Search

OBJECTIVES Pediatric in-hospital cardiac arrest cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality metrics have been reported in few children less than 8 years. Our objective was to characterize chest compression fraction, rate, depth, and compliance with 2015 American Heart Association guidelines across multiple pediatric hospitals. DESIGN Retrospective observational study of data from a multicenter resuscitation quality collaborative from October 2015 to April 2017. SETTING Twelve pediatric hospitals across United States, Canada, and Europe. PATIENTS In-hospital cardiac arrest patients (age < 18 yr) with quantitative cardiopulmonary resuscitation data recordings. INTERVENTIONS None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS There were 112 events yielding 2,046 evaluable 60-second epochs of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (196,669 chest compression). Event cardiopulmonary resuscitation metric summaries (median [interquartile range]) by age: less than 1 year (38/112): chest compression fraction 0.88 (0.61-0.98), chest compression rate 119/min (110-129), and chest compression depth 2.3 cm (1.9-3.0 cm); for 1 to less than 8 years (42/112): chest compression fraction 0.94 (0.79-1.00), chest compression rate 117/min (110-124), and chest compression depth 3.8 cm (2.9-4.6 cm); for 8 to less than 18 years (32/112): chest compression fraction 0.94 (0.85-1.00), chest compression rate 117/min (110-123), chest compression depth 5.5 cm (4.0-6.5 cm). "Compliance" with guideline targets for 60-second chest compression "epochs" was predefined: chest compression fraction greater than 0.80, chest compression rate 100-120/min, and chest compression depth: greater than or equal to 3.4 cm in less than 1 year, greater than or equal to 4.4 cm in 1 to less than 8 years, and 4.5 to less than 6.6 cm in 8 to less than 18 years. Proportion of less than 1 year, 1 to less than 8 years, and 8 to less than 18 years events with greater than or equal to 60% of 60-second epochs meeting compliance (respectively): chest compression fraction was 53%, 81%, and 78%; chest compression rate was 32%, 50%, and 63%; chest compression depth was 13%, 19%, and 44%. For all events combined, total compliance (meeting all three guideline targets) was 10% (11/112). CONCLUSIONS Across an international pediatric resuscitation collaborative, we characterized the landscape of pediatric in-hospital cardiac arrest chest compression quality metrics and found that they often do not meet 2015 American Heart Association guidelines. Guideline compliance for rate and depth in children less than 18 years is poor, with the greatest difficulty in achieving chest compression depth targets in younger children.

Objective: We performed a systematic review as part of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation process to create a consensus on science statement regarding amiodarone or lidocaine during pediatric cardiac arrest for the 2015 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation's Consensus on Science and Treatment Recommendations. Data Sources: Studies were identified from comprehensive searches in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Study Selection: Studies eligible for inclusion were randomized controlled and observational studies on the relative clinical effect of amiodarone or lidocaine in cardiac arrest. Data Extraction: Studies addressing the clinical effect of amiodarone versus lidocaine were extracted and reviewed for inclusion and exclusion criteria by the reviewers. Studies were rigorously analyzed thereafter. Data Synthesis: We identified three articles addressing lidocaine versus amiodarone in cardiac arrest: 1) a prospective study assessing lidocaine versus amiodarone for refractory ventricular fibrillation in out-of-hospital adults; 2) an observational retrospective cohort study of inpatient pediatric patients with ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia who received lidocaine, amiodarone, neither or both; and 3) a prospective study of ventricular tachycardia with a pulse in adults. The first study showed a statistically significant improvement in survival to hospital admission with amiodarone (22.8% vs 12.0%; p = 0.009) and a lack of statistical difference for survival at discharge (p = 0.34). The second article demonstrated 44% return of spontaneous circulation for amiodarone and 64% for lidocaine (odds ratio, 2.02; 1.36-3.03) with no statistical difference for survival at hospital discharge. The third article demonstrated 48.3% arrhythmia termination for amiodarone versus 10.3% for lidocaine (p < 0.05). All were classified as lower quality studies without preference for one agent. Conclusions: The confidence in effect estimates is so low that International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation felt that a recommendation to use of amiodarone over lidocaine is too speculative; we suggest that amiodarone or lidocaine can be used in the setting of pulseless ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation in infants and children.