Search

Airway management is a critical component of resuscitation but also carries the potential to disrupt perfusion, oxygenation, and ventilation as a consequence of airway insertion efforts, the use of medications, and the conversion to positive-pressure ventilation. NAEMSP recommends:Airway management should be approached as an organized system of care, incorporating principles of teamwork and operational awareness.EMS clinicians should prevent or correct hypoxemia and hypotension prior to advanced airway insertion attempts.Continuous physiological monitoring must be used during airway management to guide the timing of, limit the duration of, and inform decision making during advanced airway insertion attempts.Initial and ongoing confirmation of advanced airway placement must be performed using waveform capnography. Airway devices must be secured using a reliable method.Perfusion, oxygenation, and ventilation should be optimized before, during, and after advanced airway insertion.To mitigate aspiration after advanced airway insertion, EMS clinicians should consider placing a patient in a semi-upright position.When appropriate, patients undergoing advanced airway placement should receive suitable pharmacologic anxiolysis, amnesia, and analgesia. In select cases, the use of neuromuscular blocking agents may be appropriate.

A 3 month old boy, with no known health conditions, suffered a sudden collapse at home. On first EMS arrival, ventricular fibrillation (VF) cardiac arrest was identified and resuscitation following UK national guidelines was initiated. He remained in cardiac arrest for over 25 min, during which he received 10 defibrillation shocks, each effective, but with VF reoccurring within a few seconds of each of the first 9. A return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was achieved after the 10th shock. The resuscitation was conducted fully in his home, with the early involvement of Advanced Paramedic Practitioners specialising in critical care (APP- CC). Throughout his resuscitation, there remained a strong focus on delivering quality resuscitation in situ, rather than a 'load and go' approach that would have resulted in very early conveyance to hospital with on-going CPR.The patient was subsequently discharged home and is making an excellent recovery. The arrest was later determined to have been caused by a primary arrhythmia as a result of a previously unidentified non-obstructive variant hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.We present data downloaded from the defibrillator used during the resuscitation that illustrates clearly the recurrent nature of his fibrillation.

Objective: Technical data now gathered by automated external defibrillators (AEDs) allows closer evaluation of the behavior of defibrillation shocks administered during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We analyzed technical data from a large case series to evaluate the change in transthoracic impedance between shocks, and to assess the heterogeneity of the probability of successful defibrillation across the population., Methods: We analyzed a series of consecutive cases where AEDs delivered shocks to treat ventricular fibrillation (VF) during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Impedance measurements and VF termination efficacy were extracted from electronic records downloaded from biphasic AEDs deployed in three EMS systems. All patients received 200J first shocks; second shocks were 200J or 300J, depending on local protocols. Results presented are median (25th, 75th percentiles)., Results: Of 863 cases with defibrillation shocks, 467 contained multiple shocks because the first shock failed to terminate VF (n=61) or VF recurred (n=406). Defibrillation efficacy of subsequent shocks was significantly lower in patients that failed to defibrillate on first shock than in patients that did defibrillate on first shock (162/234=69% vs. 955/1027=93%; p<0.0001). The failed VF terminations were distributed heterogeneously across the population; 5% of patients accounted for 71% of failed shocks. Shock impedance decreased by 1% [0%, 4%] and peak current increased by 1% [0%, 4%] between 200J first and 200J second shocks. Shock impedance decreased 4% [2%, 6%] and current increased 27% [25%, 29%] between 200J first and 300J second shocks. In all 499 pairs of same-energy consecutive shocks, impedance changed by less than 1% in 226 (45%), increased >1% in 124 (25%) and decreased >1% in 149 (30%)., Conclusions: Impedance change between consecutive shocks is minimal and inconsistent. Therefore, to increase current of a subsequent shock requires an increase of the energy setting. Distribution of failed shocks is far from random. First shock defibrillation failure is often predictive of low efficacy for subsequent shocks.

Aim of the Study: The response of recurrent episodes of ventricular fibrillation (VF) to defibrillation shocks has not been systematically studied. We analyzed outcomes from countershocks delivered for VF during advanced life support (ALS) care of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest., Methods: Cohort of patients with prehospital cardiac arrest presenting with VF, treated by ALS ambulance staff following ERC Guidelines 2000. Biphasic defibrillators provided shocks increasing from 200 to 360J. Recorded signals were analyzed to determine, for each shock, if VF was terminated and if a sustained organized rhythm was restored within 60s., Results: In 465 of the 467 patients enrolled, the initial VF episode was terminated within three shocks: 92%, 61%, and 83% responded to 200J first, 200J second and 360J third shocks, respectively. VF recurred in 48% of patients within 2min of the first episode, and in 74% sometime during prehospital care. In the 175 patients experiencing five or more VF episodes, single shock VF termination dropped from the first to the fifth episode (90-80%, p<0.001) without change in transthoracic impedance, yet the proportion returning to organized rhythms increased (11-42%, p<0.0001)., Conclusions: Repeated refibrillation is common in patients with VF cardiac arrest. The likelihood of countershocks to terminate VF declines for repeated episodes of VF, yet shocks that terminate these episodes result increasingly in a sustained organized rhythm.

Objective: To assess the value of measuring cervical resistance index (CRI) as an aid to selecting patients with a history of spontaneous mid-trimester miscarriage for cervical cerclage in subsequent pregnancies., Study Design: An observational study of 175 patients with a history of one or more spontaneous mid-trimester losses and 123 non-pregnant women who had CRI measurements performed while undergoing routine gynaecological surgery. Those women whose CRI indicated an incompetent cervix were recommended for cervical cerclage in future pregnancies while women with a normal CRI were recommended for conservative management without cerclage., Results: The median CRI in the 123 control women was 38.26 N while the median CRI in the study group was 17.00 N. In 62 of the 175 study women (35%) the CRI findings were at variance with the history of previous mid-trimester loss; 30 (16.6%) were deemed competent on CRI whereas the history suggested incompetence and 32 (18.4%) were incompetent on CRI while the history suggested that the cervix should be competent. The 175 study women had had 486 previous pregnancies with a successful outcome in 27.4% of the pregnancies. Ninety-four patients have now had 148 pregnancies with a successful outcome in 75.8% of the pregnancies., Conclusions: Non-pregnant women with a history of spontaneous mid-trimester miscarriage have a significantly lower cervical resistance index than parous women who have not suffered mid-trimester loss. In 35% of patients the CRI was at variance with the history of the previous loss. CRI may be a useful technique to aid the diagnosis of cervical weakness allowing a rational selection for treatment with prophylactic cervical cerclage.

Background: There is little clear evidence as to the optimal energy levels for initial and subsequent shocks in biphasic waveform defibrillation. The present study compared fixed lower- and escalating higher-energy regimens for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest., Methods and Results: The Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare Fixed Versus Escalating Energy Regimens for Biphasic Waveform Defibrillation (BIPHASIC Trial) was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial of 221 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients who received > or = 1 shock given by biphasic automated external defibrillator devices that were randomly programmed to provide, blindly, fixed lower-energy (150-150-150 J) or escalating higher-energy (200-300-360 J) regimens. Patient mean age was 66.0 years; 79.6% were male. The cardiac arrest was witnessed in 63.8%; a bystander performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in 23.5%; and initial rhythm was ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia in 92.3%. The fixed lower- and escalating higher-energy regimen cases were similar for the 106 multishock patients and for all 221 patients. In the primary analysis in multishock patients, conversion rates differed significantly (fixed lower, 24.7%, versus escalating higher, 36.6%; P=0.035; absolute difference, 11.9%; 95% CI, 1.2 to 24.4). Ventricular fibrillation termination rates also were significantly different between groups (71.2% versus 82.5%; P=0.027; absolute difference, 11.3%; 95% CI, 1.6 to 20.9). For the secondary analysis of first shock success, conversion rates were similar between the fixed lower and escalating higher study groups (38.4% versus 36.7%; P=0.92), as were ventricular fibrillation termination rates (86.8% versus 88.8%; P=0.81). There were no distinguishable differences between regimens for survival outcomes or adverse effects., Conclusions: This is the first randomized trial to compare fixed lower and escalating higher biphasic energy regimens in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and it demonstrated higher rates of ventricular fibrillation conversion and termination with an escalating higher-energy regimen for patients requiring multiple shocks. These results suggest that patients in ventricular fibrillation benefit from higher biphasic energy levels if multiple defibrillation shocks are required.

Objective: This clinical study prospectively evaluated the first-shock defibrillation efficacy of 150-joule impedance-compensated, 200-microF biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) shocks in patients with electrically-induced ventricular fibrillation (VF), and compared it with a historical control group treated with 200-J monophasic damped sine (MDS) shocks., Methods: Ventricular tachyarrhythmias were induced in patients undergoing electrophysiologic (EP) testing for ventricular arrhythmias or testing of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). A 150-J shock was delivered as the primary therapy to terminate induced arrhythmias in the EP group, and as a "rescue" shock when a single ICD shock failed to terminate the arrhythmias in the ICD group., Results: Ninety-six patients received study shocks. The preshock rhythm was classified as VF in 77 patients and as ventricular tachycardia (VT) in 19 patients. First-shock success rates for VF and VT were 75 out of 77 (97.4%) and 19 out of 19 (100%) for the 150-J BTE compared with the historical control rates of 61 out of 68 (89.7%) and 29 out of 31 (94%) for 200-J MDS. The first-shock success rate for VF treated with 150-J BTE was technically equivalent to that of 200-J MDS (p=0.001). The transthoracic impedance did not vary between groups, yet the peak current delivered by the 150-J BTE shock was about 50% lower., Conclusions: This study demonstrated that 150-J shocks of this impedance-compensated, 200-microF BTE waveform provided very high efficacy for defibrillation of short duration, electrically-induced VF. These lower-energy biphasic shocks had a success rate equivalent to that of 200-J MDS shocks, and they provided this efficacy while exposing patients to much less current than the monophasic shocks.