Search

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are a gold standard in research and crucial to our understanding of resuscitation science. Many trials in resuscitation have had neutral findings, questioning which treatments are effective in cardiac resuscitation. While it is possible than many interventions do not improve patient outcomes, it is also possible that the large proportion of neutral findings are partially due to design limitations. RCTs can be challenging to implement, and require extensive resources, time, and funding. In addition, conducting RCTs in the out-of-hospital setting provides unique challenges that must be considered for a successful trial. This article will outline many important aspects of conducting trials in resuscitation in the out-of-hospital setting including patient and outcome selection, trial design, and statistical analysis.

Background: Double Sequential External Defibrillation (DSED) is a proposed treatment strategy for patients in refractory VF (RVF) during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Defibrillator damage employing DSED is a theoretical concern expressed by defibrillator manufacturers yet the incidence of damage during resuscitation remains unknown. Objective: We sought to explore the incidence of defibrillator damage employing DSED for RVF during OHCA. Methods: We conducted a survey of EMS agencies, authors of previous publications, EMS medical directors, base hospital medical oversight groups, and defibrillator manufacturers to assess the incidence of defibrillator damage during DSED. Our survey focused on the frequency of DSED use, number of shocks used during DSED, technique used to employ DSED (simultaneous or sequential), and the incidence of defibrillator damage during DSED. We specifically targeted groups that were known to be using DSED in clinical practice. Results: Our survey response rate was 50% (65/129): 61% (34/56) EMS medical directors, 60% (6/10) authors, 100% (8/8) base hospitals, 33% (1/3) defibrillator manufacturers, 31% (16/52) paramedic services. In our case-based analysis the overall incidence of defibrillator damage was 0.4%. The incidence of defibrillator damage based on total number of DSED shocks was estimated between 0.11% and 0.22%. All reported cases of defibrillator damage occurred using a simultaneous defibrillation technique. Conclusion: When DSED is employed using either a sequential or simultaneous technique the rate of defibrillator damage appears to be exceedingly low. Further high-quality evidence is required to determine the impact of DSED on patient centered outcomes, but the incidence of defibrillator damage should not limit it use. Defibrillator damage should continue to be monitored in future trials and clinical practice.

Background: There are increasing numbers of reports of cognitive activity, consciousness, awareness and recall related to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and interventions such as the use of sedative and analgesic drugs during CPR. Objectives: This scoping review aims to describe the available evidence concerning CPR-related cognitive activity, consciousness, awareness and recall and interventions such as the use of sedative and analgesic drugs during CPR. Methods: A literature search was conducted of Medline, Embase and CINAHL from inception to 21 October 2021. We included case studies, observational studies, review studies and grey literature. Results: We identified 8 observational studies including 40,317 patients and 464 rescuers, and 26 case reports including 33 patients. The reported prevalence of CPR-induced consciousness was between 0.23% to 0.9% of resuscitation attempts, with 48–59% of experienced professional rescuers surveyed estimated to have observed CPR-induced consciousness. CPR-induced consciousness is associated with professional rescuer CPR, witnessed arrest, a shockable rhythm, increased return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and survival to hospital discharge when compared to patients without CPR-induced consciousness. Few studies of sedation for CPR-induced consciousness were identified. Although local protocols for treating CPR-induced consciousness exist, there is no widely accepted guidance. Conclusions: CPR-related cognitive activity, consciousness, awareness and recall is uncommon but increasingly reported by professional rescuers. The data available was heterogeneous in nature and not suitable for progression to a systematic review process. Although local treatment protocols exist for management of CPR-induced consciousness, there are no widely accepted treatment guidelines. More studies are required to investigate the management of CPR-induced consciousness.

Managing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest requires paramedics to perform multiple aerosol generating medical procedures in an uncontrolled setting. This increases the risk of cross infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Modifications to conventional protocols are required to balance paramedic safety with optimal patient care and potential stresses on the capacity of critical care resources. Despite this, little specific advice has been published to guide paramedic practice. In this commentary, we highlight challenges and controversies regarding critical decision making around initiation of resuscitation, airway management, mechanical chest compression, and termination of resuscitation. We also discuss suggested triggers for implementation and revocation of recommended protocol changes and present an accompanying paramedic-specific algorithm.

Background: Airway management is a core component of the treatment of cardiac arrest. Where a rescuer cannot establish a patent airway to provide oxygenation and ventilation using standard basic and advanced airway techniques, there may be a need to consider emergency front-of-neck airway access (eFONA, e.g., cricothyroidotomy), but there is limited evidence to inform this approach. Objectives: This scoping review aims to identify the evidence for the use of eFONA techniques in patients with cardiac arrest. Methods: In November 2023, we searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central to identify studies on eFONA in adults. We included randomised controlled trials, non-randomised studies, and case series with at least five cases that described any use of eFONA. We extracted data, including study setting, population characteristics, intervention characteristics, and outcomes. Our analysis focused on four key areas: incidence of eFONA, eFONA success rates, clinical outcomes, and complications. Results: The search identified 21,565 papers, of which 18,934 remained after de-duplication. After screening, we included 69 studies (53 reported incidence, 40 reported success rate, 38 reported clinical outcomes; 36 studies reported complications). We identified only one randomised controlled trial. Across studies, there was a total of 4,457 eFONA attempts, with a median of 31 attempts (interquartile range 16–56.5) per study. There was marked heterogeneity across studies that precluded any pooling of data. There were no studies that included only patients in cardiac arrest. Conclusion: The available evidence for eFONA is extremely heterogeneous, with no studies specifically focusing on its use in adults with cardiac arrest.

Introduction: Over 400,000 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) occur each year in Canada and the United States with less than 10% survival to hospital discharge. Cardiac arrest is a heterogenous condition and patient outcomes are impacted by a multitude of factors. Prognostication is recommended at 72 hours after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), however there may be other factors that could predict patient outcome earlier in the post-arrest period. The objective of our study was to develop and internally validate a novel clinical prediction rule to risk stratify patients early in the post-cardiac arrest period. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult (≥18 years) post-cardiac arrest patients between 2010 and 2015 from the Epistry Cardiac Arrest database in Toronto. Our primary analysis used ordinal logistic regression to examine neurologic outcome at discharge using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Our secondary analysis used logistic regression for neurologic outcome and survival to hospital discharge. Models were internally validated using bootstrap validation. Results: A total of 3432 patients met our inclusion criteria. Our clinical prediction model was able to predict neurologic outcome on an ordinal scale using our predefined variables with an AUC of 0.89 after internal validation. The predictive performance was maintained when examining neurologic outcome as a binary variable and survival to hospital discharge. Conclusion: We were able to develop a model to accurately risk stratify adult cardiac arrest patients early in the post-cardiac arrest period. Future steps are needed to externally validate this model in other healthcare settings.