cardiac arrest or in-hospital mortality occurred in 4.4% with GIK vs 8.7% with placebo (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.27-0.85; P = .01). Among patients with ST-segment elevation (163 with GIK and 194 with placebo), progression to MI was 85.3% with GIK vs 88.7% with placebo (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.40-1.38; P = .34); 30-day mortality was 4.9% with GIK vs 7.7% with placebo (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.27-1.49; P = .29). The composite outcome of cardiac arrest or in-hospital mortality was 6.1% with GIK vs 14.4% with placebo (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.18-0.82; P = .01). Serious adverse events occurred in 6.8% (n = 28) with GIK vs 8.9% (n = 41) with placebo (P = .26). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with suspected ACS, out-of-hospital administration of intravenous GIK, compared with glucose placebo, did not reduce progression to MI. Compared with placebo, GIK administration was not associated with improvement in 30-day survival but was associated with lower rates of the composite outcome of cardiac arrest or in-hospital mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00091507.

Prehospital use of succinylcholine: A 20-year review

OBJECTIVE To determine the safety and efficacy of succinylcholine, as an adjunct to endotracheal intubation, administered by paramedics trained in its use. METHODS Retrospective review of 1,657 consecutive patients, aged 16 years or older, receiving prehospital succinylcholine administered by paramedics. In this community of 175,000 people, trained paramedics intubated both medical and trauma patients with the assistance of succinylcholine. Main outcomes measured were success of intubations, complications of the procedure and/or the drug, and use of alternative methods of airway management. RESULTS Paramedics successfully intubated 95.5% (1,582) of all patients receiving succinylcholine, 94% (1,045) of trauma patients, and 98% (538) of medical patients. They were unable to intubate 4.5% (74) of the patients. All of these were successfully managed by alternative methods. Unrecognized esophageal intubation occurred in six (0.3%) patients. The addition of capnography and a tube aspiration device, in 1990, decreased the incidence of esophageal intubations. CONCLUSION Paramedics trained to use succinylcholine, to assist the process of endotracheal intubation, can safely intubate a high percentage of patients.

THE ROLE OF INTRAOSSEOUS VASCULAR ACCESS IN THE OUT-OF-HOSPITAL ENVIRONMENT (RESOURCE DOCUMENT TO NAEMSP POSITION STATEMENT)

Thousands of critically ill emergency patients are treated in the out-of-hospital setting in the United States every year. In many patients intravenous (IV) therapy cannot be initiated because of inadequate access to peripheral veins. In some cases, this lack of vascular access may limit benefit of medications because of late administration.[[1]] Both speed andoverall success of vascular access are important when evaluating potential methodologies for their use in the out-of-hospital environment. Insertion of an IV cannula has been reported to require substantial time in the prehospital environment, with a recent study reporting an average successful intravenous line placement time of 4.4 ± 2.8 minutes.[[2]] In critically ill pediatric patients, vascular access may present substantial difficulties to the provide.[[3]] Intraosseous access may provide a significant time saving which may benefit many critically ill patients, both by decreasing the time to achieve access andby decreasing the time to administration of indicated medications.[[4]] Achieving rapid administration of medications may facilitate the care of critically ill patients.[[1]] Devices are now available that permit rapid, accurate access to the intraosseous space. Recent changes in the American Heart Associations resuscitation guidelines state that the intraosseous route should be the first alternative to difficult or delayed intravenous access.[[5]] With these considerations, the role of intraosseous vascular access in the out-of-hospital environment should be reemphasized.

Treatment of non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with active compression decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation plus an impedance threshold device

BACKGROUND A recent out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) clinical trial showed improved survival to hospital discharge (HD) with favorable neurologic function for patients with cardiac arrest of cardiac origin treated with active compression decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) plus an impedance threshold device (ACD+ICD) versus standard (S) CPR. The current analysis examined whether treatment with ACD+ITD is more effective than standard (S-CPR) for all cardiac arrests of non-traumatic origin, regardless of the etiology. METHODS This is a secondary analysis of data from a randomized, prospective, multicenter, intention-to-treat, OHCA clinical trial. Adults with presumed non-traumatic cardiac arrest were enrolled and followed for one year post arrest. The primary endpoint was survival to hospital discharge (HD) with favorable neurologic function (Modified Rankin Scale score ≤ 3). RESULTS Between October 2005 and July 2009, 2738 patients were enrolled (S-CPR=1335; ACD+ITD=1403). Survival to HD with favorable neurologic function was greater with ACD+ITD compared with S-CPR: 7.9% versus 5.7%, (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.04, 1.95, p=0.027). One-year survival was also greater: 7.9% versus 5.7%, (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.04, 1.96, p=0.026). Nearly all survivors in both groups had returned to their baseline neurological function by one year. Major adverse event rates were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS Treatment of out-of-hospital non-traumatic cardiac arrest patients with ACD+ITD resulted in a significant increase in survival to hospital discharge with favorable neurological function when compared with S-CPR. A significant increase survival rates was observed up to one year after arrest in subjects treated with ACD+ITD, regardless of the etiology of the cardiac arrest.

Concepts and application of prehospital ventilation

Airway management and optimal ventilation are crucial aspects of managing out-of-hospital medical emergencies. The goals in these situations are controlled ventilation and optimized inspiratory time, expiratory time, and airflow. Numerous techniques and devices are available to deliver oxygen-enriched air to patients during resuscitation. The bag-valve-mask (BVM) is one of the most common devices used to provide ventilation, although the American Heart Association ranks BVM devices lower in preference than other ventilation adjuncts, such as emergency and transport ventilators (ETVs) and pocket masks. The clearly documented limitations of BVM ventilation and its widespread use in the United States underscore the need to improve ventilation practices during care provided by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel. As part of that improvement, ETVs clearly have a role in the prehospital setting. These devices should be available on every ambulance, and the ability to use ETVs should be part of each EMS providers skill set. Furthermore, all patients requiring emergency ventilation must be adequately monitored, including continuous monitoring of end-tidal carbon dioxide concentrations. As with any other skill, ventilation requires attention during initial training, continuing education and skill reinforcement, and quality review.

One-year outcomes of out-of-hospital administration of intravenous glucose, insulin, and potassium (GIK) in patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes (from the IMMEDIATE [Immediate Myocardial Metabolic Enhancement During Initial Assessment and Treatment in Emergency Care] Trial).

The Immediate Myocardial Metabolic Enhancement During Initial Assessment and Treatment in Emergency care Trial of very early intravenous glucose-insulin-potassium (GIK) for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in out-of-hospital emergency medical service (EMS) settings showed 80% reduction in infarct size at 30 days, suggesting potential longer-term benefits. Here we report 1-year outcomes. Prespecified 1-year end points of this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, effectiveness trial included all-cause mortality and composites including cardiac arrest, mortality, or hospitalization for heart failure (HF). Of 871 participants randomized to GIK versus placebo, death occurred within 1 year in 11.6% versus 13.5%, respectively (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 1.23, p = 0.36). The composite of cardiac arrest or 1-year mortality was 12.8% versus 17.0% (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.02, p = 0.06). The composite of hospitalization for HF or mortality within 1 year was 17.2% versus 17.2% (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.37, p = 0.92). The composite of mortality, cardiac arrest, or HF hospitalization within 1 year was 18.1% versus 20.4% (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.16, p = 0.30). In patients presenting with suspected ST elevation myocardial infarction, HRs for 1-year mortality and the 3 composites were, respectively, 0.65 (95% CI 0.33 to 1.27, p = 0.21), 0.52 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.92, p = 0.03), 0.63 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.16, p = 0.14), and 0.51 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.87, p = 0.01). In patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes, serious end points generally were lower with GIK than placebo, but the differences were not statistically significant. However, in those with ST elevation myocardial infarction, the composites of cardiac arrest or 1-year mortality, and of cardiac arrest, mortality, or HF hospitalization within 1 year, were significantly reduced.

PREHOSPITAL RAPID-SEQUENCE INTUBATION-WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE SHOW?

This article is a summary of the proceedings from a panel presentation and discussion ‘‘Prehospital Rapidsequence Intubation—What Does the Evidence Show?’’ presented at the National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP) annual meeting, Tucson, Arizona, in January 2004. The presenters, Henry E. Wang, MD, MPH, Daniel P. Davis, MD, and Marvin A. Wayne, MD, are nationally recognized leaders in the research and practice of prehospital endotracheal intubation (ETI) and rapidsequence intubation (RSI). In the opening section, ‘‘Prehospital RSI—Why Consider It At All?’’ Dr. Wang presented an in-depth review of the scientific evidence behind commonly cited reasons for prehospital RSI. Dr. Davis followed with ‘‘Pre-hospital RSI—Does It Make a Difference?’’ in which he discussed prior and current evidence linking this prehospital intervention to patient outcomes, including data from the recent San Diego RSI trial. Finally, in ‘‘Bellingham, Washington— A Prehospital RSI Success Story,’’

P REHOSPITAL M ANAGEMENT OF C ARDIAC A RREST : H OW U SEFUL A RE V ASOPRESSOR AND A NTIARRHYTHMIC D RUGS ?

Out-of-hospital resuscitation protocols for patients suffering cardiac arrest have historically included cardiopulmonary resuscitation, defibrillation, and rapid transport to a hospital. For many years, use of drugs to improve myocardial perfusion or to correct arrhythmias that occur during cardiac arrest has been part of prehospital efforts to revive patients in ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. Use of some of these drugs, however, may be based more on tradition than on well-documented evidence of efficacy. The authors reviewed pertinent data on the vasopressors epinephrine and vasopressin and the antiarrhythmics amiodarone and lidocaine to evaluate the usefulness of these drugs in cardiac arrest. They found little clinical data supporting the prehospital use of lidocaine in cardiac arrest, and despite a great deal of laboratory and clinical data addressing the efficacy of epinephrine, there is no large, randomized, controlled clinical trial supporting its use. Data on amiodarone and vasopressin support the use of these drugs in out-of-hospital resuscitation efforts.

P REHOSPITAL M ANAGEMENT OF A CUTE T ACHYARRHYTHMIAS

Arrhythmias are commonly encountered by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel. The potential seriousness of acute symptomatic arrhythmias necessitates thorough up-to-date training of EMS personnel. The three most common acute tachyarrhythmias, not linked to cardiac arrest, that are observed outside the hospital are paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT), atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response (RAF), and perfusing ventricular tachycardia (VT). Ideally, these tachyarrhythmias should be operationally defined in a manner that simplifies, particularly for EMS providers, their diagnosis and treatment. The authors recommend referring to these rhythms as regular narrow-complex tachycardia (presumed PSVT), irregularly irregular narrow-complex tachycardia (presumed RAF), or regular wide-complex tachycardia (presumed VT or aberrantly conducted PSVT). Although the value of treatments such as cardioversion is widely understood, the benefit from others, such as lidocaine, is unclear. Current preferences, recommendations, and concerns regarding the treatment of most arrhythmias outside the hospital reflect the dichotomy that sometimes exists between available evidence and actual practice.