Search

The Utstein Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation Registry Template, introduced in 1991 and updated in 2004 and 2015, standardizes data collection to enable research, evaluation, and comparisons of systems of care. The impetus for the current update stemmed from significant advances in the field and insights from registry development and regional comparisons. This 2024 update involved representatives of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and used a modified Delphi process. Every 2015 Utstein data element was reviewed for relevance, priority (core or supplemental), and improvement. New variables were proposed and refined. All changes were voted on for inclusion. The 2015 domains-system, dispatch, patient, process, and outcomes-were retained. Further clarity is provided for the definitions of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest attended resuscitation and attempted resuscitation. Changes reflect advancements in dispatch, early response systems, and resuscitation care, as well as the importance of prehospital outcomes. Time intervals such as emergency medical service response time now emphasize precise reporting of the times used. New flowcharts aid the reporting of system effectiveness for patients with an attempted resuscitation and system efficacy for the Utstein comparator group. Recognizing the varying capacities of emergency systems globally, the writing group provided a minimal dataset for settings with developing emergency medical systems. Supplementary variables are considered useful for research purposes. These revisions aim to elevate data collection and reporting transparency by registries and researchers and to advance international comparisons and collaborations. The overarching objective remains the improvement of outcomes for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

The Utstein Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation Registry Template, introduced in 1991 and updated in 2004 and 2015, standardizes data collection to enable research, evaluation, and comparisons of systems of care. The impetus for the current update stemmed from significant advances in the field and insights from registry development and regional comparisons. This 2024 update involved representatives of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and used a modified Delphi process. Every 2015 Utstein data element was reviewed for relevance, priority (core or supplemental), and improvement. New variables were proposed and refined. All changes were voted on for inclusion. The 2015 domains-system, dispatch, patient, process, and outcomes-were retained. Further clarity is provided for the definitions of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest attended resuscitation and attempted resuscitation. Changes reflect advancements in dispatch, early response systems, and resuscitation care, as well as the importance of prehospital outcomes. Time intervals such as emergency medical service response time now emphasize precise reporting of the times used. New flowcharts aid the reporting of system effectiveness for patients with an attempted resuscitation and system efficacy for the Utstein comparator group. Recognizing the varying capacities of emergency systems globally, the writing group provided a minimal dataset for settings with developing emergency medical systems. Supplementary variables are considered useful for research purposes. These revisions aim to elevate data collection and reporting transparency by registries and researchers and to advance international comparisons and collaborations. The overarching objective remains the improvement of outcomes for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest., (Copyright © 2024 European Resuscitation Council, American Heart Association Inc., International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To assess whether different cervical spine immobilisation strategies (full immobilisation, movement minimisation or no immobilisation), impact neurological and/or other outcomes for patients with suspected cervical spinal injury in the pre-hospital and emergency department setting., Design: Systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines., Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and two research registers were searched until September 2023., Eligibility Criteria: All comparative studies (prospective or retrospective) that examined the potential benefits and/or harms of immobilisation practices during pre-hospital and emergency care of patients with a potential cervical spine injury (pre-imaging) following blunt trauma., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two authors independently selected and extracted data. Risk of bias was appraised using the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies. Data were synthesised without meta-analysis., Results: Six observational studies met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality was variable, with most studies having serious or critical risk of bias. The effect of cervical spine immobilisation practices such as full immobilisation or movement minimisation during pre-hospital and emergency care did not show clear evidence of benefit for the prevention of neurological deterioration, spinal injuries and death compared with no immobilisation. However, increased pain, discomfort and anatomical complications were associated with collar application during immobilisation., Conclusions: Despite the limited evidence, weak designs and limited generalisability, the available data suggest that pre-hospital cervical spine immobilisation (full immobilisation or movement minimisation) was of uncertain value due to the lack of demonstrable benefit and may lead to potential complications and adverse outcomes. High-quality randomised comparative studies are required to address this important question., Trial Registration: PROSPERO REGISTRATION Fiona Lecky, Abdullah Pandor, Munira Essat, Anthea Sutton, Carl Marincowitz, Gordon Fuller, Stuart Reid, Jason Smith. A systematic review of cervical spine immobilisation following blunt trauma in pre-hospital and emergency care. PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022349600 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022349600., Competing Interests: All authors declare grant funding to their employing institutions from the United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme, as outlined in the funding statement. These competing interests do not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2024 Pandor et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Guidelines for sepsis recommend treating those at highest risk within 1 hour. The emergency care system can only achieve this if sepsis is recognised and prioritised. Ambulance services can use prehospital early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to prioritise patients for treatment or early assessment in the emergency department., Objectives: To determine the accuracy, impact and cost-effectiveness of using early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to identify sepsis requiring urgent treatment., Design: Retrospective diagnostic cohort study and decision-analytic modelling of operational consequences and cost-effectiveness., Setting: Two ambulance services and four acute hospitals in England., Participants: Adults transported to hospital by emergency ambulance, excluding episodes with injury, mental health problems, cardiac arrest, direct transfer to specialist services, or no vital signs recorded., Interventions: Twenty-one early warning scores used alongside paramedic diagnostic impression, categorised as sepsis, infection, non-specific presentation, or other specific presentation., Main Outcome Measures: Proportion of cases prioritised at the four hospitals; diagnostic accuracy for the sepsis-3 definition of sepsis and receiving urgent treatment (primary reference standard); daily number of cases with and without sepsis prioritised at a large and a small hospital; the minimum treatment effect associated with prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective, compared to no prioritisation, assuming willingness to pay £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained., Results: Data from 95,022 episodes involving 71,204 patients across four hospitals showed that most early warning scores operating at their pre-specified thresholds would prioritise more than 10% of cases when applied to non-specific attendances or all attendances. Data from 12,870 episodes at one hospital identified 348 (2.7%) with the primary reference standard. The National Early Warning Score, version 2 (NEWS2), had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve when applied only to patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection (0.756, 95% confidence interval 0.729 to 0.783) or sepsis alone (0.655, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.68). None of the strategies provided high sensitivity (> 0.8) with acceptable positive predictive value (> 0.15). NEWS2 provided combinations of sensitivity and specificity that were similar or superior to all other early warning scores. Applying NEWS2 to paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection with thresholds of > 4, > 6 and > 8 respectively provided sensitivities and positive predictive values (95% confidence interval) of 0.522 (0.469 to 0.574) and 0.216 (0.189 to 0.245), 0.447 (0.395 to 0.499) and 0.274 (0.239 to 0.313), and 0.314 (0.268 to 0.365) and 0.333 (confidence interval 0.284 to 0.386). The mortality relative risk reduction from prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective exceeded 0.975 for all strategies analysed., Limitations: We estimated accuracy using a sample of older patients at one hospital. Reliable evidence was not available to estimate the effectiveness of prioritisation in the decision-analytic modelling., Conclusions: No strategy is ideal but using NEWS2, in patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of infection or sepsis could identify one-third to half of sepsis cases without prioritising unmanageable numbers. No other score provided clearly superior accuracy to NEWS2. Research is needed to develop better definition, diagnosis and treatments for sepsis., Study Registration: This study is registered as Research Registry (reference: researchregistry5268)., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/136/10) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 28, No. 16. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation engages in a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed, published cardiopulmonary resuscitation and first aid science. Draft Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations are posted online throughout the year, and this annual summary provides more concise versions of the final Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations from all task forces for the year. Topics addressed by systematic reviews this year include resuscitation of cardiac arrest from drowning, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adults and children, calcium during cardiac arrest, double sequential defibrillation, neuroprognostication after cardiac arrest for adults and children, maintaining normal temperature after preterm birth, heart rate monitoring methods for diagnostics in neonates, detection of exhaled carbon dioxide in neonates, family presence during resuscitation of adults, and a stepwise approach to resuscitation skills training. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces list priority knowledge gaps for further research. Additional topics are addressed with scoping reviews and evidence updates., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation engages in a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed, published cardiopulmonary resuscitation and first aid science. Draft Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations are posted online throughout the year, and this annual summary provides more concise versions of the final Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations from all task forces for the year. Topics addressed by systematic reviews this year include resuscitation of cardiac arrest from drowning, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adults and children, calcium during cardiac arrest, double sequential defibrillation, neuroprognostication after cardiac arrest for adults and children, maintaining normal temperature after preterm birth, heart rate monitoring methods for diagnostics in neonates, detection of exhaled carbon dioxide in neonates, family presence during resuscitation of adults, and a stepwise approach to resuscitation skills training. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces list priority knowledge gaps for further research. Additional topics are addressed with scoping reviews and evidence updates.

Background: Ambulance services need to identify and prioritise patients with sepsis for early hospital assessment. We aimed to determine the accuracy of early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to identify sepsis that required urgent treatment., Methods: We undertook a retrospective diagnostic cohort study involving adult emergency medical cases transported to Sheffield Teaching Hospitals ED by Yorkshire Ambulance Service in 2019. We used routine ambulance service data to calculate 21 early warning scores and categorise paramedic diagnostic impressions as sepsis, infection, non-specific presentation or other presentation. We linked cases to hospital records and identified those meeting the sepsis-3 definition who received urgent hospital treatment for sepsis (reference standard). Analysis determined the accuracy of strategies that combined early warning scores at varying thresholds for positivity with paramedic diagnostic impression., Results: We linked 12 870/24 955 (51.6%) cases and identified 348/12 870 (2.7%) with a positive reference standard. None of the strategies provided sensitivity greater than 0.80 with positive predictive value greater than 0.15. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the National Early Warning Score, version 2 (NEWS2) applied to patients with a diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection was 0.756 (95% CI 0.729, 0.783). No other early warning score provided clearly superior accuracy to NEWS2. Paramedic impression of sepsis or infection had sensitivity of 0.572 (0.519, 0.623) and positive predictive value of 0.156 (0.137, 0.176). NEWS2 thresholds of >4, >6 and >8 applied to patients with a diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection, respectively, provided sensitivities and positive predictive values of 0.522 (0.469, 0.574) and 0.216 (0.189, 0.245), 0.447 (0.395, 0.499) and 0.274 (0.239, 0.313), and 0.314 (0.268, 0.365) and 0.333 (0.284, 0.386)., Conclusion: No strategy is ideal but using NEWS2 alongside paramedic diagnostic impression of infection or sepsis could identify one-third to half of sepsis cases without prioritising unmanageable numbers. No other score provided clearly superior accuracy to NEWS2., Trial Registration Number: researchregistry5268, https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry%23home/registrationdetails/5de7bbd97ca5b50015041c33/., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors declare grant funding to their employing institutions from the National Institute for Health Research., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Chan has received research funding from the American Heart Association (AHA) and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Dr Djärv is the chair of Swedish Resuscitation Council and the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) First Aid Task Force. A. Doll is employed by the Resuscitation Academy. Dr Edelson has equity interest and employment in AgileMD. Dr Girotra receives funding from the National Institutes of Health (R01HL160734, R56HL158803, and R01HL166305). He also receives a stipend from AHA for editorial work. Dr Greif is chair of ILCOR Education, Implementation and Team Task Force and the European Resuscitation Council board birector of guidelines. Dr Lauridsen serves as an ERC Science and Education Committee member and member of the ILCOR EIT Task Force. Dr Moskowitz receives funding from NHLBI (R33HL162980). M.C. Myburgh serves on the ILCOR Pediatric Task Force. Dr Neumar is the ILCOR cochair. J.P. Nolan is the editor in chief of Resuscitation and receives National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) grant funding. Dr Olasveengen is a board member of the Laerdal Foundation. Dr Perkins receives grant funding from the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West Midlands, Resuscitation Council United Kingdom, Laerdal Foundation, and the British Heart Foundation and serves on the boards for the European Resuscitation Council, Resuscitation Council UK, ILCOR, and University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire. He also serves as an editor for Resuscitation and Resuscitation Plus. J.K. Previdi serves as the AHA Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee chair and is an AHA product consultant. Dr Vaillancourt is a member of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada Resuscitation Advisory Committee and receives funding from The Ottawa Hospital Academic Medical Organization. Dr Montgomery serves as the ILCOR consultant. Dr Sasson is employed by AHA. Dr Nallamothu has been a principal investigator or coinvestigator on research grants from the NIH, AHA, Janssen, and Apple, Inc. He also receives compensation as an editor in chief of Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. Finally, he is a coinventor on the US Utility Patent Number US15/356012 (US20170148158A1) entitled “Automated Analysis of Vasculature in Coronary Angiograms” that uses software technology with signal processing and machine learning to automate the reading of coronary angiograms, held by the University of Michigan. The patent is licensed to AngioInsight, Inc, in which he holds ownership shares and receives consultancy fees. Dr Nadkarni receives research funding to his institution from the National Institutes of Health, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, US Department of Defense, American Heart Association, Zoll Medical, RQI Partners, and Laerdal Foundation; he also serves as the President of the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) 2023-2024. The views expressed in the manuscript are his, and not intended to represent the views of the SCCM. The other authors report no conflicts.

Introduction: The optimum route for drug administration in cardiac arrest is unclear. Recent data suggest that use of the intraosseous route may be increasing. This study aimed to explore changes over time in use of the intraosseous and intravenous drug routes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in England., Methods: We extracted data from the UK Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Outcomes registry. We included adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients between 2015-2020 who were treated by an English Emergency Medical Service that submitted vascular access route data to the registry. The primary outcome was any use of the intraosseous route during cardiac arrest. We used logistic regression models to describe the association between time (calendar month) and intraosseous use., Results: We identified 75,343 adults in cardiac arrest treated by seven Emergency Medical Service systems between January 2015 and December 2020. The median age was 72 years, 64% were male and 23% presented in a shockable rhythm. Over the study period, the percentage of patients receiving intraosseous access increased from 22.8% in 2015 to 42.5% in 2020. For each study-month, the odds of receiving any intraosseous access increased by 1.019 (95% confidence interval 1.019 to 1.020, p < 0.001). This observed effect was consistent across sensitivity analyses. We observed a corresponding decrease in use of intravenous access., Conclusion: In England, the use of intraosseous access in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest has progressively increased over time. There is an urgent need for randomised controlled trials to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of the different vascular access routes in cardiac arrest., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: CDD, RF, CJ, JPN, GDP and KC are co-investigators of the PARAMEDIC-3 trial (a randomised controlled trial of the IV versus IO route for vascular access in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest). JPN is Editor in Chief and GDP is an editor of Resuscitation. CDD and KC are editorial board members of Resuscitation., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Epinephrine is the most commonly used drug in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitation, but evidence supporting its efficacy is mixed., Research Question: What are the comparative efficacy and safety of standard dose epinephrine, high-dose epinephrine, epinephrine plus vasopressin, and placebo or no treatment in improving outcomes after OHCA?, Study Design and Methods: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, we searched six databases from inception through June 2022 for randomized controlled trials evaluating epinephrine use during OHCA resuscitation. We performed frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and present ORs and 95% CIs. We used the the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to rate the certainty of evidence. Outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, survival to discharge, and survival with good functional outcome., Results: We included 18 trials (21,594 patients). Compared with placebo or no treatment, high-dose epinephrine (OR, 4.27; 95% CI, 3.68-4.97), standard-dose epinephrine (OR, 3.69; 95% CI, 3.32-4.10), and epinephrine plus vasopressin (OR, 3.54; 95% CI, 2.94-4.26) all increased ROSC. High-dose epinephrine (OR, 3.53; 95% CI, 2.97-4.20), standard-dose epinephrine (OR, 3.00; 95% CI, 2.66-3.38), and epinephrine plus vasopressin (OR, 2.79; 95% CI, 2.27-3.44) all increased survival to hospital admission as compared with placebo or no treatment. However, none of these agents may increase survival to discharge or survival with good functional outcome as compared with placebo or no treatment. Compared with placebo or no treatment, standard-dose epinephrine improved survival to discharge among patients with nonshockable rhythm (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.21-3.63), but not in those with shockable rhythm (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.39-1.85)., Interpretation: Use of standard-dose epinephrine, high-dose epinephrine, and epinephrine plus vasopressin increases ROSC and survival to hospital admission, but may not improve survival to discharge or functional outcome. Standard-dose epinephrine improved survival to discharge among patients with nonshockable rhythm, but not those with shockable rhythm., Trial Registry: Center for Open Science: https://osf.io/arxwq., Competing Interests: Financial/Nonfinancial Disclosures The authors have reported to CHEST the following: B. S. reports receiving funding from PIPRA AG, outside of the submitted work. B. H. reports receiving research support from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Bayer, outside of the submitted work. L. M. is associate editor of Intensive Care Medicine. E. F. reports receiving personal fees from ALung Technologies, Baxter, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Fresenius Medical Care, MC3 Cardiopulmonary, and Vasomune, outside of the submitted work. D. B. receives research support from ALung Technologies, outside of the submitted work, and has been on the medical advisory boards for Abiomed, Xenios, Medtronic, LivaNova, Inspira, and Cellenkos. S. C. reports receiving research support from Zoll Medical Inc., outside of the submitted work. N. D. F. reports consulting for Baxter and Xenios, outside of the submitted work. C. S. is associate editor of Intensive Care Medicine. G. D. P. receives support from Elsevier for roles as an editor for Resuscitation and editor-in-chief of Resuscitation Plus. J. P. N. receives support from Elsevier for his role as editor-in-chief of Resuscitation. None declared (S. M. F., R. M., B. R., P. D. S., A. T., S. L. M., C. V., D. C. S., S. L., J. S., P. D.)., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) Research and Registries Working Group previously reported data on systems of care and outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in 2015 from 16 national and regional registries. To describe the temporal trends with updated data on OHCA, we report the characteristics of OHCA from 2015 through 2017., Methods: We invited national and regional population-based OHCA registries for voluntary participation and included emergency medical services (EMS)-treated OHCA. We collected descriptive summary data of core elements of the latest Utstein style recommendation during 2016 and 2017 at each registry. For registries that participated in the previous 2015 report, we also extracted the 2015 data., Results: Eleven national registries in North America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania, and 4 regional registries in Europe were included in this report. Across registries, the estimated annual incidence of EMS-treated OHCA was 30.0-97.1 individuals per 100,000 population in 2015, 36.4-97.3 in 2016, and 40.8-100.2 in 2017. The provision of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) varied from 37.2% to 79.0% in 2015, from 2.9% to 78.4% in 2016, and from 4.1% to 80.3% in 2017. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day survival for EMS-treated OHCA ranged from 5.2% to 15.7% in 2015, from 6.2% to 15.8% in 2016, and from 4.6% to 16.4% in 2017., Conclusion: We observed an upward temporal trend in provision of bystander CPR in most registries. Although some registries showed favourable temporal trends in survival, less than half of registries in our study demonstrated such a trend., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

This is the sixth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. This summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Task Force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews include cardiopulmonary resuscitation during transport; approach to resuscitation after drowning; passive ventilation; minimizing pauses during cardiopulmonary resuscitation; temperature management after cardiac arrest; use of diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound during cardiac arrest; use of vasopressin and corticosteroids during cardiac arrest; coronary angiography after cardiac arrest; public-access defibrillation devices for children; pediatric early warning systems; maintaining normal temperature immediately after birth; suctioning of amniotic fluid at birth; tactile stimulation for resuscitation immediately after birth; use of continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress at term birth; respiratory and heart rate monitoring in the delivery room; supraglottic airway use in neonates; prearrest prediction of in-hospital cardiac arrest mortality; basic life support training for likely rescuers of high-risk populations; effect of resuscitation team training; blended learning for life support training; training and recertification for resuscitation instructors; and recovery position for maintenance of breathing and prevention of cardiac arrest. Members from 6 task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and generated consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections, and priority knowledge gaps for future research are listed., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

This is the sixth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. This summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Task Force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews include cardiopulmonary resuscitation during transport; approach to resuscitation after drowning; passive ventilation; minimizing pauses during cardiopulmonary resuscitation; temperature management after cardiac arrest; use of diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound during cardiac arrest; use of vasopressin and corticosteroids during cardiac arrest; coronary angiography after cardiac arrest; public-access defibrillation devices for children; pediatric early warning systems; maintaining normal temperature immediately after birth; suctioning of amniotic fluid at birth; tactile stimulation for resuscitation immediately after birth; use of continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress at term birth; respiratory and heart rate monitoring in the delivery room; supraglottic airway use in neonates; prearrest prediction of in-hospital cardiac arrest mortality; basic life support training for likely rescuers of high-risk populations; effect of resuscitation team training; blended learning for life support training; training and recertification for resuscitation instructors; and recovery position for maintenance of breathing and prevention of cardiac arrest. Members from 6 task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and generated consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections, and priority knowledge gaps for future research are listed.

Aims: To evaluate, in UK acute hospitals, the early implementation of the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT), which embeds cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) recommendations within wider emergency treatment plans. To understand for whom and how the process was being used and the quality of form completion., Methods: A retrospective observational study evaluating emergency care and treatment planning approaches used in acute UK hospitals (2015-2019), and in six English hospital trusts the extent of ReSPECT use, patient characteristics and completion quality in a sample 3000 patient case notes., Results: The use of stand-alone Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation forms fell from 133/186 hospitals in 2015 to 64/186 in 2019 (a 38% absolute reduction). ReSPECT accounted for 52% (36/69) of changes. In the six sites, ReSPECT was used for approximately 20% of patients (range 6%-41%). They tended to be older, to have had an emergency medical admission, to have cognitive impairment and a lower predicted 10 year survival. Most (653/706 (92%)) included a 'not for attempted resuscitation' recommendation 551/706 (78%) had at least one other treatment recommendation. Capacity was not recorded on 13% (95/706) of forms; 11% (79/706) did not record patient/family involvement., Conclusions: ReSPECT use accounts for 52% of the change, observed between 2015 and 2019, from using standalone DNACPR forms to approaches embedding DNACPR decisions within in wider emergency care plans in NHS hospitals in the UK. Whilst recommendations include other emergencies most still tend to focus on recommendations relating to CPR. Completion of ReSPECT forms requires improvement., Study Registration: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11112933., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest CH, GDP and ZF are members of the ReSPECT natioal working group. CB is Clinical Lead for ReSPECT at the Resuscitation Council UK. CH, GDP, ZF, AMS, FG, MU, RL and DG revieced grants from the UK National Insititue for Health Research during the study. The other 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., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Time to treatment matters in traumatic haemorrhage but the optimal prehospital use of blood in major trauma remains uncertain. We investigated whether use of packed red blood cells (PRBC) and lyophilised plasma (LyoPlas) was superior to use of 0·9% sodium chloride for improving tissue perfusion and reducing mortality in trauma-related haemorrhagic shock., Methods: Resuscitation with pre-hospital blood products (RePHILL) is a multicentre, allocation concealed, open-label, parallel group, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done in four civilian prehospital critical care services in the UK. Adults (age ≥16 years) with trauma-related haemorrhagic shock and hypotension (defined as systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg or absence of palpable radial pulse) were assessed for eligibility by prehospital critial care teams. Eligible participants were randomly assigned to receive either up to two units each of PRBC and LyoPlas or up to 1 L of 0·9% sodium chloride administered through the intravenous or intraosseous route. Sealed treatment packs which were identical in external appearance, containing PRBC-LyoPlas or 0·9% sodium chloride were prepared by blood banks and issued to participating sites according to a randomisation schedule prepared by the co-ordinating centre (1:1 ratio, stratified by site). The primary outcome was a composite of episode mortality or impaired lactate clearance, or both, measured in the intention-to-treat population. This study is completed and registered with ISRCTN.com, ISRCTN62326938., Findings: From Nov 29, 2016 to Jan 2, 2021, prehospital critical care teams randomly assigned 432 participants to PRBC-LyoPlas (n=209) or to 0·9% sodium chloride (n=223). Trial recruitment was stopped before it achieved the intended sample size of 490 participants due to disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The median follow-up was 9 days (IQR 1 to 34) for participants in the PRBC-LyoPlas group and 7 days (0 to 31) for people in the 0·9% sodium chloride group. Participants were mostly white (62%) and male (82%), had a median age of 38 years (IQR 26 to 58), and were mostly involved in a road traffic collision (62%) with severe injuries (median injury severity score 36, IQR 25 to 50). Before randomisation, participants had received on average 430 mL crystalloid fluids and tranexamic acid (90%). The composite primary outcome occurred in 128 (64%) of 199 participants randomly assigned to PRBC-LyoPlas and 136 (65%) of 210 randomly assigned to 0·9% sodium chloride (adjusted risk difference -0·025% [95% CI -9·0 to 9·0], p=0·996). The rates of transfusion-related complications in the first 24 h after ED arrival were similar across treatment groups (PRBC-LyoPlas 11 [7%] of 148 compared with 0·9% sodium chloride nine [7%] of 137, adjusted relative risk 1·05 [95% CI 0·46-2·42]). Serious adverse events included acute respiratory distress syndrome in nine (6%) of 142 patients in the PRBC-LyoPlas group and three (2%) of 130 in 0·9% sodium chloride group, and two other unexpected serious adverse events, one in the PRBC-LyoPlas (cerebral infarct) and one in the 0·9% sodium chloride group (abnormal liver function test). There were no treatment-related deaths., Interpretation: The trial did not show that prehospital PRBC-LyoPlas resuscitation was superior to 0·9% sodium chloride for adult patients with trauma related haemorrhagic shock. Further research is required to identify the characteristics of patients who might benefit from prehospital transfusion and to identify the optimal outcomes for transfusion trials in major trauma. The decision to commit to routine prehospital transfusion will require careful consideration by all stakeholders., Funding: National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a global public health issue experienced by ≈3.8 million people annually. Only 8% to 12% survive to hospital discharge. Early defibrillation of shockable rhythms is associated with improved survival, but ensuring timely access to defibrillators has been a significant challenge. To date, the development of public-access defibrillation programs, involving the deployment of automated external defibrillators into the public space, has been the main strategy to address this challenge. Public-access defibrillator programs have been associated with improved outcomes for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; however, the devices are used in <3% of episodes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This scientific statement was commissioned by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation with 3 objectives: (1) identify known barriers to public-access defibrillator use and early defibrillation, (2) discuss established and novel strategies to address those barriers, and (3) identify high-priority knowledge gaps for future research to address. The writing group undertook systematic searches of the literature to inform this statement. Innovative strategies were identified that relate to enhanced public outreach, behavior change approaches, optimization of static public-access defibrillator deployment and housing, evolved automated external defibrillator technology and functionality, improved integration of public-access defibrillation with existing emergency dispatch protocols, and exploration of novel automated external defibrillator delivery vectors. We provide evidence- and consensus-based policy suggestions to enhance public-access defibrillation and guidance for future research in this area.

Background: Despite increasing emphasis on integrating emergency care and treatment planning (ECTP) into routine medical practice, clinicians continue to delay or avoid ECTP conversations with patients. However, little is known about the clinical logics underlying barriers to ECTP conversations., Objective: This study aims to develop an ethnographic account of how and why clinicians defer and avoid ECTP conversations, and how they rationalise these decisions as they happen., Design: A multisited ethnographic study., Setting: Medical, orthopaedic and surgical wards in hospitals within four acute National Health Service trusts in England., Participants: Thirty-four doctors were formally observed and 32 formally interviewed. Following an ethnographic case study approach, six cases were selected for in-depth analysis., Analysis: Fieldnote data were triangulated with interview data, to develop a 'thick description' of each case. Using a conceptual framework of care, the analysis highlighted the clinical logics underlying these cases., Results: The deferral or avoidance of ECTP conversations was driven by concerns over caring well, with clinicians attempting to optimise both medical and bedside practice. Conducting an ECTP conversation carefully meant attending to patients' and relatives' emotions and committing sufficient time for an in-depth discussion. However, conversation plans were often disrupted by issues related to timing and time constraints, leading doctors to defer these conversations, sometimes indefinitely. Additionally, whereas surgeons and geriatricians deferred conversations because they did not have the time to offer detailed discussions, emergency and acute medicine clinicians deferred conversations because the high-turnover ward environment, combined with patients' acute conditions, meant triaging conversations to those most in need., Conclusion: Overcoming barriers to ECTP conversations is not simply a matter of enhancing training or hospital policies, but of promoting good conversational practices that take into account the affordances of hospital time and space, as well as clinicians' understandings of caring well., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GDP and CH are members of the ReSPECT national working group. A-MS, FG, CH and GDP received grants from the UK National Institute for Health Research during the study., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the fifth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews in this summary include resuscitation topics of video-based dispatch systems; head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation; early coronary angiography after return of spontaneous circulation; cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prone patient; cord management at birth for preterm and term infants; devices for administering positive-pressure ventilation at birth; family presence during neonatal resuscitation; self-directed, digitally based basic life support education and training in adults and children; coronavirus disease 2019 infection risk to rescuers from patients in cardiac arrest; and first aid topics, including cooling with water for thermal burns, oral rehydration for exertional dehydration, pediatric tourniquet use, and methods of tick removal. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations or good practice statements. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces listed priority knowledge gaps for further research.

Aims: Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation can double survival to hospital discharge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Mobile phone applications, such as GoodSAM, alerting nearby volunteer first-responders about out-of-hospital cardiac arrest could potentially improve bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation, leading to better patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine GoodSAM's effect on survival to hospital discharge following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest., Methods and Results: We collected data from the Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Outcomes Registry (University of Warwick, UK) submitted by the London Ambulance Service (1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017) and East Midlands Ambulance Service (1 January 2018 to 17 June 2018) and matched out-of-hospital cardiac arrests to GoodSAM alerts. We constructed logistic regression models to determine if there was an association between a GoodSAM first-responder accepting an alert and survival to hospital discharge, adjusting for location type, presenting rhythm, age, gender, ambulance service response time, cardiac arrest witnessed status, and bystander actions. Survival to hospital discharge was 9.6% (393/4196) in London and 7.2% (72/1001) in East Midlands. A GoodSAM first-responder accepted an alert for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in 1.3% (53/4196) cases in London and 5.4% (51/1001) cases in East Midlands. When a responder accepted an alert, the adjusted odds ratio for survival to hospital discharge was 3.15 (95% CI: 1.19-8.36, P = 0.021) in London and 3.19 (95% CI: 1.17-8.73, P = 0.024) in East Midlands., Conclusion: Alert acceptance was associated with improved survival in both ambulance services. Alert acceptance rates were low, and challenges remain to maximize the potential benefit of GoodSAM., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background The role of cardiac arrest centers (CACs) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest care systems is continuously evolving. Interpretation of existing literature is limited by heterogeneity in CAC characteristics and types of patients transported to CACs. This study assesses the impact of CACs on survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest according to varying definitions of CAC and prespecified subgroups. Methods and Results Electronic databases were searched from inception to March 9, 2021 for relevant studies. Centers were considered CACs if self-declared by study authors and capable of relevant interventions. Main outcomes were survival and neurologically favorable survival at hospital discharge or 30 days. Meta-analyses were performed for adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and crude odds ratios. Thirty-six studies were analyzed. Survival with favorable neurological outcome significantly improved with treatment at CACs (aOR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.52-2.26]), even when including high-volume centers (aOR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.18-1.91]) or including improved-care centers (aOR, 2.13 [95% CI, 1.75-2.59]) as CACs. Survival significantly increased with treatment at CACs (aOR, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.59-2.32]), even when including high-volume centers (aOR, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.38-2.18]) or when including improved-care centers (aOR, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.71-2.26]) as CACs. The treatment effect was more pronounced among patients with shockable rhythm ( P =0.006) and without prehospital return of spontaneous circulation ( P =0.005). Conclusions were robust to sensitivity analyses, with no publication bias detected. Conclusions Care at CACs was associated with improved survival and neurological outcomes for patients with nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest regardless of varying CAC definitions. Patients with shockable rhythms and those without prehospital return of spontaneous circulation benefited more from CACs. Evidence for bypassing hospitals or interhospital transfer remains inconclusive.

Background: Early defibrillation is an essential element of the chain of survival for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Public access defibrillation (PAD) programmes aim to place automated external defibrillators (AED) in areas with high OHCA incidence, but there is sometimes a mismatch between AED density and OHCA incidence., Objectives: This study aimed to assess whether there were any disparities in the characteristics of areas that have an AED and those that do not in England., Methods: Details of the location of AEDs registered with English Ambulance Services were obtained from individual services or internet sources. Neighbourhood characteristics of lower layer super output areas (LSOA) were obtained from the Office for National Statistics. Comparisons were made between LSOAs with and without a registered AED., Results: AEDs were statistically more likely to be in LSOAs with a lower residential but higher workplace population density, with people predominantly from a white ethnic background and working in higher socio-economically classified occupations (p < 0.05). There was a significant correlation between AED coverage and the LSOA Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) (r = 0.79, p = 0.007), with only 27.4% in the lowest IMD decile compared to about 45% in highest. AED density varied significantly across the country from 0.82/km 2 in the north east to 2.97/km 2 in London., Conclusions: In England, AEDs were disproportionately placed in more affluent areas, with a lower residential population density. This contrasts with locations where OHCAs have previously occurred. Future PAD programmes should give preference to areas of higher deprivation and be tailored to the local community., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Terry Brown and Gavin Perkins are affiliated to the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Gavin Perkins is co-chair of International Liaison Committee for Resuscitation, Director of Science and Research at European Resuscitation Council, and Chair of Community and Ambulance Research Committee of Resuscitation Council UK. Charles Deakin is a trustee of the Resuscitation Council UK, domain leader for defibrillation with the International Liaison Committee for Resuscitation, and member of the Advanced Life Support Working Group at European Resuscitation Council., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the efficacy of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) versus usual care for prehospital patients with severe respiratory distress., Methods: We conducted a parallel group, individual patient, non-blinded randomised controlled trial in Western Australia between March 2016 and December 2018. Eligible patients were aged ≥40 years with acute severe respiratory distress of non-traumatic origin and unresponsive to initial treatments by emergency medical service (EMS) paramedics. Patients were randomised (1:1) to usual care or usual care plus CPAP. The primary outcomes were change in dyspnoea score and change in RR at ED arrival, and hospital length of stay., Results: 708 patients were randomly assigned (opaque sealed envelope) to usual care (n=346) or CPAP (n=362). Compared with usual care, patients randomised to CPAP had a greater reduction in dyspnoea scores (usual care -1.0, IQR -3.0 to 0.0 vs CPAP -3.5, IQR -5.2 to -2.0), median difference -2.0 (95% CI -2.5 to -1.6); and RR (usual care -4.0, IQR -9.0 to 0.0 min -1 vs CPAP -8.0, IQR -14.0 to -4.0 min -1 ), median difference -4.0 (95% CI -5.0 to -4.0) min -1 . There was no difference in hospital length of stay (usual care 4.2, IQR 2.1 to 7.8 days vs CPAP 4.8, IQR 2.5 to 7.9 days) for the n=624 cases admitted to hospital, median difference 0.36 (95% CI -0.17 to 0.90)., Conclusions: The use of prehospital CPAP by EMS paramedics reduced dyspnoea and tachypnoea in patients with acute respiratory distress but did not impact hospital length of stay., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12615001180505., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Several of the authors are affiliated with St John Western Australia, as follows: DB, AG, PB (employees); JF, SB (adjunct research positions); JF (research funding)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the fifth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews in this summary include resuscitation topics of video-based dispatch systems; head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation; early coronary angiography after return of spontaneous circulation; cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prone patient; cord management at birth for preterm and term infants; devices for administering positive-pressure ventilation at birth; family presence during neonatal resuscitation; self-directed, digitally based basic life support education and training in adults and children; coronavirus disease 2019 infection risk to rescuers from patients in cardiac arrest; and first aid topics, including cooling with water for thermal burns, oral rehydration for exertional dehydration, pediatric tourniquet use, and methods of tick removal. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations or good practice statements. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces listed priority knowledge gaps for further research., (Copyright © 2021 European Resuscitation Council, American Heart Association, Inc. and International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Severe sepsis is a time critical condition which is known to have a high mortality rate. Evidence suggests that early diagnosis and early administration of antibiotics can reduce morbidity and mortality from sepsis. The prehospital phase of emergency medical care may provide the earliest opportunity for identification of sepsis and delivery of life-saving treatment for patients. We aimed to assess the feasibility of (1) paramedics recognising and screening patients for severe sepsis, collecting blood cultures and administering intravenous antibiotics; and (2) trial methods in order to decide whether a fully-powered trial should be undertaken to determine safety and effectiveness of this intervention. Paramedics were trained in using a sepsis screening tool, aseptic blood culture collection and administration of intravenous antibiotics. If sepsis was suspected, paramedics randomly allocated patients to intervention or usual care using scratchcards. Patients were followed up at 90 days using linked anonymised data to capture length of hospital admission and mortality. We collected self-reported health-related quality of life at 90 days. We pre-specified criteria for deciding whether to progress to a fully-powered trial based on: recruitment of paramedics and patients; delivery of the intervention; retrieval of outcome data; safety; acceptability; and success of anonymised follow-up. Seventy-four of the 104 (71.2%) eligible paramedics agreed to take part and 54 completed their training (51.9%). Of 159 eligible patients, 146 (92%) were recognised as eligible by study paramedics, and 118 were randomised (74% of eligible patients, or 81% of those recognised as eligible). Four patients subsequently dissented to be included in the trial (3%), leaving 114 patients recruited to follow-up. All recruited patients were matched to routine data outcomes in the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. Ninety of the 114 (79%) recruited patients had sepsis or a likely bacterial infection recorded in ED. There was no evidence of any difference between groups in patient satisfaction, and no adverse reactions reported. There were no statistically significant differences between intervention and control groups in Serious Adverse Events (ICU admissions; deaths). This feasibility study met its pre-determined progression criteria; an application will therefore be prepared and submitted for funding for a fully-powered multi-centre randomised trial.Trial registration: ISRCTN36856873 sought 16th May 2017; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN36856873., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is still low. For every minute without resuscitation the likelihood of survival decreases. One critical step is initiation of immediate, high quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The aim of this subgroup analysis of data collected for the European Registry of Cardiac Arrest Study number 2 (EuReCa TWO) was to investigate the association between OHCA survival and two types of bystander CPR namely: chest compression only CPR (CConly) and CPR with chest compressions and ventilations (FullCPR)., Method: In this subgroup analysis of EuReCa TWO, all patients who received bystander CPR were included. Outcomes were return of spontaneous circulation and survival to 30-days or hospital discharge. A multilevel binary logistic regression analysis with survival as the dependent variable was performed., Results: A total of 5884 patients were included in the analysis, varying between countries from 21 to 1444. Survival was 320 (8%) in the CConly group and 174 (13%) in the FullCPR group. After adjustment for age, sex, location, rhythm, cause, time to scene, witnessed collapse and country, patients who received FullCPR had a significantly higher survival rate when compared to those who received CConly (adjusted odds ration 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.17-1.83)., Conclusion: In this analysis, FullCPR was associated with higher survival compared to CConly. Guidelines should continue to emphasise the importance of compressions and ventilations during resuscitation for patients who suffer OHCA and CPR courses should continue to teach both., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Emergency Care and Treatment Plans are recommended for all primary care patients in the United Kingdom who are expected to experience deterioration of their health. The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) was developed to integrate resuscitation decisions with discussions about wider goals of care. It summarises treatment recommendations discussed and agreed between patients and their clinicians for a future emergency situation and was designed to meet the needs of different care settings. Our aim is to explore GPs' experiences of using ReSPECT and how it transfers across the primary care and secondary care interface., Methods: We conducted five focus groups with GPs in areas being served by hospitals in England that have implemented ReSPECT. Participants were asked about their experience of ReSPECT, how they initiate ReSPECT-type conversations, and their experiences of ReSPECT-type recommendations being communicated across primary and secondary care. Focus groups were transcribed and analysed using Thematic Analysis., Results: GPs conceptualise ReSPECT as an end of life planning document, which is best completed in primary care. As an end of life care document, completing ReSPECT is an emotional process and conversations are shaped by what a 'good death' is thought to be. ReSPECT recommendations are not always communicated or transferable across care settings. A focus on the patient's preferences around death, and GPs' lack of specialist knowledge, could be a barrier to completion of ReSPECT that is transferable to acute settings., Conclusion: Conceptualising ReSPECT as an end of life care document suggests a difference in how general practitioners understand ReSPECT from its designers. This impacts on the transferability of ReSPECT recommendations to the hospital setting.

Background: The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) is an emergency care and treatment planning (ECTP) process, developed to offer a patient-centred approach to deciding about and recording treatment recommendations. Conversations between clinicians and patients or their representatives are central to the ReSPECT process. This study aims to understand why, when, and how ReSPECT conversations unfold in practice., Methods: ReSPECT conversations were observed in hospitals within six acute National Health Service (NHS) trusts in England; the clinicians who conducted these conversations were interviewed. Following observation-based thematic analysis, five ReSPECT conversation types were identified: resuscitation and escalation; confirmation of decision; bad news; palliative care; and clinical decision. Interview-based thematic analysis examined the reasons and prompts for each conversation type, and the level of detail and patient engagement in these different conversations., Results: Whereas resuscitation and escalation conversations concerned possible futures, palliative care and bad news conversations responded to present-tense changes. Conversations were timed to respond to organisational, clinical, and patient/relative prompts. While bad news and palliative care conversations included detailed discussions of treatment options beyond CPR, this varied in other conversation types. ReSPECT conversations varied in doctors' engagement with patient/relative preferences, with only palliative care conversations consistently including an open-ended approach., Conclusions: While ReSPECT supports holistic, person-centred, anticipatory decision-making in some situations, a gap remains between the ReSPECT's aims and their implementation in practice. Promoting an understanding and valuing of the aims of ReSPECT among clinicians, supported by appropriate training and structural support, will enhance ReSPECT conversations., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

The European Resuscitation Council has produced these basic life support guidelines, which are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. The topics covered include cardiac arrest recognition, alerting emergency services, chest compressions, rescue breaths, automated external defibrillation (AED), CPR quality measurement, new technologies, safety, and foreign body airway obstruction., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Aims: The out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) outcomes project is a national research registry. One of its aims is to explore sources of variation in OHCA survival outcomes. This study reports the development and validation of risk prediction models for return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) at hospital handover and survival to hospital discharge., Methods and Results: The study included OHCA patients who were treated during 2014 and 2015 by emergency medical services (EMS) from seven English National Health Service ambulance services. The 2014 data were used to identify important variables and to develop the risk prediction models, which were validated using the 2015 data. Model prediction was measured by area under the curve (AUC), Hosmer-Lemeshow test, Cox calibration regression, and Brier score. All analyses were conducted using mixed-effects logistic regression models. Important factors included age, gender, witness/bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) combined, aetiology, and initial rhythm. Interaction effects between witness/bystander CPR with gender, aetiology and initial rhythm and between aetiology and initial rhythm were significant in both models. The survival model achieved better discrimination and overall accuracy compared with the ROSC model (AUC = 0.86 vs. 0.67, Brier score = 0.072 vs. 0.194, respectively). Calibration tests showed over- and under-estimation for the ROSC and survival models, respectively. A sensitivity analysis individually assessing Index of Multiple Deprivation scores and location in the final models substantially improved overall accuracy with inconsistent impact on discrimination., Conclusion: Our risk prediction models identified and quantified important pre-EMS intervention factors determining survival outcomes in England. The survival model had excellent discrimination., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aim: This study examined the association between admission to a cardiac arrest centre and survival to hospital discharge for adults following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA)., Methods: We undertook a multicentre retrospective observational study of patients transferred to hospital after OHCA of presumed cardiac aetiology in three ambulance services in England. We used propensity score matching to compare rates of survival to hospital discharge in patients admitted to OHCA centres (defined as either 24/7 PPCI availability or >100 OHCA admissions per year) to rates of survival of patients admitted to non-centres., Results: Between January 2017 and December 2018, 10,650 patients with OHCA were included in the analysis. After propensity score matching, admission to a hospital with 24/7 PPCI availability or a high volume centre was associated with an absolute improvement in survival to hospital discharge of 2.5% and 2.8%, respectively. The corresponding odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were 1.69 (1.28-2.23) and 1.41 (1.14-1.75), respectively. The results were similar when missing values were imputed. In subgroup analyses, the association between admission to an OHCA centre and improved rates of survival was mainly seen in patients with OHCA due to shockable rhythms, with no or minimal potential benefit for patients with OHCA and asystole as first presenting rhythm., Conclusion: Following OHCA, admission to a cardiac arrest centre is associated with a moderate improvement in survival to hospital discharge. A corresponding bypass policy would need to consider the resulting increased workload for OHCA centres., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Good quality basic life support (BLS) is associated with improved outcome from cardiac arrest. Chest compression fraction (CCF) is a BLS quality indicator, which may be influenced by the type of airway used. We aimed to assess CCF according to the airway strategy in the PARAMEDIC2 study: no advanced airway, supraglottic airway (SGA), tracheal intubation, or a combination of the two. Our hypothesis was that tracheal intubation was associated with a decrease in the CCF compared with alternative airway management strategies., Methods: PARAMEDIC2 was a multicentre double-blinded placebo-controlled trial of adrenaline vs placebo in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Data showing compression rate and ratio from patients recruited by London Ambulance Service (LAS) as part of this study was collated and analysed according to the advanced airway used during the resuscitation attempt., Results: CPR process data were available from 286/ 2058 (13.9%) of the total patients recruited by LAS. The mean compression rate for the first 5 min of data recording was the same in all groups (P = 0.272) and ranged from 104.2 (95% CI of mean: 100.5, 107.8) min -1 to 108.0 (95% CI of mean: 105.1, 108.3) min -1 . The mean compression fraction was also similar across all groups (P = 0.159) and ranged between 74.7% and 78.4%. There was no difference in the compression rates and fractions across the airway management groups, regardless of the duration of CPR., Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the compression fraction associated with the airway management strategy., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

This 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations on basic life support summarizes evidence evaluations performed for 20 topics that were prioritized by the Basic Life Support Task Force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. The evidence reviews include 16 systematic reviews, 3 scoping reviews, and 1 evidence update. Per agreement within the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, new or revised treatment recommendations were only made after a systematic review. Systematic reviews were performed for the following topics: dispatch diagnosis of cardiac arrest, use of a firm surface for CPR, sequence for starting CPR (compressions-airway-breaths versus airway-breaths-compressions), CPR before calling for help, duration of CPR cycles, hand position during compressions, rhythm check timing, feedback for CPR quality, alternative techniques, public access automated external defibrillator programs, analysis of rhythm during chest compressions, CPR before defibrillation, removal of foreign-body airway obstruction, resuscitation care for suspected opioid-associated emergencies, drowning, and harm from CPR to victims not in cardiac arrest. The topics that resulted in the most extensive task force discussions included CPR during transport, CPR before calling for help, resuscitation care for suspected opioid-associated emergencies, feedback for CPR quality, and analysis of rhythm during chest compressions. After discussion of the scoping reviews and the evidence update, the task force prioritized several topics for new systematic reviews., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: The defibrillator prompt, which directs callers to retrieve a defibrillator during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, is crucial to the emergency call because it can save lives. We evaluated communicative effectiveness of the prompt instated by the Medical Priority Dispatch System™ Version 13, namely: if there is a defibrillator (AED) available, send someone to get it now, and tell me when you have it., Methods: Using Conversation Analysis and descriptive statistics, we examined linguistic features of the defibrillator sequences (call-taker prompt and caller response) in 208 emergency calls where non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest was confirmed by the emergency medical services, and they attempted resuscitation, in the first six months of 2019. Defibrillator sequence durations were measured to determine impact on time to CPR prompt. The proportion of cases where bystanders retrieved defibrillators was also assessed., Results: There was low call-taker adoption of the Medical Priority Dispatch System™ Version 13 prompt (99/208) compared to alternative prompts (86/208) or no prompt (23/208). Caller responses to the Version 13 prompt tended to be longer, more ambiguous or unrelated, and have more instances of repair (utterances to address comprehension trouble). Defibrillators were rarely brought to the scene irrespective of defibrillator prompt utilised., Conclusion: While the Version 13 prompt aims to ensure the use of an available automatic external defibrillator, its effectiveness is undermined by the three-clause composition of the prompt and exclusion of a question structure. We recommend testing of a re-phrased defibrillator prompt in order to maximise comprehension and caller action., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

This 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations on basic life support summarizes evidence evaluations performed for 22 topics that were prioritized by the Basic Life Support Task Force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. The evidence reviews include 16 systematic reviews, 5 scoping reviews, and 1 evidence update. Per agreement within the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, new or revised treatment recommendations were only made after a systematic review. Systematic reviews were performed for the following topics: dispatch diagnosis of cardiac arrest, use of a firm surface for CPR, sequence for starting CPR (compressions-airway-breaths versus airway-breaths-compressions), CPR before calling for help, duration of CPR cycles, hand position during compressions, rhythm check timing, feedback for CPR quality, alternative techniques, public access automated external defibrillator programs, analysis of rhythm during chest compressions, CPR before defibrillation, removal of foreign-body airway obstruction, resuscitation care for suspected opioid-associated emergencies, drowning, and harm from CPR to victims not in cardiac arrest. The topics that resulted in the most extensive task force discussions included CPR during transport, CPR before calling for help, resuscitation care for suspected opioid-associated emergencies, feedback for CPR quality, and analysis of rhythm during chest compressions. After discussion of the scoping reviews and the evidence update, the task force prioritized several topics for new systematic reviews.

Aim: To assess and evaluate patient safety incidents and in particular, medication errors, during a large multi-center pre-hospital trial of emergency therapy (PARAMEDIC2), in order to inform and improve future pre-hospital medicines trials., Methods: The PARAMEDIC2 trial was undertaken across five NHS Ambulance Services in England and Wales with randomisation between December 2014 and October 2017. Patients with an out -of-hospital cardiac arrest unresponsive to initial resuscitation were randomly assigned to 1 mg intravenous adrenaline or matching placebo. Records were reviewed to identify trial medication errors involving documentation and/or clinical protocol errors occurring in trial participants. Causes of medication errors, including root cause analysis where available, were reviewed to identify patterns and themes contributing to these errors., Results: Eight thousand sixteen patients were enrolled, of whom 4902 received trial medication. A total of 331 patient safety incidents was reported, involving 295 patients, representing an overall rate of 3.6% of these, 166 (50.2%) were documentation errors while 165 (49.8%) were clinical protocol/medication errors. An overall rate of 0-4.5% was reported across all five ambulance services, with a mean of 2.0%. These errors had no impact on patient care or the trial and were all resolved CONCLUSION: The overall medication error rate of 1.8% primarily consisted of administration of open-label adrenaline and confusion with trial medication packs. A similar number of patients had documentation errors. This study is the first to provide data on patient safety incidents relating to medication errors encountered during a pre-hospital trial of emergency medication administration and will provide supporting data for planning future trials in this area.

Background: Since development of the Utstein style recommendations for the uniform reporting of cardiac arrest, increasing numbers of national and regional out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) registries have been established worldwide. The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) created the Research and Registries Working Group and aimed to systematically report data collected from these registries., Methods: We conducted two surveys of voluntarily participating national and regional registries. The first survey aimed to identify which core elements of the current Utstein style for OHCA were collected by each registry. The second survey collected descriptive summary data from each registry. We chose the data collected for the second survey based on the availability of core elements identified by the first survey., Results: Seven national and four regional registries were included in the first survey and nine national and seven regional registries in the second survey. The estimated annual incidence of emergency medical services (EMS)-treated OHCA was 30.0-97.1 individuals per 100,000 population. The combined data showed the median age varied from 64 to 79 years and more than half were male in all 16 registries. The provision of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and bystander automated external defibrillator (AED) use was 19.1-79.0% in all registries and 2.0-37.4% among 11 registries, respectively. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day survival after EMS-treated OHCA was 3.1-20.4% across all registries. Favorable neurological outcome at hospital discharge or 30 days after EMS-treated OHCA was 2.8-18.2%. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day survival after bystander-witnessed shockable OHCA ranged from 11.7% to 47.4% and favorable neurological outcome from 9.9% to 33.3%., Conclusion: This report from ILCOR describes data on systems of care and outcomes following OHCA from nine national and seven regional registries across the world. We found variation in reported survival outcomes and other core elements of the current Utstein style recommendations for OHCA across nations and regions., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of the intravenous (IV) and intraosseous (IO) routes for drug administration in adults with a cardiac arrest enrolled in the Pre-Hospital Assessment of the Role of Adrenaline: Measuring the Effectiveness of Drug Administration in Cardiac Arrest (PARAMEDIC2) randomised, controlled trial., Methods: Patients were recruited from five National Health Service Ambulance Services in England and Wales from December 2014 through October 2017. Patients with an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who were unresponsive to initial resuscitation attempts were randomly assigned to 1 mg adrenaline or matching placebo. Intravascular access was established as soon as possible, and IO access was considered if IV access was not possible after two attempts., Results: Among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, 3631 received adrenaline and 3686 received placebo. Amongst these, 1116 (30.1%) and 1121 (30.4%) received the study drug via the IO route. The odds ratios were similar in the IV and IO groups for return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) at hospital handover [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 4.07 (95% CI 3.42-4.85) and (aOR 3.98 (95% CI 2.86-5.53), P value for interaction 0.90]; survival to 30 days [aOR 1.67 (1.18-2.35) versus 0.9 (0.4-2.05), P = 0.18]; and favourable neurological outcome [aOR 1.39 (0.93-2.06) versus 0.62 (0.23-1.67), P = 0.14]., Conclusion: There was no significant difference in treatment effect (adrenaline versus placebo) on ROSC at hospital handover between drugs administered by the intraosseous route or by the intravenous route. We could not detect any difference in the treatment effect between the IV and IO routes on the longer term outcomes of 30-day survival or favourable neurological outcome at discharge (ISRCTN73485024).

Introduction: Do-not-attempt-cardiopulmonary-resuscitation (DNACPR) practice has been shown to be variable and sub-optimal. This paper describes the development of the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT). ReSPECT is a process which encourages shared understanding of a patient's condition and what outcomes they value and fear, before recording clinical recommendations about cardiopulmonary-resuscitation (CPR) within a broader plan for emergency care and treatment., Methods: ReSPECT was developed iteratively, with integral stakeholder engagement, informed by the Knowledge-to-Action cycle. Mixed methods included: synthesis of existing literature; a national online consultation exercise; cognitive interviews with users; a patient-public involvement (PPI) workshop and a usability pilot, to ensure acceptability by both patients and professionals., Results: The majority (89%) of consultation respondents supported the concept of emergency care and treatment plans. Key features identified in the evaluation and incorporated into ReSPECT were: The importance of discussions between patient and clinician to inform realistic treatment preferences and clarity in the resulting recommendations recorded by the clinician on the form. The process is compliant with UK mental capacity laws. Documentation should be recognised across all health and care settings. There should be opportunity for timely review based on individual need., Conclusion: ReSPECT is designed to facilitate discussions about a person's preferences to inform emergency care and treatment plans (including CPR) for use across all health and care settings. It has been developed iteratively with a range of stakeholders. Further research will be needed to assess the influence of ReSPECT on patient-centred decisions, experience and health outcomes., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To examine the time to drug administration in patients with a witnessed cardiac arrest enrolled in the Pre-Hospital Assessment of the Role of Adrenaline: Measuring the Effectiveness of Drug Administration in Cardiac Arrest (PARAMEDIC2) randomised controlled trial., Methods: The PARAMEDIC2 trial was undertaken across 5 NHS ambulance services in England and Wales with randomisation between December 2014 and October 2017. Patients with an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who were unresponsive to initial resuscitation attempts were randomly assigned to 1 mg intravenous adrenaline or matching placebo according to treatment packs that were identical apart from treatment number. Participants and study staff were masked to treatment allocation., Results: 8016 patients were enrolled, 4902 sustained a witnessed cardiac arrest of whom 2437 received placebo and 2465 received adrenaline. The odds of return of spontaneous circulation decreased in both groups over time but at a greater rate in the placebo arm odds ratio (OR) 0.93 (95% CI 0.92-0.95) compared with the adrenaline arm OR 0.96 (95% CI 0.95-0.97); interaction OR: 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05, p = 0.005. By contrast, although the rate of survival and favourable neurological outcome decreased as time to treatment increased, the rates did not differ between the adrenaline and placebo groups., Conclusion: The rate of return of spontaneous circulation, survival and favourable neurological outcomes decrease over time. As time to drug treatment increases, adrenaline increases the chances of return of spontaneous circulation. Longer term outcomes were not affected by the time to adrenaline administration. (ISRCTN73485024).

Background: The epidemiology and outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) varies across Europe. Following on from EuReCa ONE, the aim of this study was to further explore the incidence of and outcomes from OHCA in Europe and to improve understanding of the role of the bystander., Methods: This prospective, multicentre study involved the collection of registry-based data over a three-month period (1st October 2017 to 31st December 2017). The core study dataset complied with the Utstein-style. Primary outcomes were return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival to hospital admission. Secondary outcome was survival to hospital discharge., Results: All 28 countries provided data, covering a total population of 178,879,118. A total of 37,054 OHCA were confirmed, with CPR being started in 25,171 cases. The bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) rate ranged from 13% to 82% between countries (average: 58%). In one third of cases (33%) ROSC was achieved and 8% of patients were discharged from hospital alive. Survival to hospital discharge was higher in patients when a bystander performed CPR with ventilations, compared to compression-only CPR (14% vs. 8% respectively)., Conclusion: In addition to increasing our understanding of the role of bystander CPR within Europe, EuReCa TWO has confirmed large variation in OHCA incidence, characteristics and outcome, and highlighted the extent to which OHCA is a public health burden across Europe. Unexplained variation remains and the EuReCa network has a continuing role to play in improving the quality management of resuscitation., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation has initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed, published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the third annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. It addresses the most recent published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Task Force science experts. This summary addresses the role of cardiac arrest centers and dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the role of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults and children, vasopressors in adults, advanced airway interventions in adults and children, targeted temperature management in children after cardiac arrest, initial oxygen concentration during resuscitation of newborns, and interventions for presyncope by first aid providers. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the certainty of the evidence on the basis of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence to Decision Framework Highlights sections. The task forces also listed priority knowledge gaps for further research.

Utstein-style reporting templates provide a structured framework with which to compare systems of care for cardiac arrest. The 2004 Utstein reporting template encompassed both out-of-hospital and in-hospital cardiac arrest. A 2015 update of the Utstein template focused on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, which makes this update of the in-hospital template timely. Representatives of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation developed an updated in-hospital Utstein reporting template iteratively by meeting face-to-face, by teleconference, and by online surveys between 2013 and 2018. Data elements were grouped by hospital factors, patient variables, pre-event factors, cardiac arrest and postresuscitation processes, and outcomes. Elements were classified as core or supplemental by use of a modified Delphi process. Variables were described as core if they were considered essential. Core variables should enable reasonable comparisons between systems and are considered essential for quality improvement programs. Together with core variables, supplementary variables are considered useful for research.

Background: Prehospital recognition of sepsis may inform case management by ambulance clinicians, as well as inform transport decisions. The objective of this study was to develop a prehospital sepsis screening tool for use by ambulance clinicians., Methods: We derived and validated a sepsis screening tool, utilising univariable logistic regression models to identify predictors for inclusion, and multivariable logistic regression to generate the SEPSIS score. We utilised a retrospective cohort of adult patients transported by ambulance (n = 38483) to hospital between 01 July 2013 and 30 June 2014. Records were linked using LinkPlus® software. Successful linkage was achieved in 33289 cases (86%). Eligible patients included adult, non-trauma, non-mental health, non-cardiac arrest cases. Of 33289 linked cases, 22945 cases were eligible. Eligible cases were divided into derivation (n = 16063, 70%) and validation (n = 6882, 30%) cohorts. The primary outcome measure was high risk of severe illness or death from sepsis, as defined by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Sepsis guideline., Results: 'High risk of severe illness or death from sepsis' was present in 3.7% of derivation (n = 593) and validation (n = 254) cohorts. The SEPSIS score comprises the following variables: age, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturations, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, temperature and level of consciousness (p < 0.001 for all variables). Area under the curve was 0.87 (95%CI 0.85-0.88) for the derivation cohort, and 0.86 (95%CI 0.84-0.88) for the validation cohort. In an undifferentiated adult medical population, for a SEPSIS score ≥ 5, sensitivity was 0.37 (0.31-0.44), specificity was 0.96 (0.96-0.97), positive predictive value was 0.27 (0.23-0.32), negative predictive value was 0.97 (0.96-0.97), positive likelihood value was 13.5 (9.7-18.73) and the negative likelihood value was 0.83 (0.78-0.88)., Conclusion: This is the first screening tool developed to identify NICE high risk of severe illness or death from sepsis. The SEPSIS score is significantly associated with high risk of severe illness or death from sepsis on arrival at the Emergency Department. It may assist ambulance clinicians to identify those patients with sepsis in need of antibiotic therapy. However, it requires external validation, in clinical practice by ambulance clinicians, in an independent population.