Search

Nurturing the development of the next generation of resuscitation scientists is essential for creating a vibrant and enabled community equipped with the necessary knowledge, attitudes, and skills to transform resuscitation practice and improve outcomes. In this concept paper we will describe the development and implementation of the first Young European Resuscitation Council Resuscitation Science Masterclass. The masterclass aims to connect, inspire, and support the growth of the next generation of resuscitation scientists through education, networking, and joint scientific work. The masterclass provides 20 international, multi-professional early career resuscitation scientists with the opportunity to expand their knowledge and network as well as conduct joint scientific work over the course of one year. This is achieved by interactive webinars, innovative online workshops, engaging online journal clubs as well as an educational in-person event to conclude the masterclass. The Young European Resuscitation Council Resuscitation Science Masterclass aims to strengthen the global resuscitation community and next generation of resuscitation scientists by facilitating opportunities of broader international initiatives and collaboration for early career resuscitation scientists, potentially leading to accelerated recruitment of future resuscitation leaders. Ultimately, this masterclass may enable early career researchers to produce high impact research that can shape the future of resuscitation science and improve cardiac arrest patient care globally., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: JW serves as the Interim Chair of the Young ERC; BK serves as the Young ERC Young Investigator Representative; RG serves as the ERC Director of Guidelines and ILCOR, and is the Task Force Chair Education, Implementation and Team of ILCOR. He is an editorial board member of Resuscitation Plus. GDP serves as the ERC Director of Science and Research and is the Editor-in-Chief of Resuscitation Plus; KGL serves as the Young ERC Neonatal Life Support Representative, Young ERC Resuscitation Plus Editor, and ERC Advanced Life Support Science and Education Committee member., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

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

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.

Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Background: Prehospital analgesia is often required after traumatic injury, currently morphine is the strongest parenteral analgesia routinely available for use by paramedics in the United Kingdom (UK) when treating patients with severe pain. This protocol describes a multi-centre, randomised, double blinded trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ketamine and morphine for severe pain following acute traumatic injury., Methods: A two arm pragmatic, phase III trial working with two large NHS ambulance services, with an internal pilot. Participants will be randomised in equal numbers to either (1) morphine or (2) ketamine by IV/IO injection. We aim to recruit 446 participants over the age of 16 years old, with a self-reported pain score of 7 or above out of 10. Randomised participants will receive a maximum of 20 mg of morphine, or a maximum of 30 mg of ketamine, to manage their pain. The primary outcome will be the sum of pain intensity difference. Secondary outcomes measure the effectiveness of pain relief and overall patient experience from randomisation to arrival at hospital as well as monitoring the adverse events, resource use and cost-effectiveness outcomes., Discussion: The PACKMAN study is the first UK clinical trial addressing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ketamine and morphine in treating acute severe pain from traumatic injury treated by NHS paramedics. The findings will inform future clinical practice and provide insights into the effectiveness of ketamine as a prehospital analgesia., Trial Registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN14124474. Registered 22 October 2020, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN14124474., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Early blood transfusion improves survival in patients with life-threatening bleeding, but the optimal transfusion strategy in the pre-hospital setting has yet to be established. Although there is some evidence of benefit with the use of whole blood, there have been no randomised controlled trials exploring the clinical and cost effectiveness of pre-hospital administration of whole blood versus component therapy for trauma patients with life-threatening bleeding. The aim of this trial is to determine whether pre-hospital leukocyte-depleted whole blood transfusion is better than standard care (blood component transfusion) in reducing the proportion of participants who experience death or massive transfusion at 24 h., Methods: This is a multi-centre, superiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial with internal pilot and within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis. Patients of any age will be eligible if they have suffered major traumatic haemorrhage and are attended by a participating air ambulance service. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants with traumatic haemorrhage who have died (all-cause mortality) or received massive transfusion in the first 24 h from randomisation. A number of secondary clinical, process, and safety endpoints will be collected and analysed. Cost (provision of whole blood, hospital, health, and wider care resource use) and outcome data will be synthesised to present incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the trial primary outcome and cost per quality-adjusted life year at 90 days after injury. We plan to recruit 848 participants (a two-sided test with 85% power, 5% type I error, 1-1 allocation, and one interim analysis would require 602 participants-after allowing for 25% of participants in traumatic cardiac arrest and an additional 5% drop out, the sample size is 848)., Discussion: The SWiFT trial will recruit 848 participants across at least ten air ambulances services in the UK. It will investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of whole blood transfusion versus component therapy in the management of patients with life-threatening bleeding in the pre-hospital setting., Trial Registration: ISRCTN: 23657907; EudraCT: 2021-006876-18; IRAS Number: 300414; REC: 22/SC/0072, 21 Dec 2021., (© 2023. Crown.)

Importance: Patients with septic shock undergo adrenergic stress, which affects cardiac, immune, inflammatory, and metabolic pathways. β-Blockade may attenuate the adverse effects of catecholamine exposure and has been associated with reduced mortality., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of landiolol in patients with tachycardia and established septic shock requiring prolonged (>24 hours) vasopressor support., Design, Setting, and Participants: An open-label, multicenter, randomized trial involving 126 adults (≥18 years) with tachycardia (heart rate ≥95/min) and established septic shock treated for at least 24 hours with continuous norepinephrine (≥0.1 μg/kg/min) in 40 UK National Health Service intensive care units. The trial ran from April 2018 to December 2021, with early termination in December 2021 due to a signal of possible harm., Intervention: Sixty-three patients were randomized to receive standard care and 63 to receive landiolol infusion., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score from randomization through 14 days. Secondary outcomes included mortality at days 28 and 90 and the number of adverse events in each group., Results: The trial was stopped prematurely on the advice of the independent data monitoring committee because it was unlikely to demonstrate benefit and because of possible harm. Of a planned 340 participants, 126 (37%) were enrolled (mean age, 55.6 years [95% CI, 52.7 to 58.5 years]; 58.7% male). The mean (SD) SOFA score in the landiolol group was 8.8 (3.9) compared with 8.1 (3.2) in the standard care group (mean difference [MD], 0.75 [95% CI, -0.49 to 2.0]; P = .24). Mortality at day 28 after randomization in the landiolol group was 37.1% (23 of 62) and 25.4% (16 of 63) in the standard care group (absolute difference, 11.7% [95% CI, -4.4% to 27.8%]; P = .16). Mortality at day 90 after randomization was 43.5% (27 of 62) in the landiolol group and 28.6% (18 of 63) in the standard care group (absolute difference, 15% [95% CI, -1.7% to 31.6%]; P = .08). There were no differences in the number of patients having at least one adverse event., Conclusion and Relevance: Among patients with septic shock with tachycardia and treated with norepinephrine for more than 24 hours, an infusion of landiolol did not reduce organ failure measured by the SOFA score over 14 days from randomization. These results do not support the use of landiolol for managing tachycardia among patients treated with norepinephrine for established septic shock., Trial Registration: EU Clinical Trials Register Eudra CT: 2017-001785-14; isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN12600919.

Aim: To describe the protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to determine whether treatment protocols monitoring daily CRP (C-reactive protein) or PCT (procalcitonin) safely allow a reduction in duration of antibiotic therapy in hospitalised adult patients with sepsis., Design: Multicentre three-arm randomised controlled trial., Setting: UK NHS hospitals., Target Population: Hospitalised critically ill adults who have been commenced on intravenous antibiotics for sepsis., Health Technology: Three protocols for guiding antibiotic discontinuation will be compared: (a) standard care; (b) standard care + daily CRP monitoring; (c) standard care + daily PCT monitoring. Standard care will be based on routine sepsis management and antibiotic stewardship. Measurement of outcomes and costs. Outcomes will be assessed to 28 days. The primary outcomes are total duration of antibiotics and safety outcome of all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include: escalation of care/re-admission; infection re-lapse/recurrence; antibiotic dose; length and level of critical care stay and length of hospital stay. Ninety-day all-cause mortality rates will also be collected. An assessment of cost effectiveness will be performed., Conclusion: In the setting of routine NHS care, if this trial finds that a treatment protocol based on monitoring CRP or PCT safely allows a reduction in duration of antibiotic therapy, and is cost effective, then this has the potential to change clinical practice for critically ill patients with sepsis. Moreover, if a biomarker-guided protocol is not found to be effective, then it will be important to avoid its use in sepsis and prevent ineffective technology becoming widely adopted in clinical practice., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: A.C.G. reports that outside of this work he has received speaker fees from Orion Corporation Orion Pharma and Amomed Pharma. He has consulted for Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Tenax Therapeutics, Baxter Healthcare, Bristol-Myers Squibb and GSK, and received grant support from Orion Corporation Orion Pharma, Tenax Therapeutics and HCA International with funds paid to his institution. Authors otherwise declare no conflicts of interest., (© The Intensive Care Society 2023.)

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.

Background: The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation has called for a randomised trial of delivery to a cardiac arrest centre. We aimed to assess whether expedited delivery to a cardiac arrest centre compared with current standard of care following resuscitated cardiac arrest reduces deaths., Methods: ARREST is a prospective, parallel, multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with return of spontaneous circulation following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST elevation were randomly assigned (1:1) at the scene of their cardiac arrest by London Ambulance Service staff using a secure online randomisation system to expedited delivery to the cardiac catheter laboratory at one of seven cardiac arrest centres or standard of care with delivery to the geographically closest emergency department at one of 32 hospitals in London, UK. Masking of the ambulance staff who delivered the interventions and those reporting treatment outcomes in hospital was not possible. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days, analysed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population excluding those with unknown mortality status. Safety outcomes were analysed in the ITT population. The trial was prospectively registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Registry, 96585404., Findings: Between Jan 15, 2018, and Dec 1, 2022, 862 patients were enrolled, of whom 431 (50%) were randomly assigned to a cardiac arrest centre and 431 (50%) to standard care. 20 participants withdrew from the cardiac arrest centre group and 19 from the standard care group, due to lack of consent or unknown mortality status, leaving 411 participants in the cardiac arrest centre group and 412 in the standard care group for the primary analysis. Of 822 participants for whom data were available, 560 (68%) were male and 262 (32%) were female. The primary endpoint of 30-day mortality occurred in 258 (63%) of 411 participants in the cardiac arrest centre group and in 258 (63%) of 412 in the standard care group (unadjusted risk ratio for survival 1·00, 95% CI 0·90-1·11; p=0·96). Eight (2%) of 414 patients in the cardiac arrest centre group and three (1%) of 413 in the standard care group had serious adverse events, none of which were deemed related to the trial intervention., Interpretation: In adult patients without ST elevation, transfer to a cardiac arrest centre following resuscitated cardiac arrest in the community did not reduce deaths., Funding: British Heart Foundation., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 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.)

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.)

Introduction: Cognitive activity and awareness during cardiac arrest (CA) are reported but ill understood. This first of a kind study examined consciousness and its underlying electrocortical biomarkers during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)., Methods: In a prospective 25-site in-hospital study, we incorporated a) independent audiovisual testing of awareness, including explicit and implicit learning using a computer and headphones, with b) continuous real-time electroencephalography(EEG) and cerebral oxygenation(rSO 2 ) monitoring into CPR during in-hospital CA (IHCA). Survivors underwent interviews to examine for recall of awareness and cognitive experiences. A complementary cross-sectional community CA study provided added insights regarding survivors' experiences., Results: Of 567 IHCA, 53(9.3%) survived, 28 of these (52.8%) completed interviews, and 11(39.3%) reported CA memories/perceptions suggestive of consciousness. Four categories of experiences emerged: 1) emergence from coma during CPR (CPR-induced consciousness [CPRIC]) 2/28(7.1%), or 2) in the post-resuscitation period 2/28(7.1%), 3) dream-like experiences 3/28(10.7%), 4) transcendent recalled experience of death (RED) 6/28(21.4%). In the cross-sectional arm, 126 community CA survivors' experiences reinforced these categories and identified another: delusions (misattribution of medical events). Low survival limited the ability to examine for implicit learning. Nobody identified the visual image, 1/28(3.5%) identified the auditory stimulus. Despite marked cerebral ischemia (Mean rSO 2  = 43%) normal EEG activity (delta, theta and alpha) consistent with consciousness emerged as long as 35-60 minutes into CPR., Conclusions: Consciousness. awareness and cognitive processes may occur during CA. The emergence of normal EEG may reflect a resumption of a network-level of cognitive activity, and a biomarker of consciousness, lucidity and RED (authentic "near-death" experiences)., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Aim of the Review: Improving rates of organ donation among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who do not survive is an opportunity to save countless lives. The objectives of this scientific statement were to do the following: define the opportunity for organ donation among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; identify challenges and opportunities associated with organ donation by patients with cardiac arrest; identify strategies, including a generic protocol for organ donation after cardiac arrest, to increase the rate and consistency of organ donation from this population; and provide rationale for including organ donation as a key clinical outcome for all future cardiac arrest clinical trials and registries., Methods: The scope of this International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation scientific statement was approved by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation board and the American Heart Association, posted on ILCOR.org for public comment, and then assigned by section to primary and secondary authors. A unique literature search was completed and updated for each section., Results: There are a number of defining pathways for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to become organ donors; however, modifications in the Maastricht classification system need to be made to correctly identify these donors and to report outcomes with consistency. Suggested modifications to the minimum data set for reporting cardiac arrests will increase reporting of organ donation as an important resuscitation outcome. There are a number of challenges with implementing uncontrolled donation after cardiac death protocols, and the greatest impediment is the lack of legislation in most countries to mandate organ donation as the default option. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation has the potential to increase organ donation rates, but more research is needed to derive neuroprognostication rules to guide clinical decision-making about when to stop extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation and to evaluate cost-effectiveness., Conclusions: All health systems should develop, implement, and evaluate protocols designed to optimize organ donation opportunities for patients who have an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and failed attempts at resuscitation.

Rationale: Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) may modulate inflammation, promoting repair in coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Objectives: We investigated the safety and efficacy of ORBCEL-C (CD362 [cluster of differentiation 362]-enriched, umbilical cord-derived MSCs) in COVID-19-related ARDS. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, allocation-concealed, placebo-controlled trial (NCT03042143), patients with moderate to severe COVID-19-related ARDS were randomized to receive ORBCEL-C (400 million cells) or placebo (Plasma-Lyte 148). The primary safety and efficacy outcomes were the incidence of serious adverse events and oxygenation index at Day 7, respectively. Secondary outcomes included respiratory compliance, driving pressure, Pa O 2 :Fi O 2 ratio, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Clinical outcomes relating to duration of ventilation, lengths of ICU and hospital stays, and mortality were collected. Long-term follow-up included diagnosis of interstitial lung disease at 1 year and significant medical events and mortality at 2 years. Transcriptomic analysis was performed on whole blood at Days 0, 4, and 7. Measurements and Main Results: Sixty participants were recruited (final analysis: n  = 30 received ORBCEL-C, n  = 29 received placebo; 1 participant in the placebo group withdrew consent). Six serious adverse events occurred in the ORBCEL-C group and three in the placebo group (risk ratio, 2.9 [95% confidence interval, 0.6-13.2]; P  = 0.25). Day 7 mean (SD) oxygenation index did not differ (ORBCEL-C, 98.3 [57.2] cm H 2 O/kPa; placebo, 96.6 [67.3] cm H 2 O/kPa). There were no differences in secondary surrogate outcomes or in mortality at Day 28, Day 90, 1 year, or 2 years. There was no difference in the prevalence of interstitial lung disease at 1 year or significant medical events up to 2 years. ORBCEL-C modulated the peripheral blood transcriptome. Conclusion: ORBCEL-C MSCs were safe in subjects with moderate to severe COVID-19-related ARDS but did not improve surrogates of pulmonary organ dysfunction.

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.)

Survival from in-hospital cardiac arrest is approximately 18%, but for patients who require advanced airway management survival is lower. Those who do survive are often left with significant disability. Traditionally, resuscitation of cardiac arrest patients has included tracheal intubation, however insertion of a supraglottic airway has gained popularity as an alternative approach to advanced airway management. Evidence from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest suggests no significant differences in mortality or morbidity between these two approaches, but there is no randomised evidence for airway management during in-hospital cardiac arrest. The aim of the AIRWAYS-3 randomised trial, described in this protocol paper, is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a supraglottic airway versus tracheal intubation during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Patients will be allocated randomly to receive either a supraglottic airway or tracheal intubation as the initial advanced airway management. We will also estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of these two approaches. The primary outcome is functional status, measured using the modified Rankin Scale at hospital discharge or 30 days post-randomisation, whichever occurs first. AIRWAYS-3 presents ethical challenges regarding patient consent and data collection. These include the enrolment of unconscious patients without prior consent in a way that avoids methodological bias. Other complexities include the requirement to randomise patients efficiently during a time-critical cardiac arrest. Many of these challenges are encountered in other emergency care research; we discuss our approaches to addressing them. Trial registration: ISRCTN 17720457. Prospectively registered on 29/07/2022., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: GDP is Editor-in-Chief, and JPN, KC and JS are Editors of the journal Resuscitation Plus., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Introduction: Bystanders' interventions improve chances of survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) before Emergency Medical Services arrive. Some areas in England are of concern. These high-risk areas have a higher incidence of cardiac arrest combined with lower-than-average bystander CPR rates and are characterised by higher proportions of minority ethnic group residents and deprivation.Collaborating with people from the Black African and Caribbean and South Asian minority communities in deprived areas of England, we aim to develop and evaluate the implementation of theoretically informed intervention(s) to address factors contributing to lower bystander intervention rates., Methods: The study is a collaborative realist enquiry, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and associated Behaviour Change Wheel. It consists of 1) a realist evidence synthesis to produce initial program theories developed from primary workshop data and published evidence. It will include identifying factors contributing to the issue and potential interventions to address them; 2) theoretically informed intervention development, using the initial program theories and behaviour change theory and 3) a realist mixed methods implementation evaluation with embedded feasibility.Public involvement (PPI) as study team and public advisory group members is key to this study.We will conduct realist evidence synthesis, qualitative and statistical analyses appropriate to the various methods used., Dissemination: We will develop a dissemination plan and materials targeted to members of the public in high-risk areas as well as academic outputs. We will hold an event for participating community groups and stakeholders to share findings and seek advice on next steps., Study Registration: ISRCTN90350842. Registration date 28.03.2023. The study was registered after its start date., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: CH, JRM, IV, GP SS and NP employers are in receipt of funding from the NIHR to conduct this study. GDP is a NIHR Senior Investigator and supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands. GDP is also Editor in Chief of Resuscitation Plus but had no role in the review or decision making in relation to acceptance of this paper. JRM was the Programme Director of the NIHR HSDR Programme at the time this project was recommended for funding., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Objectives: The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, in collaboration with drowning researchers from around the world, aimed to review the evidence addressing seven key resuscitation interventions: 1) immediate versus delayed resuscitation; (2) compression first versus ventilation first strategy; (3) compression-only CPR versus standard CPR (compressions and ventilations); (4) ventilation with and without equipment; (5) oxygen administration prior to hospital arrival; (6) automated external defibrillation first versus cardiopulmonary resuscitation first strategy; (7) public access defibrillation programmes., Methods: The review included studies relating to adults and children who had sustained a cardiac arrest following drowning with control groups and reported patient outcomes. Searches were run from database inception through to April 2023. The following databases were searched Ovid MEDLINE, Pre-Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool and the certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. The findings are reported as a narrative synthesis., Results: Three studies were included for two of the seven interventions (2,451 patients). No randomised controlled trials were identified. A retrospective observational study reported in-water resuscitation with rescue breaths improved patient outcomes compared to delayed resuscitation on land ( n  = 46 patients, very low certainty of evidence). The two observational studies ( n  = 2,405 patients), comparing compression-only with standard resuscitation, reported no difference for most outcomes. A statistically higher rate of survival to hospital discharge was reported for the standard resuscitation group in one of these studies (29.7% versus 18.1%, adjusted odds ratio 1.54 (95% confidence interval 1.01-2.36) (very low certainty of evidence)., Conclusion: The key finding of this systematic review is the paucity of evidence, with control groups, to inform treatment guidelines for resuscitation in drowning., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: This systematic review was part of the ILCOR continuous evidence evaluation process, which is guided by a rigorous conflict of interest policy (see www.ilcor.org). GDP declares roles as co-chair of ILCOR, Director of Science and Research for the European Resuscitation Council, Vice President of the Resuscitation Council UK and Editor roles with Resuscitation and Resuscitation Plus journals. He is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. JB declares her role as an Associate Editor for Resuscitation Plus. The paper was handled by Associate Editor Keith Couper., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Objectives: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are often created through collaboration among organizations. The use of inconsistent terminology may cause poor communication and delays. This study aimed to develop a glossary of terms related to collaboration in guideline development., Study Design and Setting: A literature review of collaborative guidelines was performed to develop an initial list of terms related to guideline collaboration. The list of terms was presented to the members of the Guideline International Network Guidelines Collaboration Working Group, who provided presumptive definitions for each term and proposed additional terms to be included. The revised list was subsequently reviewed by an international, multidisciplinary panel of expert stakeholders. Recommendations received during this pre-Delphi review were implemented to augment an initial draft glossary. The glossary was then critically evaluated and refined through two rounds of Delphi surveys and a virtual consensus meeting with all panel members as Delphi participants., Results: Forty-nine experts participated in the pre-Delphi survey, and 44 participated in the two-round Delphi process. Consensus was reached for 37 terms and definitions., Conclusion: Uptake and utilization of this guideline collaboration glossary by key organizations and stakeholder groups may facilitate collaboration among guideline-producing organizations by improving communication, minimizing conflicts, and increasing guideline development efficiency., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: This review considers the latest evidence relating to the epidemiology and outcomes, treatment guidelines, diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in traumatic cardiac arrest., Recent Findings: There is variation in the incidence and outcomes of traumatic cardiac arrest which is influenced in part by case definitions. Irrespective of case definitions outcomes from traumatic cardiac arrest are typically worse than those seen from cardiac arrest due to medical causes but not so poor as to consider that treatment is futile. Clinical guidelines focus on the prompt treatment of reversible causes, although evidence that this improves outcomes is limited. Point of care ultrasound to assist with the identification of reversible causes should be limited to experienced operators where there is thought to be a high likelihood of a reversible cause being present. Care should be taken to minimize interruptions in chest compressions during scanning. There is little recent evidence to support specific therapeutic interventions. The role of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta during traumatic cardiac arrest remains to be determined in on-going research., Conclusion: Trauma related cardiac arrest differs from cardiac arrest due to medical causes. Whilst the core principles of treatment are similar, a higher priority is placed on identifying and treating reversible causes., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, 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.)

Background: Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is a devastating pulmonary inflammatory disorder, commonly precipitated by sepsis. Glucocorticoids are immunomodulatory steroids that can suppress inflammation. Their anti-inflammatory properties within tissues are influenced by their pre-receptor metabolism and amplification from inactive precursors by 11β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type-1 (HSD-1). We hypothesised that in sepsis-related ARDS, alveolar macrophage (AM) HSD-1 activity and glucocorticoid activation are impaired, and associated with greater inflammatory injury and worse outcomes., Methods: We analysed broncho-alveolar lavage (BAL) and circulating glucocorticoid levels, AM HSD-1 reductase activity and Receptor for Advanced Glycation End-products (RAGE) levels in two cohorts of critically ill sepsis patients, with and without ARDS. AM HSD-1 reductase activity was also measured in lobectomy patients. We assessed inflammatory injury parameters in models of lung injury and sepsis in HSD-1 knockout (KO) and wild type (WT) mice., Results: No difference in serum and BAL cortisol: cortisone ratios are shown between sepsis patients with and without ARDS. Across all sepsis patients, there is no association between BAL cortisol: cortisone ratio and 30-day mortality. However, AM HSD-1 reductase activity is impaired in patients with sepsis-related ARDS, compared to sepsis patients without ARDS and lobectomy patients (0.075 v 0.882 v 0.967 pM/hr/10 6 AMs, p=0.004). Across all sepsis patients (with and without ARDS), impaired AM HSD-1 reductase activity is associated with defective efferocytosis (r=0.804, p=0.008) and increased 30-day mortality. AM HSD-1 reductase activity negatively correlates with BAL RAGE in sepsis patients with ARDS (r=-0.427, p=0.017). Following intra-tracheal lipopolysaccharide (IT-LPS) injury, HSD-1 KO mice demonstrate increased alveolar neutrophil infiltration, apoptotic neutrophil accumulation, alveolar protein permeability and BAL RAGE concentrations compared to WT mice. Caecal Ligation and Puncture (CLP) injury in HSD-1 KO mice results in greater peritoneal apoptotic neutrophil accumulation compared to WT mice., Conclusions: AM HSD-1 reductase activity does not shape total BAL and serum cortisol: cortisone ratios, however impaired HSD-1 autocrine signalling renders AMs insensitive to the anti-inflammatory effects of local glucocorticoids. This contributes to the decreased efferocytosis, increased BAL RAGE concentrations and mortality seen in sepsis-related ARDS. Upregulation of alveolar HSD-1 activity could restore AM function and improve clinical outcomes in these patients., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Mahida, Lax, Bassford, Scott, Parekh, Hardy, Naidu, Matthay, Stewart, Cooper, Perkins and Thickett.)

The Chain of Survival highlights the effectiveness of early recognition of cardiac arrest and call for help, early cardiopulmonary resuscitation and early defibrillation. Most patients, however, remain in cardiac arrest despite these interventions. Drug treatments, particularly the use of vasopressors, have been included in resuscitation algorithms since their inception. This narrative review describes the current evidence base for vasopressors and reports that adrenaline (1 mg) is highly effective at achieving return of spontaneous circulation (number needed to treat 4) but is less effective on long-term outcomes (survival to 30 days, number needed to treat 111) with uncertain effects on survival with a favourable neurological outcome. Randomised trials evaluating vasopressin, either as an alternative to or in addition to adrenaline, and high-dose adrenaline have failed to find evidence of improved long-term outcomes. There is a need for future trials to evaluate the interaction between steroids and vasopressin. Evidence for other vasopressors (e.g. noradrenaline, phenylephedrine) is insufficient to support or refute their use. The use of intravenous calcium chloride as a routine intervention in out of hospital cardiac arrest is not associated with benefit and may cause harm. The optimal route for vascular access between peripheral intravenous versus intraosseous routes is currently the subject of two large randomised trials. Intracardiac, endobronchial, and intramuscular routes are not recommended. Central venous administration should be limited to patients where an existing central venous catheter is in situ and patent., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Aim: To determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Resuscitation Council UK Advanced Life Support (ALS) and Immediate Life Support (ILS) course numbers and outcomes., Methods: We conducted a before-after study using course data from the Resuscitation Council UK Learning Management System between January 2018 and December 2021, using 23 March 2020 as the cut-off between pre- and post-pandemic periods. Demographics and outcomes were analysed using chi-squared tests and regression models., Results: There were 90,265 ALS participants (51,464 pre-; 38,801 post-) and 368,140 ILS participants (225,628 pre-; 142,512 post-). There was a sharp decline in participants on ALS/ILS courses due to COVID-19. ALS participant numbers rebounded to exceed pre-pandemic levels, whereas ILS numbers recovered to a lesser degree with increased uptake of e-learning versions. Mean ALS course participants reduced from 20.0 to 14.8 post-pandemic (P < 0.001).Post-pandemic there were small but statistically significant decreases in ALS Cardiac Arrest Simulation Test pass rates (from 82.1 % to 80.1 % (OR = 0.90, 95 % CI = 0.86-0.94, P < 0.001)), ALS MCQ score (from 86.6 % to 86.0 % (mean difference = -0.35, 95 % CI -0.44 to -0.26, P < 0.001)), and overall ALS course results (from 95.2 %to 94.7 %, OR = 0.92, CI = 0.85-0.99, P = 0.023). ILS course outcomes were similar post-pandemic (from 99.4 % to 99.4 %, P = 0.037)., Conclusion: COVID-19 caused a sharp decline in the number of participants on ALS/ILS courses and an accelerated uptake of e-learning versions, with the average ALS course size reducing significantly. The small reduction in performance on ALS courses requires further research to clarify the contributing factors., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

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.

Recent evidence showing the clinical effectiveness of drug therapy in cardiac arrest has led to renewed interest in the optimal route for drug administration in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Current resuscitation guidelines support use of the intravenous route for intra-arrest drug delivery, with the intraosseous route reserved for patients in whom intravenous access cannot be established. We sought to evaluate current evidence on drug route for administration of cardiac arrest drugs, with a specific focus on the intravenous and intraosseous route. We identified relevant animal, manikin, and human studies through targeted searches of MEDLINE in June 2022. Across pre-hospital systems, there is wide variation in use of the intraosseous route. Early administration of cardiac arrest drugs is associated with improved patient outcomes. Challenges in obtaining intravenous access mean that the intraosseous access may facilitate earlier drug administration. However, time from administration to the central circulation is unclear with pharmacokinetic data limited mainly to animal studies. Observational studies comparing the effect of intravenous and intraosseous drug administration on patient outcomes are challenging to interpret because of resuscitation time bias and other confounders. To date, no randomised controlled trial has directly compared the effect on patient outcomes of intraosseous compared with intravenous drug administration in cardiac arrest. The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation has described the urgent need for randomised controlled trials comparing the intravenous and intraosseous route in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Ongoing clinical trials will directly address this knowledge gap., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: GDP is chief investigator of the PARAMEDIC-3 trial. JPN, AW, and KC are funded PARAMEDIC-3 trials co-investigators. NR is principal investigator of PARAMEDIC-3 for the Welsh Ambulance Service. JPN and GDP are editors of Resuscitation. KC is an editorial board member of Resuscitation., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The administration of a high fraction of oxygen following return of spontaneous circulation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest may increase reperfusion brain injury., Objective: To determine whether targeting a lower oxygen saturation in the early phase of postresuscitation care for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest improves survival at hospital discharge., Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial included unconscious adults with return of spontaneous circulation and a peripheral oxygen saturation (Spo2) of at least 95% while receiving 100% oxygen. The trial was conducted in 2 emergency medical services and 15 hospitals in Victoria and South Australia, Australia, between December 11, 2017, and August 11, 2020, with data collection from ambulance and hospital medical records (final follow-up date, August 25, 2021). The trial enrolled 428 of a planned 1416 patients., Interventions: Patients were randomized by paramedics to receive oxygen titration to achieve an oxygen saturation of either 90% to 94% (intervention; n = 216) or 98% to 100% (standard care; n = 212) until arrival in the intensive care unit., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. There were 9 secondary outcomes collected, including hypoxic episodes (Spo2 &lt;90%) and prespecified serious adverse events, which included hypoxia with rearrest., Results: The trial was stopped early due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the 428 patients who were randomized, 425 were included in the primary analysis (median age, 65.5 years; 100 [23.5%] women) and all completed the trial. Overall, 82 of 214 patients (38.3%) in the intervention group survived to hospital discharge compared with 101 of 211 (47.9%) in the standard care group (difference, -9.6% [95% CI, -18.9% to -0.2%]; unadjusted odds ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.46-1.00]; P = .05). Of the 9 prespecified secondary outcomes collected during hospital stay, 8 showed no significant difference. A hypoxic episode prior to intensive care was observed in 31.3% (n = 67) of participants in the intervention group and 16.1% (n = 34) in the standard care group (difference, 15.2% [95% CI, 7.2%-23.1%]; OR, 2.37 [95% CI, 1.49-3.79]; P &lt; .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients achieving return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, targeting an oxygen saturation of 90% to 94%, compared with 98% to 100%, until admission to the intensive care unit did not significantly improve survival to hospital discharge. Although the trial is limited by early termination due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the findings do not support use of an oxygen saturation target of 90% to 94% in the out-of-hospital setting after resuscitation from cardiac arrest., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03138005.

Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

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

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: Current measures of health-related quality of life are neither sufficiently sensitive or specific to capture the complex and heterogenous nature of the recovery and survivorship associated with cardiac arrest. To address this critical practice gap, we plan a mixed-methods study to co-produce and evaluate a new cardiac arrest-specific patient/survivor-reported outcome measure (PROM)., Methods: International guidelines have informed a two-stage, iterative, and interactive process.Stage one will establish what is important to measure following cardiac arrest. A meta-ethnography of published qualitative research and a qualitative exploration of the experiences of survivors and their key supporters will inform the development of a measurement framework. This will be supplemented by existing, extensive reviews describing concepts that have previously been measured in this population. Focus groups with survivors, key supporters, and healthcare professionals, followed by further interviews with survivors and key supporters, will inform the iterative refinement of the framework, candidate items, and PROM structure.Stage two will involve a psychometric evaluation following completion by a large cohort of survivors. Measurement theory will inform: the identification of items that best measure important outcomes; item reduction; and provide robust evidence of measurement and practical properties., Discussion: An international, collaborative approach to PROM development will engage survivors, key supporters, researchers, and health professionals from study commencement. Successful co-production of the cardiac arrest survivorship and health-related quality of life (CASHQoL) measure will provide a robust, relevant, and internationally applicable measure, suitable for completion by adult survivors, and integration into research, registries, and routine care settings.Ethical approval: University of Warwick Biomedical & Scientific Research Ethics Committee (BSREC 22/20-21 granted 10/11/20)., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Introduction: This study sought to identify the availability of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) in schools in the region served by West Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Trust (WMAS), United Kingdom, and the number of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) that occurred at or near to schools. A secondary aim was to explore the cost effectiveness of school-based defibrillators., Methods: This observational study used data from the national registry for OHCA (University of Warwick) to identify cases occurring at or near schools between January 2014 and December 2016 in WMAS region (n = 11,399). A school survey (n = 2,453) was carried out in September 2017 to determine the presence of AEDs and their registration status with WMAS. Geographical Information System mapping software identified OHCAs occurring within a 300-metre radius of a school. An economic analysis calculated the cost effectiveness of school-based AEDs., Results: A total of 39 (0.34%) of all OHCAs occurred in schools, although 4,250 (37.3%) of OHCAs in the region were estimated to have occurred within 300 metres of a school. Of 323 school survey responses, 184 (57%) had an AED present, of which 24 (13.0%) were available 24 h/day. Economic modelling of a school-based AED programme showed additional quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of 0.26 over the lifetime of cardiac arrest survivors compared with no AED programme. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £8,916 per QALY gained., Conclusion: Cardiac arrests in schools are rare. Registering AEDs with local Emergency Medical Services and improving their accessibility within their local community would increase their utility., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

Background: As an emergency care and treatment planning process (ECTP), a key feature of the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) is the engagement of patients and/or their representatives in conversations about treatment options including, but not limited to, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). However, qualitative research suggests that some ReSPECT conversations lead to partial or no decision-making about treatment recommendations. This paper explores why some ReSPECT conversations are left incomplete., Methods: Drawing on observation and interview data collected in four National Health Service (NHS) hospital sites in England, this paper offers an in-depth exploration of six case studies in which ReSPECT conversations were incomplete. Using thematic analysis, we triangulate fieldnote data documenting these conversations with interview data in which the doctors who conducted these conversations shared their perceptions and reflected on their decision-making processes., Results: We identified two themes, both focused on 'mismatch': (1) Mismatch between the doctor's clinical priorities and the patient's/family's immediate needs; and (2) mismatch between the doctor's conversation scripts, which included patient autonomy, the feasibility of CPR, and what medicine can and should do to prolong a patient's life, and the patient's/family's understandings of these concepts., Conclusions: This case study analysis of six ReSPECT conversations found that mismatch between doctors' priorities and understandings and those of patients and/or their relatives led to incomplete ReSPECT conversations. Future research should explore methods to overcome these mismatches., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: GDP and CAH are members of the ReSPECT national working group. A-MS, FG, CAH, and GDP received grants from the UK National Institute of Health Research during the study., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Purpose of Review: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a time-critical emergency in which a rapid response following the chain of survival is crucial to save life. Disparities in care can occur at each link in this pathway and hence produce health inequities. This review summarises the health inequities that exist for OHCA patients and suggests how they may be addressed., Recent Findings: There is international evidence that the incidence of OHCA is increased with increasing deprivation and in ethnic minorities. These groups have lower rates of bystander CPR and bystander-initiated defibrillation, which may be due to barriers in accessing cardiopulmonary resuscitation training, provision of public access defibrillators, and language barriers with emergency call handlers. There are also disparities in the ambulance response and in-hospital care following resuscitation. These disadvantaged communities have poorer survival following OHCA., Summary: OHCA disproportionately affects deprived communities and ethnic minorities. These groups experience disparities in care throughout the chain of survival and this appears to translate into poorer outcomes. Addressing these inequities will require coordinated action that engages with disadvantaged communities., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Claire A. Hawkes, Inès Kander, Terry P. Brown, Scott Booth, Abraham Contreras and Chen Ji, and Gavin D. Perkins are employed by the University of Warwick, which receives grants from the British Heart Foundation (BHF) and the Resuscitation Council (UK) for the conduct of the Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest outcomes project. Terry P. Brown is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands. A. Niroshan Siriwardena currently receives research funding from the NIHR, the Medical Research Council, Health and Care Research Wales, and Health Education England. Rachael T. Forthergill is employed by the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust. Estelle Stephenson is employed by the British Hearth Foundation. Gavin D. Perkins is an Editorial Board Member for Resuscitation Plus and is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands and Director of Research for the Intensive Care Foundation. The remaining authors have no disclosures to report. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, Department of Health and Social Care, the BHF, or the Resuscitation Council UK.

Background: Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) may be of benefit in ARDS due to immunomodulatory and reparative properties. This trial investigates a novel CD362 enriched umbilical cord derived MSC product (REALIST ORBCEL-C), produced to Good Manufacturing Practice standards, in patients with moderate to severe ARDS due to COVID-19 and ARDS due to other causes., Methods: Phase 1 is a multicentre open-label dose-escalation pilot trial. Patients will receive a single infusion of REALIST ORBCEL-C (100 × 10 6 cells, 200 × 10 6 cells or 400 × 10 6 cells) in a 3 + 3 design. Phase 2 is a multicentre randomised, triple blind, allocation concealed placebo-controlled trial. Two cohorts of patients, with ARDS due to COVID-19 or ARDS due to other causes, will be recruited and randomised 1:1 to receive either a single infusion of REALIST ORBCEL-C (400 × 10 6 cells or maximal tolerated dose in phase 1) or placebo. Planned recruitment to each cohort is 60 patients. The primary safety outcome is the incidence of serious adverse events. The primary efficacy outcome is oxygenation index at day 7. The trial will be reported according to the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT 2010) statement., Discussion: The development and manufacture of an advanced therapy medicinal product to Good Manufacturing Practice standards within NHS infrastructure are discussed, including challenges encountered during the early stages of trial set up. The rationale to include a separate cohort of patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 in phase 2 of the trial is outlined., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03042143. Registered on 3 February 2017. EudraCT Number 2017-000584-33., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

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

Background: 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.

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2022. Other selected articles can be found online at https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2022 . Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from https://link.springer.com/bookseries/8901 ., (© 2022. Perkins and Nolan.)

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.)

Background: Continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) are considered 'aerosol-generating procedures' in the treatment of COVID-19., Objective: To measure air and surface environmental contamination with SARS-CoV-2 virus when CPAP and HFNO are used, compared with supplemental oxygen, to investigate the potential risks of viral transmission to healthcare workers and patients., Methods: 30 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen, with a fraction of inspired oxygen ≥0.4 to maintain oxygen saturation ≥94%, were prospectively enrolled into an observational environmental sampling study. Participants received either supplemental oxygen, CPAP or HFNO (n=10 in each group). A nasopharyngeal swab, three air and three surface samples were collected from each participant and the clinical environment. Real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction analyses were performed for viral and human RNA, and positive/suspected-positive samples were cultured for the presence of biologically viable virus., Results: Overall 21/30 (70%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the nasopharynx. In contrast, only 4/90 (4%) and 6/90 (7%) of all air and surface samples tested positive (positive for E and ORF1a) for viral RNA respectively, although there were an additional 10 suspected-positive samples in both air and surfaces samples (positive for E or ORF1a). CPAP/HFNO use or coughing was not associated with significantly more environmental contamination than supplemental oxygen use. Only one nasopharyngeal sample was culture positive., Conclusions: The use of CPAP and HFNO to treat moderate/severe COVID-19 did not appear to be associated with substantially higher levels of air or surface viral contamination in the immediate care environment, compared with the use of supplemental oxygen., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© 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.

Background: This review is the latest in a series of regular annual reviews undertaken by the editors and aims to highlight some of the key papers published in Resuscitation during 2021., Methods: Hand-searching by the editors of all papers published in Resuscitation during 2021. Papers were selected based on then general interest and novelty and were categorised into themes., Results: 98 papers were selected for brief mention., Conclusions: Resuscitation science continues to evolve and incorporates all links in the chain of survival., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest JPN is Editor-in-Chief of Resuscitation. He is a co-investigator for two National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) funded studies: AIRWAYS-3 and PARAMEDIC-3. JPO, MJAP, GDP and JS are Editors of Resuscitation JPO serves as Cardiac Co-Chair for the National Institutes of Health-sponsored Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC). He serves as the Virginia Commonwealth University Principal Investigator for the National Institutes of Health-sponsored Neurological Emergency Treatment Trials Network (NETT). GDP is Co-Chair of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. He is Chief Investigator for the NIHR funded PARAMEDIC-3 trial. JS is Science Co-Chair of the Advanced Life Support Science and Education Committee of the European Resuscitation Council., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)