Search

Highlights • COVID-19 pandemic has changed the risk-benefit balance for cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR]. • Amongst many aerosol producing procedures performed on patients, CPR is a highly aerosol-generating procedure. • Available literature is inadequate to direct clinicians towards keeping low or high threshold for performing CPR in COVID-19 patient.

Opioid overdose is the leading cause of death for Americans 25 to 64 years of age, and opioid use disorder affects >2 million Americans. The epidemiology of opioid-associated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the United States is changing rapidly, with exponential increases in death resulting from synthetic opioids and linear increases in heroin deaths more than offsetting modest reductions in deaths from prescription opioids. The pathophysiology of polysubstance toxidromes involving opioids, asphyxial death, and prolonged hypoxemia leading to global ischemia (cardiac arrest) differs from that of sudden cardiac arrest. People who use opioids may also develop bacteremia, central nervous system vasculitis and leukoencephalopathy, torsades de pointes, pulmonary vasculopathy, and pulmonary edema. Emergency management of opioid poisoning requires recognition by the lay public or emergency dispatchers, prompt emergency response, and effective ventilation coupled to compressions in the setting of opioid-associated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Effective ventilation is challenging to teach, whereas naloxone, an opioid antagonist, can be administered by emergency medical personnel, trained laypeople, and the general public with dispatcher instruction to prevent cardiac arrest. Opioid education and naloxone distributions programs have been developed to teach people who are likely to encounter a person with opioid poisoning how to administer naloxone, deliver high-quality compressions, and perform rescue breathing. Current American Heart Association recommendations call for laypeople and others who cannot reliably establish the presence of a pulse to initiate cardiopulmonary resuscitation in any individual who is unconscious and not breathing normally; if opioid overdose is suspected, naloxone should also be administered. Secondary prevention, including counseling, opioid overdose education with take-home naloxone, and medication for opioid use disorder, is important to prevent recurrent opioid overdose.

Introduction: Since over 75% of sudden cardiac arrest events occur in the home where family members may be first responders, broad cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training for family members of high-risk cardiac patients represents a promising intervention. The use of mobile application-based (mApp) CPR training may facilitate this, but data on the approach are limited. Objectives: We compared CPR skill retention among those trained with an mApp and hypothesized that training with the mApp would be non-inferior to training with a well-established video self-instruction (VSI) kit. As a secondary analysis, we examined dissemination via the “multiplier rate” (i.e., those additionally trained by primary trainees) by intervention. Methods: We conducted a multicenter pragmatic, randomized control trial assessing non-inferiority of training family members of cardiac patients in CPR with an mApp (video, but no practice manikin) to training with an established VSI method (video and manikin). Subject’s CPR skills were tested 6-months post-training. We hypothesized that mApp training would be non-inferior to VSI training, with a non-inferiority margin set at 5 chest compressions (cc) per min. Results: From 01/2016-01/2018, 1446 subjects were enrolled at 8 hospitals with 685 trained with VSI, and 761 trained with the mApp. Of those, 541 were included in the skills analysis (275 VSI, 266 App). The mean age was 52±16 years and 69% were female. Mean cc rate was 85±34 per min; mean cc depth was 40±14 mm. When stratified by intervention arm, those trained with VSI had a mean rate of 86 per min (83, 90), compared to 88 per min (84, 92) with the mApp; those trained with VSI had a mean depth of 42 mm (41, 44), compared to 39 mm (38, 41) with the mApp. Findings were similar when accounting for loss to follow-up. We concluded non-inferiority of the mApp with a mean difference of 1 (-5, 7) cc per min for rate. Subjects trained with VSI shared with an additional 2±4 individuals compared to 1±2 (p Conclusion: In this large prospective trial of CPR skill retention, the mApp CPR training approach was non-inferior to VSI training for family members of cardiac patients. Future work may include evaluating additional means for adoption and dissemination of the mApp.

Introduction: Among adults with in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA), overall survival is lower in black patients compared to white patients. Data regarding racial differences in survival for pediatric IHCA remain unknown. Methods: Using data from the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines-Resuscitation registry, we identified children >24 hours and < 18 years of age with IHCA due to an initial pulseless rhythm. We used generalized estimation equation to examine the association of black race with survival to hospital discharge and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Results: Overall, 2940 pediatric patients (898 black, 2042 white) with IHCA were included. The mean age was 6 years, 57% were male and 16% had an initial shockable rhythm. Baseline demographics, cardiac arrest characteristics including initial rhythm did not differ significantly by race. Although black race was associated with lower rates of ROSC compared to white patients (69.5% in blacks vs. 74.6% in whites; adjusted OR 0.8012, 95% CI 0.6749 - 0.9512, P= 0.0113), it was not associated with survival to discharge (34.7% in blacks vs. 37.8% in whites; adjusted OR 0.9705, 95% CI 0.8086 – 1.1648, P=0.7476). A lower rate of ROSC in black patients was not explained by longer delays in epinephrine administration for patients with a non-shockable rhythm, or defibrillation in patients with a shockable rhythm. Conclusion: In contrast to adults, no statistically significant racial differences in survival were present in pediatric IHCA.

The formula for survival in resuscitation describes educational efficiency and local implementation as key determinants in survival after cardiac arrest. Current educational offerings in the form of standardized online and face-to-face courses are falling short, with providers demonstrating a decay of skills over time. This translates to suboptimal clinical care and poor survival outcomes from cardiac arrest. In many institutions, guidelines taught in courses are not thoughtfully implemented in the clinical environment. A current synthesis of the evidence supporting best educational and knowledge translation strategies in resuscitation is lacking. In this American Heart Association scientific statement, we provide a review of the literature describing key elements of educational efficiency and local implementation, including mastery learning and deliberate practice, spaced practice, contextual learning, feedback and debriefing, assessment, innovative educational strategies, faculty development, and knowledge translation and implementation. For each topic, we provide suggestions for improving provider performance that may ultimately optimize patient outcomes from cardiac arrest.

In 2009, the American Heart Association created the 2020 Impact Goals, aspiring to improve cardiovascular health for Americans by 20% while reducing death from cardiovascular disease and stroke by 20%.1 These goals hinge on changing health behaviors (eg, diet, exercise, smoking) and health factors (eg, blood pressure, blood glucose) that are themselves dependent on behaviors. In the intervening years since 2009, there have been drastic changes in the way we obtain information, communicate, and consume goods. In 2009, the iPhone was 2 years old, and the Apple app store had just been launched. Twitter and Facebook were about to take off and since then have seen a >1000% increase in users. Meanwhile, the sharing economy was born, with the founding of Uber in 2009. As we near 2020 and the next set of American Heart Association Impact Goals, it is an opportune time to examine how digital media enabled trends (Figure) from the past decade may influence research and policy approaches. Figure. Three digital media-enabled trends that influence health and research. One notable trend is the surge in social media use over the past decade. Public sharing of information over social media has created a vast wealth of data that can be accessed for health-related data mining and predictive analytics. Social media users are surprisingly diverse—≈70% of US adults use social media. Although social media users skew younger, more than one-third of US adults ≥65 years of age also use social media.2 These …

Each year, there are ≈200 000 cardiac arrests in hospitalized patients in the United States1 and survival rates remain very poor. Article see p 1415 In this issue of Circulation , Kolte et al2 present new findings about regional variability in resuscitation rates and outcomes across the United States. The authors reviewed records of >800 000 in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) events from 2003 to 2011, and identified that cardiac arrest in hospitalized patients was common with an incidence of 2.85/1000 admissions. Most notably, they reported significant variability in IHCA across states with a nearly 6-fold difference in incidence and 2-fold difference in outcomes. With this substantial variance across states, it is likely that the differences within states are even greater. These findings are disturbing and clearly signal that where you live and where you arrest matter. As with any good study, this work raises more questions than it answers. Namely, what are the factors driving this variability and how can we narrow the gap between which hospitalized patients live and which die? Ultimately, this information is critically important to patients for making informed decisions about the locations where they receive health care. First, this variability could be driven by differences in hospital capabilities. Clearly hospitals vary in the services they provide, areas of excellence, and approach to the management of critically ill patients. Differences across hospitals could relate to structural variables (eg, size, staffing ratios, teaching status) and process variables (eg, targeted temperature management, emergency cardiopulmonary bypass). Comprehensive strategies for cardiac arrest management at resuscitation-specific centers may also apply bundles of care that could collectively rather than individually impact …

Cardiac arrest, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and stroke affect millions of people in the United States annually.1 Despite significant advances in medical treatments for these conditions, they remain a major public health problem and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality.1 A critical common element in optimizing care and outcomes for these conditions is the timely recognition of symptoms and initiation of treatment. For example, rapid initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is associated with improved survival from cardiac arrest.2 Similarly, early recognition and presentation after onset of symptoms of AMI and ischemic stroke enable implementation of critical therapies such as primary angioplasty and thrombolysis, which are known to improve outcomes.1 Indeed, the “Chain of Survival” for emergency cardiovascular and cerebrovascular care (ECCC) starts with prompt identification of the condition and early activation of the healthcare system to rapidly initiate care.3 Unfortunately, despite national efforts that include public education initiatives and clinical practice guideline recommendations from entities such as the American Heart Association (AHA), major gaps remain in the timely identification of symptoms and initiation of ECCC.4–6 As one example, studies of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) have consistently noted delays in the initiation of bystander CPR.7 For AMI, there have been advances in the provision of timely primary angioplasty for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), as reflected by significant improvements in door-to-balloon times.8 However, the time from patient symptom onset to seeking care for possible myocardial infarction has not improved significantly.9,10 Similarly, for stroke, there continue to be advances in door-to-needle times, but stroke symptom recognition and seeking of treatment by patients and their families remain a major barrier to timely stroke care.11–16 Public and clinician education efforts alone are not sufficient to reduce gaps …

Background and Purpose— The guidelines presented in this consensus statement are intended to serve researchers, clinicians, reviewers, and regulators in the selection of the most appropriate primary outcome for a clinical trial of cardiac arrest therapies. The American Heart Association guidelines for the treatment of cardiac arrest depend on high-quality clinical trials, which depend on the selection of a meaningful primary outcome. Because this selection process has been the subject of much controversy, a consensus conference was convened with national and international experts, the National Institutes of Health, and the US Food and Drug Administration. Methods— The Research Working Group of the American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee nominated subject leaders, conference attendees, and writing group members on the basis of their expertise in clinical trials and a diverse perspective of cardiovascular and neurological outcomes (see the online-only Data Supplement). Approval was obtained from the Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and the American Heart Association Manuscript Oversight Committee. Preconference position papers were circulated for review; the conference was held; and postconference consensus documents were circulated for review and comments were invited from experts, conference attendees, and writing group members. Discussions focused on (1) when after cardiac arrest the measurement time point should occur; (2) what cardiovascular, neurological, and other physiology should be assessed; and (3) the costs associated with various end points. The final document underwent extensive revision and peer review by the Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee, the American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee, and oversight committees. Results— There was consensus that no single primary outcome is appropriate for all studies of cardiac arrest. The best outcome measure is the pairing of a time point and physiological condition that will best answer the question under study. Conference participants were asked to assign an outcome to each of 4 hypothetical cases; however, there was not complete agreement on an ideal outcome measure even after extensive discussion and debate. There was general consensus that it is appropriate for earlier studies to enroll fewer patients and to use earlier time points such as return of spontaneous circulation, simple “alive versus dead,” hospital mortality, or a hemodynamic parameter. For larger studies, a longer time point after arrest should be considered because neurological assessments fluctuate for at least 90 days after arrest. For large trials designed to have a major impact on public health policy, longer-term end points such as 90 days coupled with neurocognitive and quality-of-life assessments should be considered, as should the additional costs of this approach. For studies that will require regulatory oversight, early discussions with regulatory agencies are strongly advised. For neurological assessment of post–cardiac arrest patients, researchers may wish to use the Cerebral Performance Categories or modified Rankin Scale for global outcomes. Conclusions— Although there is no single recommended outcome measure for trials of cardiac arrest care, the simple Cerebral Performance Categories or modified Rankin Scale after 90 days provides a reasonable outcome parameter for many trials. The lack of an easy-to-administer neurological functional outcome measure that is well validated in post–cardiac arrest patients is a major limitation to the field and should be a high priority for future development.

The contributors to this statement were selected to ensure expertise in all the disciplines relevant to post–cardiac arrest care. In an attempt to make this document universally applicable and generalizable, the authorship comprised clinicians and scientists who represent many specialties in many regions of the world. Several major professional groups whose practice is relevant to post–cardiac arrest care were asked and agreed to provide representative contributors. Planning and invitations took place initially by e-mail, followed a series of telephone conferences and face-to-face meetings of the cochairs and writing group members. International writing teams were formed to generate the content of each section, which corresponded to the major subheadings of the final document. Two team leaders from different countries led each writing team. Individual contributors were assigned by the writing group cochairs to work on 1 or more writing teams, which generally reflected their areas of expertise. Relevant articles were identified with PubMed, EMBASE, and an American Heart Association EndNote master resuscitation reference library, supplemented by hand searches of key papers. Drafts of each section were written and agreed on by the writing team authors and then sent to the cochairs for editing and amalgamation into a single document. The first draft of the complete document was circulated among writing team leaders for initial comment and editing. A revised version of the document was circulated among all contributors, and consensus was achieved before submission of the final version for independent peer review and approval for publication. This scientific statement outlines current understanding and identifies knowledge gaps in the pathophysiology, treatment, and prognosis of patients who regain spontaneous circulation after cardiac arrest. The purpose is to provide a resource for optimization of post–cardiac arrest care and to pinpoint the need for research focused on gaps in knowledge that would potentially improve outcomes …

There is increasing recognition that systematic post–cardiac arrest care after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) can improve the likelihood of patient survival with good quality of life. This is based in part on the publication of results of randomized controlled clinical trials as well as a description of the post–cardiac arrest syndrome. 1–3 Post–cardiac arrest care has significant potential to reduce early mortality caused by hemodynamic instability and later morbidity and mortality from multiorgan failure and brain injury. 3,4 This section summarizes our evolving understanding of the hemodynamic, neurological, and metabolic abnormalities encountered in patients who are initially resuscitated from cardiac arrest. The initial objectives of post–cardiac arrest care are to ● Optimize cardiopulmonary function and vital organ perfusion. ● After out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, transport patient to an appropriate hospital with a comprehensive post–cardiac arrest treatment system of care that includes acute coronary interventions, neurological care, goal-directed critical care, and hypothermia. ● Transport the in-hospital post–cardiac arrest patient to an appropriate critical-care unit capable of providing comprehensive post–cardiac arrest care. ● Try to identify and treat the precipitating causes of the arrest and prevent recurrent arrest.