Theresa M. Olasveengen

Intravenous Drug Administration During Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Randomized Trial

CONTEXT Intravenous access and drug administration are included in advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) guidelines despite a lack of evidence for improved outcomes. Epinephrine was an independent predictor of poor outcome in a large epidemiological study, possibly due to toxicity of the drug or cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) interruptions secondary to establishing an intravenous line and drug administration. OBJECTIVE To determine whether removing intravenous drug administration from an ACLS protocol would improve survival to hospital discharge after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Prospective, randomized controlled trial of consecutive adult patients with out-of-hospital nontraumatic cardiac arrest treated within the emergency medical service system in Oslo, Norway, between May 1, 2003, and April 28, 2008. INTERVENTIONS Advanced cardiac life support with intravenous drug administration or ACLS without access to intravenous drug administration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. The secondary outcomes were 1-year survival, survival with favorable neurological outcome, hospital admission with return of spontaneous circulation, and quality of CPR (chest compression rate, pauses, and ventilation rate). RESULTS Of 1183 patients for whom resuscitation was attempted, 851 were included; 418 patients were in the ACLS with intravenous drug administration group and 433 were in the ACLS with no access to intravenous drug administration group. The rate of survival to hospital discharge was 10.5% for the intravenous drug administration group and 9.2% for the no intravenous drug administration group (P = .61), 32% vs 21%, respectively, (P<.001) for hospital admission with return of spontaneous circulation, 9.8% vs 8.1% (P = .45) for survival with favorable neurological outcome, and 10% vs 8% (P = .53) for survival at 1 year. The quality of CPR was comparable and within guideline recommendations for both groups. After adjustment for ventricular fibrillation, response interval, witnessed arrest, or arrest in a public location, there was no significant difference in survival to hospital discharge for the intravenous group vs the no intravenous group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.91). CONCLUSION Compared with patients who received ACLS without intravenous drug administration following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, patients with intravenous access and drug administration had higher rates of short-term survival with no statistically significant improvement in survival to hospital discharge, quality of CPR, or long-term survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00121524.

Improving outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest by strengthening weak links of the local Chain of Survival; quality of advanced life support and post-resuscitation care

BACKGROUND Survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) depends on a well functioning Chain of Survival. We wanted to assess if targeted attempts to strengthen the weak links of our local chain; quality of advanced life support (ALS) and post-resuscitation care, would improve outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS Utstein data from all OHCAs in Oslo during three distinct 2-year time periods 1996-1998, 2001-2003 and 2004-2005 were collected. Before the second period the local ALS guidelines changed with increased focus on good quality chest compressions with minimal pauses, while standardized post-resuscitation care including goal directed therapy with therapeutic hypothermia and percutaneous coronary intervention was added in the third period. Additional a priori sub-group analyses of arrests with cardiac aetiology as well as bystander witnessed ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia (VF/VT) arrests with cardiac aetiology were performed. RESULTS ALS was attempted in 454, 449, and 417 patients with OHCA in the first, second and last time period, respectively. From the first to the third period VF/VT arrests declined (40% vs. 33%, p=0.039) and fewer arrests were witnessed (80% vs. 72%, p=0.022) and response intervals increased (7+/-4 to 9+/-4 min, p<0.001). Overall survival increased from 7% (first period) to 13% (last period), p=0.002, and survival in the sub-group of bystander witnessed VF/VT arrests with cardiac aetiology increased from 15% (first period) to 35% (last period), p=0.001. CONCLUSIONS Survival after OHCA was increased after improving weak links of our local Chain of Survival, quality of ALS and post-resuscitation care.

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.

Effect of implementation of new resuscitation guidelines on quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and survival

BACKGROUND During cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), advanced life support (ALS) providers have been shown to deliver inadequate CPR with long intervals without chest compressions. Several changes made to the 2005 CPR Guidelines were intended to reduce unnecessary interruptions. We have evaluated if quality of CPR performed by the Oslo Emergency Medical System (EMS) improved after implementation of the modified 2005 CPR Guidelines, and if any such improvement would result in increased survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS Retrospective, observational study of all consecutive adult cardiac arrest patients treated during a 2-year period before (May 2003-April 2005), and after (January 2006-December 2007) implementation of the modified 2005 CPR Guidelines. CPR quality was assessed from continuous electronic recordings from LIFEPACK 12 defibrillators where ventilations and chest compressions were identified from transthoracic impedance changes. Ambulance run sheets, Utstein forms and hospital records were collected and outcome evaluated. RESULTS Resuscitation was attempted in 435 patients before and 481 patients after implementation of the modified 2005 CPR Guidelines. ECGs usable for CPR quality evaluation were obtained in 64% and 76% of the cases, respectively. Pre-shock pauses decreased from median (interquartile range) 17s (11, 22) to 5s (2, 17) (p=0.000), overall hands-off ratios from 0.23+/-0.13 to 0.14+/-0.09 (p=0.000), compression rates from 120+/-9 to 115+/-10 (p=0.000) and ventilation rates from 12+/-4 to 10+/-4 (p=0.000). Overall survival to hospital discharge was 11% and 13% (p=0.287), respectively. CONCLUSION Quality of CPR improved after implementation of the modified 2005 Guidelines with only a weak trend towards improved survival to hospital discharge.

Outcome when adrenaline (epinephrine) was actually given vs. not given - post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY IV line insertion and drugs did not affect long-term survival in an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) randomized clinical trial (RCT). In a previous large registry study adrenaline was negatively associated with survival from OHCA. The present post hoc analysis on the RCT data compares outcomes for patients actually receiving adrenaline to those not receiving adrenaline. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients from a RCT performed May 2003 to April 2008 were included. Three patients from the original intention-to-treat analysis were excluded due to insufficient documentation of adrenaline administration. Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and clinical outcomes were compared. RESULTS Clinical characteristics were similar and CPR quality comparable and within guideline recommendations for 367 patients receiving adrenaline and 481 patients not receiving adrenaline. Odds ratio (OR) for being admitted to hospital, being discharged from hospital and surviving with favourable neurological outcome for the adrenaline vs. no-adrenaline group was 2.5 (CI 1.9, 3.4), 0.5 (CI 0.3, 0.8) and 0.4 (CI 0.2, 0.7), respectively. Ventricular fibrillation, response interval, witnessed arrest, gender, age and endotracheal intubation were confounders in multivariate logistic regression analysis. OR for survival for adrenaline vs. no-adrenaline adjusted for confounders was 0.52 (95% CI: 0.29, 0.92). CONCLUSION Receiving adrenaline was associated with improved short-term survival, but decreased survival to hospital discharge and survival with favourable neurological outcome after OHCA. This post hoc survival analysis is in contrast to the previous intention-to-treat analysis of the same data, but agrees with previous non-randomized registry data. This shows limitations of non-randomized or non-intention-to-treat analyses.

Standard basic life support vs. continuous chest compressions only in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Background: The importance of ventilations after cardiac arrest has been much debated recently and eliminating mouth‐to‐mouth ventilations for bystanders has been suggested as a means to increase bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Standard basic life support (S‐BLS) is not documented to be superior to continuous chest compressions (CCC).

A Failed Attempt to Improve Quality of Out-of-Hospital CPR Through Performance Evaluation

Introduction. Quality of CPR performed by professionals has been reported to be substandard even with automated corrective feedback. Our hypothesis was that providing CPR performance evaluation (CPR-PE) to three ambulance services would facilitate local education andimplementation of CPR guidelines and, consequently, improve CPR quality. Methods: Quality of CPR in 85 consecutive cases of adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrests after CPR-PE was compared to 39 cases prior to CPR-PE. Real-time automated verbal andvisual feedback on CPR performance was given in all cases. No general implementation strategy was provided because the sites were expected to use the CPR-PEs in development of local strategies. Because the strategies were expected to vary, the sites were analyzed separately. Results: No significant improvement was seen in quality of CPR after CPR-PE. No chest compressions were given 40% of the time before versus 41% after CPR-PE. The median (95% confidence interval) percentage of chest compressions within the recommended depth range (38–51 mm) was 35% (27–57) before versus 51% (42–60) after CPR-PE (p = 0.12). In site-specific analysis, chest compressions within guideline depth increased from 31% to 61% after CPR-PE (p = 0.05) in one site. Conclusions: Overall our attempt to improve CPR-quality was unsuccessful. Quality improvement likely requires a full range of implementation strategies to change current attitudes andpractices.

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 …

Out-of hospital advanced life support with or without a physician: effects on quality of CPR and outcome.

BACKGROUND The presence of physicians is believed to facilitate optimal management of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, but has not been sufficiently documented. METHODS Adult non-traumatic cardiac arrests treated by Oslo EMS between May 2003 and April 2008 were prospectively registered. Patients were categorized according to being treated by the physician-manned ambulance (PMA) or by regular paramedic-manned ambulances (non-PMA). Patient records and continuous electrocardiograms (ECGs) with impedance signals were reviewed. Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and clinical outcomes were compared. RESULTS Resuscitation was attempted in 1128 cardiac arrests, of which 151 treated by non-PMA and PMA together were excluded from comparative analysis. Of the remaining 977 patients, 232 (24%) and 741 (76%) were treated by PMA and non-PMA, respectively. The PMA group was more likely to have bystander witnessed arrests and initial VF/VT, and received better CPR quality with shorter hands-off intervals and pre-shock pauses, and having a greater proportion of patients being intubated. Despite uneven distribution of positive prognostic factors and better CPR quality, short-term and long-term survival were not different for patients treated by the PMA vs. non-PMA, with 34% vs. 33% (p=0.74) achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 28% vs. 25% (p=0.50) being admitted to ICU and 13% vs. 11% (p=0.28) being discharged from hospital, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest was not different for patients treated by the PMA and non-PMA in our EMS system.

Bradycardia during therapeutic hypothermia is associated with good neurologic outcome in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Objective: Comatose patients resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest receive therapeutic hypothermia. Bradycardia is frequent during therapeutic hypothermia, but its impact on outcome remains unclear. We explore a possible association between bradycardia during therapeutic hypothermia and neurologic outcome in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Design: Retrospective cohort study, from January 2009 to January 2011. Setting: University hospital medical and cardiac ICUs. Patients: One hundred eleven consecutive comatose out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients treated with therapeutic hypothermia. Interventions: Patients treated with standardized treatment protocol after cardiac arrest. Measurements and Main Results: All out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients’ records were reviewed. Hemodynamic data were obtained every fourth hour during the first days. The patients were in temperature target range (32–34°C) 8 hours after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and dichotomized into bradycardia and nonbradycardia groups depending on their actual heart rate less than or equal to 60 beats/min or more than 60 beats/min at that time. Primary endpoint was Cerebral Performance Category score at hospital discharge. More nonbradycardia group patients received epinephrine during resuscitation and epinephrine and norepinephrine in the early in-hospital period. They also had lower base excess at admission. Survival rate with favorable outcome was significantly higher in the bradycardia than the nonbradycardia group (60% vs 37%, respectively, p = 0.03). For further heart rate quantification, patients were divided into quartiles: less than or equal to 49 beats/min, 50–63 beats/min, 64–77 beats/min, and more than or equal to 78 beats/min, with respective proportions of patients with good outcome at discharge of 18 of 27 (67%), 14 of 25 (56%), 12 of 28 (43%), and 7 of 27 (26%) (p = 0.002). Patients in the lowest quartile had significantly better outcome than the higher groups (p = 0.027), whereas patients in the highest quartile had significantly worse outcome than the lower three groups (p = 0.013). Conclusions: Bradycardia during therapeutic hypothermia was associated with good neurologic outcome at hospital discharge. Our data indicate that bradycardia should not be aggressively treated in this period if mean arterial pressure, lactate clearance, and diuresis are maintained at acceptable levels. Studies, both experimental and clinical, are warranted.