Search

Study Objectives: We compare the predictive accuracy of emergency physicians' unstructured clinical judgment to the Canadian C-Spine rule., Methods: This prospective multicenter cohort study was conducted at 10 Canadian urban academic emergency departments. Included in the study were alert, stable, adult patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15 and trauma to the head or neck. This was a substudy of the Canadian C-Spine and CT Head Study. Eligible patients were prospectively evaluated before radiography. Physicians estimated the probability of unstable cervical spine injury from 0% to 100% according to clinical judgment alone and filled out a data form. Interobserver assessments were done when feasible. Patients underwent cervical spine radiography or follow-up to determine clinically important cervical spine injuries. Analyses included comparison of areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the kappa coefficient., Results: During 18 months, 6265 patients were enrolled. The mean age was 36.6 years (range 16 to 97 years), and 50.1% were men. Sixty-four (1%) patients had a clinically important injury. The physicians' kappa for a 0% predicted probability of injury was 0.46 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.65). The respective areas under the ROC curve for predicting cervical spine injury were 0.85 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.89) for physician judgment and 0.91 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.92) for the Canadian C-Spine rule (P <.05). With a threshold of 0% predicted probability of injury, the respective indices of accuracy for physicians and the Canadian C-Spine rule were sensitivity 92.2% versus 100% (P <.001) and specificity 53.9% versus 44.0% (P <.001)., Conclusion: Interobserver agreement of unstructured clinical judgment for predicting clinically important cervical spine injury is only fair, and the sensitivity is unacceptably low. The Canadian C-Spine rule was better at detecting clinically important injuries with a sensitivity of 100%. Prospective validation has recently been completed and should permit widespread use of the Canadian C-Spine rule.

Study Objective: There is little evidence that cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) alone may lead to the resuscitation of cardiac arrest victims with other than respiratory causes (eg, pediatric arrest, drowning, drug overdose). The objective of this study was to identify out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors resuscitated without defibrillation or advanced cardiac life support., Methods: This observational cohort included all adult survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of a cardiac cause from phases I and II of the Ontario Prehospital Advanced Life Support Study. During the study period, the system provided a basic life support/defibrillation level of care but no advanced life support. CPR-only patients were patients determined to be without vital signs by EMS personnel who regained a palpable pulse in the field with precordial thump or CPR only and then were admitted alive to the hospital. Six members of a 7-member expert review panel had to rate the patient as either probably or definitely having an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and a rhythm strip consistent with a cardiac arrest rhythm had to be present to be considered a patient. Criteria considered were witness status, citizen or first responder CPR, CPR duration, arrest rhythm and rate, and performance of precordial thump., Results: From January 1, 1991, to June 30, 1997, 9,667 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were treated. The overall survival rate to hospital discharge was 4.6%. There were 97 apparent CPR-only patients admitted to the hospital. Application of the inclusion criteria yielded 24 CPR-only patients who had true out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and 73 patients judged not to have cardiac arrest. Of the 24 true CPR-only patients admitted to the hospital, 15 patients were discharged alive, 10 patients were witnessed by bystanders, and 7 patients were witnessed by EMS personnel. The initial arrest rhythm was pulseless electrical activity in 9 patients, asystole in 12 patients, and ventricular tachycardia in 3 patients. One patient with ventricular tachycardia converted to sinus tachycardia with a single precordial thump., Conclusion: CPR-only survivors of true out-of-hospital cardiac arrest do exist; some victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of primary cardiac cause can survive after provision of out-of-hospital basic life support care only. However, many patients found to be pulseless by means of out-of-hospital evaluation likely did not have a true cardiac arrest. This has implications for the survival rates of most, if not all, previous cardiac arrest reports. Survival rates from cardiac arrest may actually be lower if one excludes survivors who never had a true arrest. The absence of vital signs by out-of-hospital assessment alone is not adequate to include patients in research reports or quality evaluations for cardiac arrest.

Study Objective: The Utstein guidelines recommend that emergency medical services (EMS)-witnessed cardiac arrests be considered separately from other out-of-hospital cardiac arrest cases. The objective of this study was to assess EMS-witnessed cardiac arrest and to determine predictors of survival in this group., Methods: This prospective cohort included all adults with an EMS-witnessed cardiac arrest in the 21 communities of the Ontario Prehospital Advanced Life Support (OPALS) study. Systems provided a basic life support with defibrillation (BLS-D) level of care. Case and survival definitions followed the Utstein style. Descriptive and univariate methods (chi(2) and t test) were used to characterize EMS-witnessed cardiac arrest. Multivariate logistic regression was undertaken to assess predictors of survival to hospital discharge., Results: From January 1, 1991, to December 31, 1996, there were 9,072 cardiac arrest cases in the study communities. Of these, 610 (6.7%) were EMS-witnessed. The majority had preexisting cardiac or respiratory disease (81.5%) and experienced prodromal symptoms before EMS personnel arrived (91.4%). An initial rhythm of pulseless electrical activity was present in 50.1% of the patients, ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia in 34.2%, and asystole in 15.7%. Survival to discharge was 12.6%. Multivariate analysis identified the following as independent predictors of survival (odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]): nitroglycerin use before EMS arrival: 2.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 4.5), prodromal symptoms of chest pain: 2.5 (95% CI 1.4 to 4.5) or dyspnea: 0.5 (95% CI 0.3 to 1.0), and unconsciousness on EMS arrival: 0.5 (95% CI 0.2 to 0.9). Patients with chest pain were more likely than dyspneic patients to experience ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia (62% versus 17%, P<.0001), and were 5 times more likely to survive (30.6% versus 6.3%, P<.0001)., Conclusion: EMS-witnessed cases are clearly an important subset of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and are characterized by 2 distinct symptom groups: chest pain and dyspnea. These symptoms are important predictors of survival and may also help determine underlying mechanisms before patient collapse. A later phase of the OPALS study will prospectively evaluate the impact of out-of-hospital advanced life support on the survival of victims of EMS-witnessed cardiac arrest.

Study Objective: More than 1,000 patients experience sudden cardiac arrest each day. Treatment for this includes cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency medical services (EMS) that provide CPR-basic life support (BLS), BLS with defibrillation (BLS-D), or advanced life support (ALS). Our previous systematic review of treatments for sudden cardiac arrest was limited by suboptimal data. Since then, debate has increased about whether bystander CPR is effective or whether attention should focus instead on rapid defibrillation. Therefore a cumulative meta-analysis was conducted to determine the relative effectiveness of differences in the defibrillation response time interval, proportion of bystander CPR, and type of EMS system on survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest., Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed by using a priori exclusion criteria. We considered EMS systems that provided BLS-D, ALS, BLS plus ALS, or BLS-D plus ALS care. A generalized linear model was used with dispersion estimation for random effects., Results: Thirty-seven eligible articles described 39 EMS systems and included 33,124 patients. Median survival for all rhythm groups to hospital discharge was 6.4% (interquartile range, 3.7 to 10.3). Odds of survival were 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.09; P <.01) per 5% increase in bystander CPR. Survival was constant if the defibrillation response time interval was less than 6 minutes, decreased as the interval increased from 6 to 11 minutes, and leveled off after 11 minutes (P <.01). Compared with BLS-D, odds of survival were as follows: ALS, 1. 71 (95% CI, 1.09 to 2.70; P =.01); BLS plus ALS, 1.47 (95% CI, 0.89 to 2.42; P =.07); and BLS with defibrillation plus ALS, 2.31 (95% CI, 1.47 to 3.62; P <.01.), Conclusion: We confirm that greater survival after sudden cardiac arrest is associated with provision of bystander CPR, early defibrillation, or ALS. More research is required to evaluate the relative benefit of early defibrillation versus early ALS.