Search

Objectives: Clinical providers have access to a number of pharmacologic agents during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Few studies have explored medication administration patterns during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Herein, we examine trends in use of pharmacologic interventions during in-hospital cardiac arrest both over time and with respect to the American Heart Association Advanced Cardiac Life Support guideline updates., Design: Observational cohort study., Setting: Hospitals contributing data to the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation database between 2001 and 2016., Patients: Adult in-hospital cardiac arrest patients., Interventions: The percentage of patients receiving epinephrine, vasopressin, amiodarone, lidocaine, atropine, bicarbonate, calcium, magnesium, and dextrose each year were calculated in patients with shockable and nonshockable initial rhythms. Hierarchical multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the annual adjusted odds of medication administration. An interrupted time series analysis was performed to assess change in atropine use after the 2010 American Heart Association guideline update., Measurements and Main Results: A total of 268,031 index in-hospital cardiac arrests were included. As compared to 2001, the adjusted odds ratio of receiving each medication in 2016 were epinephrine (adjusted odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.8), vasopressin (adjusted odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1), amiodarone (adjusted odds ratio, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.9-4.0), lidocaine (adjusted odds ratio, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.2-0.2), atropine (adjusted odds ratio, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.06-0.08), bicarbonate (adjusted odds ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.8-2.3), calcium (adjusted odds ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.7-2.3), magnesium (adjusted odds ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.9-2.7; p < 0.0001), and dextrose (adjusted odds ratio, 2.8; 95% CI, 2.3-3.4). Following the 2010 American Heart Association guideline update, there was a downward step change in the intercept and slope change in atropine use (p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Prescribing patterns during in-hospital cardiac arrest have changed significantly over time. Changes to American Heart Association Advanced Cardiac Life Support guidelines have had a rapid and substantial effect on the use of a number of commonly used in-hospital cardiac arrest medications.

Objectives: Assess if amount of heat generated by postcardiac arrest patients to reach target temperature (Ttarget) during targeted temperature management is associated with outcomes by serving as a proxy for thermoregulatory ability, and whether it modifies the relationship between time to Ttarget and outcomes., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: Urban tertiary-care hospital., Patients: Successfully resuscitated targeted temperature management-treated adult postarrest patients between 2008 and 2015 with serial temperature data and Ttarget less than or equal to 34°C., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Time to Ttarget was defined as time from targeted temperature management initiation to first recorded patient temperature less than or equal to 34°C. Patient heat generation ("heat units") was calculated as inverse of average water temperature × hours between initiation and Ttarget × 100. Primary outcome was neurologic status measured by Cerebral Performance Category score; secondary outcome was survival, both at hospital discharge. Univariate analyses were performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests; multivariate analyses used logistic regression. Of 203 patients included, those with Cerebral Performance Category score 3-5 generated less heat before reaching Ttarget (median, 8.1 heat units [interquartile range, 3.6-21.6 heat units] vs median, 20.0 heat units [interquartile range, 9.0-33.5 heat units]; p = 0.001) and reached Ttarget quicker (median, 2.3 hr [interquartile range, 1.5-4.0 hr] vs median, 3.6 hr [interquartile range, 2.0-5.0 hr]; p = 0.01) than patients with Cerebral Performance Category score 1-2. Nonsurvivors generated less heat than survivors (median, 8.1 heat units [interquartile range, 3.6-20.8 heat units] vs median, 19.0 heat units [interquartile range, 6.5-33.5 heat units]; p = 0.001) and reached Ttarget quicker (median, 2.2 hr [interquartile range, 1.5-3.8 hr] vs median, 3.6 hr [interquartile range, 2.0-5.0 hr]; p = 0.01). Controlling for average water temperature between initiation and Ttarget, the relationship between outcomes and time to Ttarget was no longer significant. Controlling for location, witnessed arrest, age, initial rhythm, and neuromuscular blockade use, increased heat generation was associated with better neurologic (adjusted odds ratio, 1.01 [95% CI, 1.00-1.03]; p = 0.039) and survival (adjusted odds ratio, 1.01 [95% CI, 1.00-1.03]; p = 0.045) outcomes., Conclusions: Increased heat generation during targeted temperature management initiation is associated with better outcomes at hospital discharge and may affect the relationship between time to Ttarget and outcomes.

Objectives: The Sepsis III clinical criteria for the diagnosis of sepsis rely on scores derived to predict inhospital mortality. In this study, we introduce the novel outcome of "received critical care intervention" and investigate the related predictive performance of both the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria., Design: This was a single-center, retrospective analysis of electronic health records., Setting: Tertiary care hospital in the United States., Patients: Patients with suspected infection who presented to the emergency department and were admitted to the hospital between January 2010 and December 2014., Interventions: Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were calculated, and their relationships to the receipt of critical care intervention and inhospital mortality were determined., Measurement and Main Results: A total of 24,164 patients were included of whom 6,693 (27.7%) were admitted to an ICU within 48 hours; 4,453 (66.5%) patients admitted to the ICU received a critical care intervention. Among those with quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment less than 2, 13.4% received a critical care intervention and 3.5% died compared with 48.2% and 13.4%, respectively, for quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment greater than or equal to 2. The area under the receiver operating characteristic was similar whether quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was used to predict receipt of critical care intervention or inhospital mortality (0.74 [95% CI, 0.73-0.74] vs 0.71 [0.69-0.72]). The area under the receiver operating characteristic of Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome for critical care intervention (0.69) and mortality (0.66) was lower than that for quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (p < 0.001 for both outcomes). The sensitivity of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment for predicting critical care intervention was 38%., Conclusions: Emergency department patients with suspected infection and low quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores frequently receive critical care interventions. The misclassification of these patients as "low risk," in combination with the low sensitivity of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment greater than or equal to 2, may diminish the clinical utility of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score for patients with suspected infection in the emergency department.