Search

Objective: This review summarises the current evidence base for combinations of neuroprotective CPR adjuncts (active compression-decompression chest compressions, impedance threshold devices, and head-up positioning) during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest., Methods: A systematic search (PROSPERO registration CRD42023432302) was performed in English on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library in August 2023, and repeated in February 2024. All randomised and observational studies (not abstracts) reporting on any combination of the aforementioned CPR adjuncts were included. Papers were screened independently by two researchers, with a third reviewer acting as tiebreaker. Out-of-hospital, non-traumatic, cardiac arrests in patients >18 years were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale., Results: Eight of 1172 unique articles identified in the initial searches were included, with five randomised controlled trials and three observational studies. No randomised trial investigated a bundle of all three interventions. All randomised controlled trials were at intermediate or high risk of bias. Neurologically favourable survival was greater in patients treated with an impedance threshold device and active compression-decompression CPR when compared to standard CPR (8.9% vs 5.8%, p  = 0.019) in the largest existing randomised trial. Conflicting results were found in observational studies comparing the complete neuroprotective bundle to standard CPR., Conclusions: This review was limited by small study numbers and overlapping samples, which precluded a meta-analysis. Limited data suggests that combinations of adjuncts to improve cerebral perfusion during CPR may improve survival with favourable neurological outcome. A randomised controlled trial is required to establish whether combining all three together results in improved outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Early cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation is key to increasing survival following an out-of-hospital-cardiac-arrest (OHCA). However, automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are used in a very small percentage of cases. Despite large numbers of AEDs in the community, the absence of a unified system for registering their locations across the UK's ambulance services may have resulted in missed opportunities to save lives. Therefore, representatives from the resuscitation community worked alongside ambulance services to develop a single repository for data on the location of AEDs in the UK., Methods: A national defibrillator network, "The Circuit", was developed by the British Heart Foundation in collaboration with the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives, the UK ambulance services, the Resuscitation Council UK and St John Ambulance. The database allows individuals or organisations to record information about AED location, accessibility, and availability. The database synchronises with ambulance computer aided dispatch systems to provide UK ambulance services with real-time information on the nearest, available AED., Results: The Circuit was successfully rolled out to all 14 UK ambulance services. Since 2019, 82,108 AEDs have been registered. Of the AED data collected by The Circuit, 54% were not previously registered to any ambulance service, and are therefore new registrations., Conclusion: The Circuit provides ambulance services with a single point of access to AED locations in the UK. Since the launch of the system the number of defibrillators registered has doubled. Linking the Circuit data with patient outcome data will help understand whether improving the accessibility to AEDs is associated with increased survival., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: ‘Authors listed as affiliated to the BHF are employees of the BHF, a registered charity in England and Wales, Scotland and the Isle of Man. The BHF is the main funder of The Circuit and responsible for its administration. The author listed as affiliated to NHS England (NHSE) is a former employee of NHSE. NHSE is a co-funder of The Circuit. Authors listed as affiliated to the Resuscitation Council UK (RCUK) are employees of the Resuscitation Council UK a registered charity in England and Wales. The RCUK is a co-funder of The Circuit. Authors listed as affiliated to St John Ambulance (SJA) are employees of St John Ambulance a registered charity in England. SJA is a co-funder of The Circuit. Simon Dunn, Steve Irving, Sue Hampshire, Michael Bradfield, Charles Deakin, Simon Holmes, Stephanie Leckey, Nick Linker, Greg Lloyd, Julian Mark, Lisa McInnes, Simon Walsh, George Woods, Judy O’Sullivan and Gavin D Perkins are current or former members of The Circuit National Advisory Board. GDP holds research grants from the BHF, Resuscitation Council UK and the Laerdal Foundation, is a Trustee for the Resuscitation Council UK and Editor for Resuscitation and Resuscitation Plus journals.’., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background: We explored the feasibility of a large-scale UK ambulance services trial of optimal defibrillation shock energy for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The primary objective of this feasibility study was to establish the number of eligible patients and the number recruited. Secondary outcomes were adherence to allocated treatment and data completeness., Methods: We conducted a three-arm parallel group cluster randomised controlled feasibility study in a single ambulance service in southern England. Adult patients in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest treated for a shockable rhythm were included. Zoll X series defibrillators (clusters) were randomised to deliver 120-150-200 J, 150-200-200 J, or 200-200-200 J shock strategies., Results: Between March 2022 and February 2023, we randomised 38 eligible patients (120-150-200 J (n = 12), 150-200-200 J (n = 10), 200-200-200 J (n = 16)) to the study. The recruitment rate per cluster was 0.07 per month. The median patient age was 71 years (IQR 59-81 years); 79% were male. Twenty-eight cardiac arrests (74%) occurred in a private residence, 29 (76%) were witnessed and 32 (84%) patients received bystander CPR. Treatment adherence was 93% and completeness of clinical and electrical outcomes was 86%. At 30 days, 3/36 (8.3%) patients survived; we were unable to collect survival outcomes for two patients. Defibrillation data collection became difficult when defibrillators became separated from their allocated vehicles., Conclusion: We have demonstrated the feasibility of a cluster randomised controlled trial of optimal shock energy for defibrillation in a UK ambulance service. We have identified possible solutions to issues relating to trial design., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: HP is a member of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) Advanced Life Support task force committee. She holds a grant from the National Institute for Health and Social Care Research (NIHR)/Health Education England. GDP is Editor for Resuscitation and Resuscitation Plus and holds grants from the NIHR, British Heart Foundation, Resuscitation Council UK (RCUK) and Laerdal. He is an employee of University of Warwick, University Hospital of Coventry and Warwick, University Hospital Birmingham and West Midlands Ambulance Service and holds Leadership roles with ILCOR, the European Resuscitation Council, and RCUK. CDD, RL, DS, CS, FM, CH, JR, KS, MB, IR: Nil., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Aims: The PARAMEDIC-3 trial evaluates the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an intraosseous first strategy, compared with an intravenous first strategy, for drug administration in adults who have sustained an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest., Methods: PARAMEDIC-3 is a pragmatic, allocation concealed, open-label, multi-centre, superiority randomised controlled trial. It will recruit 15,000 patients across English and Welsh ambulance services. Adults who have sustained an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are individually randomised to an intraosseous access first strategy or intravenous access first strategy in a 1:1 ratio through an opaque, sealed envelope system. The randomised allocation determines the route used for the first two attempts at vascular access. Participants are initially enrolled under a deferred consent model.The primary clinical-effectiveness outcome is survival at 30-days. Secondary outcomes include return of spontaneous circulation, neurological functional outcome, and health-related quality of life. Participants are followed-up to six-months following cardiac arrest. The primary health economic outcome is incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained., Conclusion: The PARAMEDIC-3 trial will provide key information on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of drug route in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Trial registration: ISRCTN14223494, registered 16/08/2021, prospectively registered., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: GDP is co-chair of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). CD and JPN are emeritus members of the ILCOR Advanced Life Support task force. KC and HP are current members of the ILCOR Advanced Life Support task force. GDP is editor-in-chief and JPN is founding editor of Resuscitation Plus. KC is associate editor of Resuscitation Plus and guest editor for the research methodology special edition., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Aims: The Prehospital Optimal Shock Energy for Defibrillation (POSED) study will assess the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled study of clinical effectiveness in UK ambulance services to identify the optimal shock energy for defibrillation., Methods: POSED is a pragmatic, allocation concealed, open label, cluster randomised, controlled feasibility study. Defibrillators within a single UK ambulance service will be randomised in an equal ratio to deliver one of three shock strategies 120-150-200 J, 150-200-200 J, 200-200-200 J. Consecutive adults (≥18 years) presenting with out of hospital cardiac arrest requiring defibrillation will be eligible. The study plans to enrol 90 patients (30 in each group). Patients (or their relatives for non-survivors) will be informed about trial participation after the initial emergency has resolved. Survivors will be invited to consent to participate in follow-up (i.e., at 30 days or discharge).The primary feasibility outcome is the proportion of eligible patients who receive the randomised study intervention. Secondary feasibility outcomes will include recruitment rate, adherence to allocated treatment and data completeness. Clinical outcomes will include Return of an Organised Rhythm (ROOR) at 2 minutes post-shock, refibrillation rate, Return of Spontaneous Circulation (ROSC) at hospital handover, survival and neurological outcome at 30 days ., Conclusion: The POSED study will assess the feasibility of a large-scale trial and explore opportunities to optimise the trial protocol. Trial registration: ISRCTN16327029., Competing Interests: HP reports research funding from National Institute for Health and Care Research. CDD, RL, FM, AC, MAS, PK, AD, DES report no conflicts of interest. GDP reports research funding from National Institute for Health and Care Research, British Heart Foundation and Resuscitation Council UK. He has volunteer roles with Resuscitation Council UK, European Resuscitation Council and the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. He is an editor for the journals Resuscitation and Resuscitation Plus., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

Aim: To determine the optimal first-shock energy level for biphasic defibrillation and whether fixed or escalating protocols for subsequent shocks are most effective., Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, the Web of Science and national and international trial registry databases for papers published from database inception to January 2022. We reviewed reference lists of key papers to identify additional references. The population included adults sustaining non traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest subject to attempted defibrillation. Studies of internal or monophasic defibrillation and studies other than randomised controlled trials or prospective cohorts were excluded. Two reviewers assessed study relevance. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment, using the ROBINS-I tool, were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Data underwent intention-to-treat analysis., Results: We identified no studies evaluating first shock energy. Only one study ( n  = 738) comparing fixed versus escalating energy met eligibility criteria: a prospective cohort analysis of a randomised controlled trial of manual versus mechanical CPR. High fixed (360 J) energy was compared with an escalating (200-200/300-360 J) strategy. Researchers found 27.5% (70/255) of patients in the escalating energy group and 27.61% (132/478) in the fixed high energy group survived to hospital discharge (unadjusted risk ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.73, 1.23). Results were of very low certainty as the study was at serious risk of bias., Conclusion: This systematic review did not identify an optimal first-shock energy for biphasic defibrillation. We identified no survival advantage at 30 days when comparing 360 J fixed with 200 J escalating strategy., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

Background: Some resuscitation services advocate or teach routine manual defibrillator charging prior to a rhythm check during cardiopulmonary resuscitation., Objectives: We aimed to review the evidence for anticipatory defibrillator charging compared with charging after a shockable rhythm is confirmed., Methods: This scoping review was performed according to a specific methodological framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Grey literature was also reviewed using similar methodology and included in the results., Results: There are no randomized clinical trials studying anticipatory manual defibrillator charging. The limited available data does not address critical or important patient outcomes such as defibrillation success, return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge or neurological outcomes. Evidence primarily from manikin studies and the grey literature suggests that anticipatory charging is feasible, safe, and can reduce the total pause duration during the period of chest compression between rhythm checks, but can increase the pre-shock pause and total peri-shock pause duration., Conclusions: Anticipatory manual defibrillator charging appears to be feasible in the clinical setting, although its impact on clinical outcomes is uncertain. Future studies of anticipatory charging should focus on clinical outcomes., Competing Interests: QO None declared. SM None declared. CD Defibrillation domain lead, ILCOR. Trustee, RCUK. PM Chair of Australian Resuscitation Council. JS Chair of ILCOR ALS Task Force. Chair of the European Resuscitation Council ALS Science Committee. Executive committee, RCUK., (© 2020 The Author(s).)