Search

his 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. 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.

Background: Pain is a common symptom among patients presenting to ambulance services and is often associated with traumatic injury. Assessment and management of pain in children in the pre-hospital setting is suboptimal. This study aimed to understand the facilitators and barriers experienced by paramedics in their assessment and management of pain in children who have sustained traumatic injuries.Methods: Face-to-face, audio-recorded semi-structured interviews using a piloted topic guide were conducted with paramedics employed by South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust. Interviews were professionally transcribed, coded manually and analysed using thematic analysis.Results: Eleven interviews were conducted; three themes related to assessment and three related to management were identified. Previous positive experiences of utilising pain scoring tools were identified as a facilitator to pain assessment, whereas a lack of confidence in using pain scoring tools was a barrier. Patients’ understanding of and compliance with the tools were both a facilitator and a barrier to assessment. Facilitators to management included personal sub-themes of colleagues/others, exposure, being a parent, technology, severity of the injury and subjective pain scoring. Organisational facilitators included medicines, routes, and alternative methods. Situational facilitators included patient-specific solutions and parents. Five personal barriers to management included medicines, skill, consequences to self or patient, negative interactions, and limited exposure. Three organisational barriers included medicines and routes, equipment issues and choices, and training and culture. Within the theme of situation, two sub-themes emerged: patient-specific issues and environment-specific issues. Novel facilitators to emerge were those of alternative methods and being a parent.Conclusion: A multitude of factors incorporating situational, organisational, and personal all combine to determine how paramedics treat paediatric trauma patients. A multi-stakeholder approach to providing clearer assessment tools, improved education, equipment, and pharmacy options may improve assessment and management compliance for the benefit of the patient.

These European Resuscitation Council Advanced Life Support guidelines are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidelines on the prevention of and ALS treatments for both in-hospital cardiac arrest and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Informed by a series of systematic reviews, scoping reviews and evidence updates from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, the 2021 European Resuscitation Council Guidelines present the most up to date evidence-based guidelines for the practice of resuscitation across Europe. The guidelines cover the epidemiology of cardiac arrest; the role that systems play in saving lives, adult basic life support, adult advanced life support, resuscitation in special circumstances, post resuscitation care, first aid, neonatal life support, paediatric life support, ethics and education.

These European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Cardiac Arrest in Special Circumstances guidelines are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidelines on the modifications required to basic and advanced life support for the prevention and treatment of cardiac arrest in special circumstances; specifically special causes (hypoxia, trauma, anaphylaxis, sepsis, hypo/hyperkalaemia and other electrolyte disorders, hypothermia, avalanche, hyperthermia and malignant hyperthermia, pulmonary embolism, coronary thrombosis, cardiac tamponade, tension pneumothorax, toxic agents), special settings (operating room, cardiac surgery, catheter laboratory, dialysis unit, dental clinics, transportation (in-flight, cruise ships), sport, drowning, mass casualty incidents), and special patient groups (asthma and COPD, neurological disease, obesity, pregnancy).

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

An inadvertent consequence of advances in stem cell research, neuroscience, and resuscitation science has been to enable scientific insights regarding what happens to the human brain in relation to death. The scientific exploration of death is in large part possible due to the recognition that brain cells are more resilient to the effects of anoxia than assumed. Hence, brain cells become irreversibly damaged and "die" over hours to days postmortem. Resuscitation science has enabled life to be restored to millions of people after their hearts had stopped. These survivors have described a unique set of recollections in relation to death that appear universal. We review the literature, with a focus on death, the recalled experiences in relation to cardiac arrest, post-intensive care syndrome, and related phenomena that provide insights into potential mechanisms, ethical implications, and methodologic considerations for systematic investigation. We also identify issues and controversies related to the study of consciousness and the recalled experience of cardiac arrest and death in subjects who have been in a coma, with a view to standardize and facilitate future research.

More than 300 000 procedures are performed in cardiac catheter laboratories in the UK each year. The variety and complexity of percutaneous cardiovascular procedures have both increased substantially since the early days of invasive cardiology, when it was largely focused on elective coronary angiography and single chamber (right ventricular) permanent pacemaker implantation. Modern-day invasive cardiology encompasses primary percutaneous coronary intervention, cardiac resynchronisation therapy, complex arrhythmia ablation and structural heart interventions. These procedures all carry the risk of cardiac arrest.We have developed evidence-based guidelines for the management of cardiac arrest in adult patients in the catheter laboratory. The guidelines include recommendations which were developed by collaboration between nine professional and patient societies that are involved in promoting high-quality care for patients with cardiovascular conditions. We present a set of protocols which use the skills of the whole catheter laboratory team and which are aimed at achieving the best possible outcomes for patients who suffer a cardiac arrest in this setting. We identified six roles and developed a treatment algorithm which should be adopted during cardiac arrest in the catheter laboratory. We recommend that all catheter laboratory staff undergo regular training for these emergency situations which they will inevitably face.

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

This2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendationsfor advanced life support includes updates on multiple advanced life support topics addressed with 3 different types of reviews. Topics were prioritized on the basis of both recent interest within the resuscitation community and the amount of new evidence available since any previous review. Systematic reviews addressed higher-priority topics, and included double-sequential defibrillation, intravenous versus intraosseous route for drug administration during cardiac arrest, point-of-care echocardiography for intra-arrest prognostication, cardiac arrest caused by pulmonary embolism, postresuscitation oxygenation and ventilation, prophylactic antibiotics after resuscitation, postresuscitation seizure prophylaxis and treatment, and neuroprognostication. New or updated treatment recommendations on these topics are presented. Scoping reviews were conducted for anticipatory charging and monitoring of physiological parameters during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Topics for which systematic reviews and new Consensuses on Science With Treatment Recommendations were completed since 2015 are also summarized here. All remaining topics reviewed were addressed with evidence updates to identify any new evidence and to help determine which topics should be the highest priority for systematic reviews in the next 1 to 2 years.

Introduction Cardiac arrests associated with shockable rhythms such as ventricular fibrillation or pulseless VT (VF/pVT) are associated with improved outcomes from cardiac arrest. The more defibrillation attempts required to terminate VF/pVT, the lower the survival. Double sequential defibrillation (DSD) has been used for refractory VF/pVT cardiac arrest despite limited evidence examining this practice. We performed a systematic review to summarize the evidence related to the use of DSD during cardiac arrest. Methods This review was performed according to PRISMA and registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020152575). We searched Embase, Pubmed, and the Cochrane library from inception to 28 February 2020. We included adult patients with VF/pVT in any setting. We excluded case studies, case series with less than five patients, conference abstracts, simulation studies, and protocols for clinical trials. We predefined our outcomes of interest as neurological outcome, survival to hospital discharge, survival to hospital admission, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and termination of VF/pVT. Risk of bias was examined using ROBINS-I or ROB-2 and certainty of studies were reported according to GRADE methodology. Results Overall, 314 studies were identified during the initial search. One hundred and thirty studies were screened during title and abstract stage and 10 studies underwent full manuscript screening, nine included in the final analysis. Included studies were cohort studies (n = 4), case series (n = 3), case-control study (n = 1) and a prospective pilot clinical trial (n−1). All studies were considered to have serious or critical risk of bias and no meta-analysis was performed. Overall, we did not find any differences in terms of neurological outcome, survival to hospital discharge, survival to hospital admission, ROSC, or termination of VF/pVT between DSD and a standard defibrillation strategy. Conclusion The use of double sequential defibrillation was not associated with improved outcomes from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, however the current literature has a number of limitations to interpretation. Further high-quality evidence is needed to answer this important question.

Introduction Public access defibrillation is a key component of the early links in the chain of survival. Despite growing numbers of PADs in the community, actual use remains poor, partly because of the difficulties in locating the nearest PAD. We aimed to establish the cover that would be provided if PADs were located in any given building type, which would enable the public to know where the nearest PAD was located. Methods Mapping software was used to classify each and every building type in the South Central Ambulance Service region. The 52 commonest building types were then mapped to all cardiac arrest calls in the same geographical area from Jan 2014 - July 2018. The walking distance from each cardiac arrest to each nearest building type was calculated. Results A total of 22,382 cardiac arrests were mapped to a total of 24,155 buildings considered suitable for potential PAD location. Post boxes ranked first in both urban and rural areas, covering 11.7% of cardiac arrests at 100 m and 85.6% of cardiac arrests at 500 m. In urban areas, bus shelters and telephone boxes also provided good coverage (9.7%, 9.5% @ 100 m; 69.2%, 71.9% @ 500 m respectively). In rural areas, good coverage was provided by nursing/care homes and pubs/bars (4.9%, 4.6% @ 100 m; 15.2%, 31.8% @ 500 m respectively). Conclusion Locating PADs at all post boxes would provide the most effective geographical coverage in both urban and rural areas according to building type. This may be an effective strategy to improve rapid PAD locating.

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

Aim\ud To determine the optimal first-shock energy level for biphasic defibrillation and whether fixed or escalating protocols for subsequent shocks are most effective.\ud \ud Methods\ud 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.\ud \ud Results\ud 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.\ud \ud Conclusion\ud 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.

Introduction: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest trials can prove challenging and there is a need to share learning from those that have recruited successfully. We have just completed three years of recruitment to PARAMEDIC2, a placebo-controlled trial of adrenaline in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This study was designed to describe the experience of operational ambulance staff involved in recruiting patients into PARAMEDIC2.Methods: Four focus groups involving trial paramedics and supporting members of the emergency care team were conducted across different geographical regions of a single UK ambulance service participating in the PARAMEDIC2 study. Data analysis was supported by NVivo 12 and themes were identified using a thematic analysis approach.Results: Forty-four participants contributed to the focus groups. Four overarching themes were identified: context for the research, ethical concerns, concerns at the patient’s side and ongoing trial support. Participants felt that research such as PARAMEDIC2 is important and necessary to drive medical progress. They valued the opportunity to be part of a large project. Due to the deferred consent model employed, public awareness of the trial was felt to be important. Most expressed equipoise regarding adrenaline, but some felt concerned about enrolling younger patients and there was discussion around what constitutes a successful outcome. Struggles with ethical concerns were overcome through training and one-to-one discussion with research paramedics. Participants valued feedback on their performance of trial tasks, but also wanted feedback on their resuscitation skills. Cardiac arrest places a high cognitive demand on paramedics; simplicity and reinforcement of trial processes were key to facilitating recruitment. Caring for relatives was a high priority for paramedics and some felt conflicted about not discussing the trial with them.Conclusions: This study has provided insights into paramedic experience of a large-scale pre-hospital trial. Investment in time and resource to provide face-to-face training and personalised feedback to paramedics can foster engagement and optimise performance.

Background:\ud Early defibrillation is an essential element of the chain of survival for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Public access defibrillation (PAD) programmes aim to place automated external defibrillators (AED) in areas with high OHCA incidence, but there is sometimes a mismatch between AED density and OHCA incidence.\ud Objectives\ud \ud This study aimed to assess whether there were any disparities in the characteristics of areas that have an AED and those that do not in England.\ud \ud Methods:\ud Details of the location of AEDs registered with English Ambulance Services were obtained from individual services or internet sources. Neighbourhood characteristics of lower layer super output areas (LSOA) were obtained from the Office for National Statistics. Comparisons were made between LSOAs with and without a registered AED.\ud \ud Results:\ud AEDs were statistically more likely to be in LSOAs with a lower residential but higher workplace population density, with people predominantly from a white ethnic background and working in higher socio-economically classified occupations (p < 0.05). There was a significant correlation between AED coverage and the LSOA Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) (r = 0.79, p = 0.007), with only 27.4% in the lowest IMD decile compared to about 45% in highest. AED density varied significantly across the country from 0.82/km2 in the north east to 2.97/km2 in London.\ud \ud Conclusions:\ud In England, AEDs were disproportionately placed in more affluent areas, with a lower residential population density. This contrasts with locations where OHCAs have previously occurred. Future PAD programmes should give preference to areas of higher deprivation and be tailored to the local community.

Aims In-hospital cardiac arrests are often preceded by a period of physiological deterioration that has often gone unnoticed. We proposed that the same might be true for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) where ambulance crews leave patients at home who then subsequently go on to suffer a cardiac arrest. Methods and results We identified all OHCA over a 12-month period that had been seen and assessed by an ambulance crew within the 48 h preceding their cardiac arrest. We retrospectively calculated the patient’s NEWS2 score at the time of their initial assessment as a marker of their physiological status and need for hospital admission. Of 1960 OHCA patients, 184 (9.4%) had been assessed by ambulance crews within the preceding 48 h. Excluding those who had been taken to hospital (and then discharged), declined hospital conveyance or were on end-of-life care pathways, 79 (56% of total) were left at home through crew discretion. Thirty-four out of 79 (43%) patients not conveyed had either a NEWS score of 3 in a single parameter or a score of ≥5, which in hospital would mandate an urgent medical review. The most overlooked observation was respiratory rate. Conclusions In total, 1.7% of all OHCA had been assessed in the previous 48 h and inappropriately left at home by ambulance crews. This represents a missed opportunity to avert cardiac arrest. NEWS scoring has the potential to improve pre-hospital triage of these patients and avoid missing the deteriorating patient.

Purpose Oxygen supplementation has previously been considered beneficial when managing critically ill patients in order to avoid hypoxia. However, in recent years, studies have shown that hyperoxia may be harmful in critical care patients. The aim of the study was to investigate whether hyperoxia within the first 24 hours of admission following major trauma is associated with 30-day in-hospital mortality. Patients and methods We conducted a retrospective database study of trauma patients admitted to the general intensive care unit at University Hospital Southampton from October 2008 to October 2014. Hyperoxia was defined as one arterial blood gas with a pO2 ≥40.0 kPa during the first 24 hours of admission. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare 30-day in-hospital mortality between the two groups. HRs for death were calculated with 95% CIs and presented as both unadjusted and adjusted for age, sex, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score and number of arterial blood gases. Results In total, 1,462 patients had trauma as the cause for admission. Of these, 343 patients met the study inclusion criteria, of which 265 were defined as normoxic and the remaining 78 patients as hyperoxic. The cumulative in-hospital risk of death within 30 days was 7.8% (95% CI: 4.9%-12.5%) for the normoxia group and 9.7% (95% CI: 4.4 %-20.4%) for the hyperoxia group. The crude HR for 30-day in-hospital mortality was 1.15 (95% CI: 0.45-2.90) for hyperoxia compared to normoxia. Adjusting for APACHE II, age, sex and number of arterial blood gases yielded an adjusted HR of 30-day in-hospital mortality of 0.65 (95% CI: 0.24-1.73) for the hyperoxia group compared to the normoxia group. Conclusion In our convenience sample of 343 patients, hyperoxia within the first 24 hours following admission to intensive care with major trauma had no impact on 30-day in-hospital mortality.

Background Adrenaline has been used as a treatment for cardiac arrest for many years, despite uncertainty about its effects on long-term outcomes and concerns that it may cause worse neurological outcomes. Objectives The objectives were to evaluate the effects of adrenaline on survival and neurological outcomes, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of adrenaline use. Design This was a pragmatic, randomised, allocation-concealed, placebo-controlled, parallel-group superiority trial and economic evaluation. Costs are expressed in Great British pounds and reported in 2016/17 prices. Setting This trial was set in five NHS ambulance services in England and Wales. Participants Adults treated for an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were included. Patients were ineligible if they were pregnant, if they were aged Interventions Participants were randomised to either adrenaline (1 mg) or placebo in a 1 : 1 allocation ratio by the opening of allocation-concealed treatment packs. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was survival to 30 days. The secondary outcomes were survival to hospital admission, survival to hospital discharge, survival at 3, 6 and 12 months, neurological outcomes and health-related quality of life through to 6 months. The economic evaluation assessed the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. Participants, clinical teams and those assessing patient outcomes were masked to the treatment allocation. Results From December 2014 to October 2017, 8014 participants were assigned to the adrenaline (n = 4015) or to the placebo (n = 3999) arm. At 30 days, 130 out of 4012 participants (3.2%) in the adrenaline arm and 94 out of 3995 (2.4%) in the placebo arm were alive (adjusted odds ratio for survival 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.97). For secondary outcomes, survival to hospital admission was higher for those receiving adrenaline than for those receiving placebo (23.6% vs. 8.0%; adjusted odds ratio 3.83, 95% confidence interval 3.30 to 4.43). The rate of favourable neurological outcome at hospital discharge was not significantly different between the arms (2.2% vs. 1.9%; adjusted odds ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.68). The pattern of improved survival but no significant improvement in neurological outcomes continued through to 6 months. By 12 months, survival in the adrenaline arm was 2.7%, compared with 2.0% in the placebo arm (adjusted odds ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.92). An adjusted subgroup analysis did not identify significant interactions. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for adrenaline was estimated at £1,693,003 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the first 6 months after the cardiac arrest event and £81,070 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the lifetime of survivors. Additional economic analyses estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for adrenaline at £982,880 per percentage point increase in overall survival and £377,232 per percentage point increase in neurological outcomes over the first 6 months after the cardiac arrest. Limitations The estimate for survival with a favourable neurological outcome is imprecise because of the small numbers of patients surviving with a good outcome. Conclusions Adrenaline improved long-term survival, but there was no evidence that it significantly improved neurological outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year exceeds the threshold of £20,000–30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year usually supported by the NHS. Future work Further research is required to better understand patients’ preferences in relation to survival and neurological outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and to aid interpretation of the trial findings from a patient and public perspective. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73485024 and EudraCT 2014-000792-11. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

These European Resuscitation Council Advanced Life Support guidelines, are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidelines on the prevention of and ALS treatments for both in-hospital cardiac arrest and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

BackgroundThe early identification of deterioration in suspected COVID-19 patients managed at home enables a more timely clinical intervention, which is likely to translate into improved outcomes. We undertook an analysis of COVID-19 patients conveyed by ambulance to hospital to investigate how oxygen saturation and measurements of other vital signs correlate to patient outcomes, to ascertain if clinical deterioration can be predicted with simple community physiological monitoring.MethodsA retrospective analysis of routinely collected clinical data relating to patients conveyed to hospital by ambulance was undertaken. We used descriptive statistics and predictive analytics to investigate how vital signs, measured at home by ambulance staff from the South Central Ambulance Service, correlate to patient outcomes. Information on patient comorbidities was obtained by linking the recorded vital sign measurements to the patient’s electronic health record at the Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. ROC analysis was performed using cross-validation to evaluate, in a retrospective fashion, the efficacy of different variables in predicting patient outcomes.ResultsWe identified 1,080 adults with a COVID-19 diagnosis who were conveyed by ambulance to either Basingstoke & North Hampshire Hospital or the Royal Hampshire County Hospital (Winchester) between March 1st and July 31st and whose diagnosis was clinically confirmed at hospital discharge. Vital signs measured by ambulance staff at first point of contact in the community correlated with patient short-term mortality or ICU admission. Oxygen saturations were the most predictive of mortality or ICU admission (AUROC 0.772 (95 % CI: 0.712-0.833)), followed by the NEWS2 score (AUROC 0.715 (95 % CI: 0.670-0.760), patient age (AUROC 0.690 (95 % CI: 0.642-0.737)), and respiration rate (AUROC 0.662 (95 % CI: 0.599-0.729)). Combining age with the NEWS2 score (AUROC 0.771 (95 % CI: 0.718-0.824)) or the measured oxygen saturation (AUROC 0.820 (95 % CI: 0.785-0.854)) increased the predictive ability but did not reach significance.ConclusionsInitial oxygen saturation measurements (on air) for confirmed COVID-19 patients conveyed by ambulance correlated with short-term (30-day) patient mortality or ICU admission, AUROC: 0.772 (95% CI: 0.712-0.833). We found that even small deflections in oxygen saturations of 1-2% below 96% confer an increased mortality risk in those with confirmed COVID at their initial community assessments.

This 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations for advanced life support includes updates on multiple advanced life support topics addressed with 3 different types of reviews. Topics were prioritized on the basis of both recent interest within the resuscitation community and the amount of new evidence available since any previous review. Systematic reviews addressed higher-priority topics, and included double-sequential defibrillation, intravenous versus intraosseous route for drug administration during cardiac arrest, point-of-care echocardiography for intra-arrest prognostication, cardiac arrest caused by pulmonary embolism, postresuscitation oxygenation and ventilation, prophylactic antibiotics after resuscitation, postresuscitation seizure prophylaxis and treatment, and neuroprognostication. New or updated treatment recommendations on these topics are presented. Scoping reviews were conducted for anticipatory charging and monitoring of physiological parameters during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Topics for which systematic reviews and new Consensuses on Science With Treatment Recommendations were completed since 2015 are also summarized here. All remaining topics reviewed were addressed with evidence updates to identify any new evidence and to help determine which topics should be the highest priority for systematic reviews in the next 1 to 2 years.

Aim\ud To assess and evaluate patient safety incidents and in particular, medication errors, during a large multi-centre pre-hospital trial of emergency therapy (PARAMEDIC2), in order to inform and improve future pre-hospital medicines trials.\ud Methods\ud The PARAMEDIC2 trial was undertaken across five NHS Ambulance Services in England and Wales with randomisation between December 2014 and October 2017. Patients with an out -of-hospital cardiac arrest unresponsive to initial resuscitation were randomly assigned to 1 mg intravenous adrenaline or matching placebo. Records were reviewed to identify trial medication errors involving documentation and/or clinical protocol errors occurring in trial participants. Causes of medication errors, including root cause analysis where available, were reviewed to identify patterns and themes contributing to these errors.\ud Results\ud 8,016 patients were enrolled, of whom 4902 received trial medication. 'A total of 331 patient safety incidents was reported, involving 295 patients, representing an overall rate of 3.6% Of these, 166 (50.2%) were documentation errors while 165 (49.8%) were clinical protocol/medication errors. An overall rate of 0-4.5% was reported across all five ambulance services, with a mean of 2.0%. These errors had no impact on patient care or the trial and were all resolved\ud Conclusion\ud The overall medication error rate of 1.8 % primarily consisted of administration of open-label adrenaline and confusion with trial medication packs. A similar number of patients had documentation errors. This study is the first to provide data on patient safety incidents relating to medication errors encountered during a pre-hospital trial of emergency medication administration and will provide supporting data for planning future trials in this area.

Background The ‘Prehospital Assessment of the Role of Adrenaline: Measuring the Effectiveness of Drug Administration In Cardiac Arrest’ (PARAMEDIC2) trial showed that adrenaline improves overall survival, but not neurological outcomes. We sought to determine the within-trial and lifetime health and social care costs and benefits associated with adrenaline, including secondary benefits from organ donation. Methods We estimated the costs, benefits (quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) associated with adrenaline during the 6-month trial follow-up. Model-based analyses explored how results altered when the time horizon was extended beyond 6 months and the scope extended to include recipients of donated organs. Results The within-trial (6 months) and lifetime horizon economic evaluations focussed on the trial population produced ICERs of £1,693,003 (€1,946,953) and £81,070 (€93,231) per QALY gained in 2017 prices, respectively, reflecting significantly higher mean costs and only marginally higher mean QALYs in the adrenaline group. The probability that adrenaline is cost-effective was less than 1% across a range of cost-effectiveness thresholds. Combined direct economic effects over the lifetimes of survivors and indirect economic effects in organ recipients produced an ICER of £16,086 (€18,499) per QALY gained for adrenaline with the probability that adrenaline is cost-effective increasing to 90% at a £30,000 (€34,500) per QALY cost-effectiveness threshold. Conclusions Adrenaline was not cost-effective when only directly related costs and consequences are considered. However, incorporating the indirect economic effects associated with transplanted organs substantially alters cost-effectiveness, suggesting decision-makers should consider the complexity of direct and indirect economic impacts of adrenaline. Trial registration ISRCTN73485024. Registered on 13 March 2014.

ObjectiveTo identify the factors that shape and characterise experiences of prehospital practitioners (PHPs), families and bystanders in the context of death and dying outside of the hospital environment where PHPs respond.DesignA scoping review using Arksey and O’Malley’s five-stage framework. Papers were analysed using thematic analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; Scopus; Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science), ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I (Proquest), Health Technology Assessment database; PsycINFO; Grey Literature Report and PapersFirst were searched from January 2000 to May 2019.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesQualitative and mixed methods studies reporting the experiences of PHPs, families and bystanders of death and dying in prehospital settings as a result of natural causes, trauma, suicide and homicide, >18 years of age, in Europe, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.ResultsSearches identified 15 352 papers of which 51 met the inclusion criteria. The review found substantial evidence of PHP experiences, except call handlers, and papers reporting family and bystander experiences were limited. PHP work was varied and complex, while confident in clinical work, they felt less equipped to deal with the emotion work, especially with an increasing role in palliative and end-of-life care. Families and bystanders reported generally positive experiences but their support needs were rarely explored.ConclusionsTo the best of our knowledge this is the first review that explores the experiences of PHPs, families and bystanders. An important outcome is identifying current gaps in knowledge where further empirical research is needed. The paucity of evidence suggested by this review on call handlers, families and bystanders presents opportunities to investigate their experiences in greater depth. Further research to address the current knowledge gaps will be important to inform future policy and practice.

Aims We recently reported early outcomes in patients enrolled in a randomised trial of adrenaline in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the PARAMEDIC2 (Prehospital Assessment of the Role of Adrenaline: Measuring the Effectiveness of Drug Administration in Cardiac Arrest) trial. The purpose of the present paper is to report long-term survival, quality of life, functional and cognitive outcomes at 3, 6 and 12-months. Methods PARAMEDIC2 was a pragmatic, individually randomised, double blind, controlled trial with an economic evaluation. Patients were randomised to either adrenaline or placebo. This paper reports results on the modified Rankin Scale scores at 6-months, survival at 6 and 12-months, as well as other cognitive, functional and quality of life outcomes collected at 3 and 6 months (Two Simple Questions, the Mini Mental State Examination, the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline Evaluation for Cardiac Arrest, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist - Civilian Version, Short-Form 12-item Health Survey and the EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L). Results 8014 patients were randomised with confirmed trial drug administration. At 6-months, 78 (2.0%) of the patients in the adrenaline group and 58 (1.5%) of patients in the placebo group had a favourable neurological outcome (adjusted odds ratio 1.35 [95% confidence interval: 0.93, 1.97]). 117 (2.9%) patients were alive at 6-months in the adrenaline group compared with 86 (2.2%) in the placebo group (1.43 [1.05, 1.96], reducing to 107 (2.7%) and 80 (2.0%) respectively at 12-months (1.38 [1.00, 1.92]). Measures of 3 and 6-month cognitive, functional and quality of life outcomes were reduced, but there was no strong evidence of differences between groups. Conclusion Adrenaline improved survival through to 12-months follow-up. The study did not find evidence of improvements in favourable neurological outcomes. (ISCRTN 73485024)

Purpose To examine the time to drug administration in patients with a witnessed cardiac arrest enrolled in the Pre-Hospital Assessment of the Role of Adrenaline: Measuring the Effectiveness of Drug Administration in Cardiac Arrest (PARAMEDIC2) randomised controlled trial. Methods The PARAMEDIC2 trial was undertaken across 5 NHS ambulance services in England and Wales with randomisation between December 2014 and October 2017. Patients with an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who were unresponsive to initial resuscitation attempts were randomly assigned to 1 mg intravenous adrenaline or matching placebo according to treatment packs that were identical apart from treatment number. Participants and study staff were masked to treatment allocation. Results 8016 patients were enrolled, 4902 sustained a witnessed cardiac arrest of whom 2437 received placebo and 2465 received adrenaline. The odds of return of spontaneous circulation decreased in both groups over time but at a greater rate in the placebo arm odds ratio (OR) 0.93 (95% CI 0.92–0.95) compared with the adrenaline arm OR 0.96 (95% CI 0.95–0.97); interaction OR: 1.03, 95% CI 1.01–1.05, p = 0.005. By contrast, although the rate of survival and favourable neurological outcome decreased as time to treatment increased, the rates did not differ between the adrenaline and placebo groups. Conclusion The rate of return of spontaneous circulation, survival and favourable neurological outcomes decrease over time. As time to drug treatment increases, adrenaline increases the chances of return of spontaneous circulation. Longer term outcomes were not affected by the time to adrenaline administration. (ISRCTN73485024). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-019-05836-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BACKGROUND: Some resuscitation services advocate or teach routine manual defibrillator charging prior to a rhythm check during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.OBJECTIVES: We aimed to review the evidence for anticipatory defibrillator charging compared with charging after a shockable rhythm is confirmed.METHODS: This scoping review was performed according to a specific methodological framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Grey literature was also reviewed using similar methodology and included in the results.RESULTS: There are no randomized clinical trials studying anticipatory manual defibrillator charging. The limited available data does not address critical or important patient outcomes such as defibrillation success, return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge or neurological outcomes. Evidence primarily from manikin studies and the grey literature suggests that anticipatory charging is feasible, safe, and can reduce the total pause duration during the period of chest compression between rhythm checks, but can increase the pre-shock pause and total peri-shock pause duration.CONCLUSIONS: Anticipatory manual defibrillator charging appears to be feasible in the clinical setting, although its impact on clinical outcomes is uncertain. Future studies of anticipatory charging should focus on clinical outcomes.

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

Background Early defibrillation is a critical link in the chain of survival. Public access defibrillation (PAD) programmes utilising automated external defibrillators (AEDs) aim to decrease the time-to-first-shock, and improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Effective use of PADs requires rapid location of the device, facilitated by adequate signage. We aimed to therefore assess the quality of signage for PADs in the community. Method From April 2017 to January 2018 we surveyed community PADs available for public use on the ‘Save a Life’ AED locator mobile application in and around Southampton, UK. Location and signage characteristics were collected, and the distance from the furthest sign to the AED was measured. Results Researchers evaluated 201 separate PADs. All devices visited were included in the final analysis. No signage at all was present for 135 (67.2%) devices. Only 15/201 (7.5%) AEDs had signage at a distance from AED itself. In only 5 of these cases (2.5%) was signage mounted more than 5.0 m from the AED. When signage was present, 46 used 2008 ILCOR signage and 15 used 2006 Resuscitation Council (UK) signage. Signage visibility was partially or severely obstructed at 27/66 (40.9%) sites. None of the 45 GP surgeries surveyed used exterior signage or an exterior 24/7 access box. Conclusions Current signage of PADs is poor and limits the device effectiveness by impeding public awareness and location of AEDs. Recommendations should promote visible signage within the operational radius of each AED.

Background Oxygen has long been assumed beneficial for all ill and injured patients. However, hyperoxia may be harmful and aggravate myocardial injury such as that caused by myocardial infarction. We aimed to investigate if hyperoxia increases myocardial injury following direct current cardioversion compared with room air. Methods Patients undergoing elective biphasic cardioversion for atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter were randomized to receive room air or oxygen (10–15 L/min) during the procedure. The primary endpoint was the difference in high-sensitive Troponin I (hs-cTnI) and -T (hs-cTnT) measured 2 hours before and 4 hours after cardioversion. Secondary endpoints were differences in Copeptin and NT-pro-BNP. Results A total of 65 patients were randomized to high-flow oxygen (male: 71%, mean age 66.9 years) and 59 patients to room air (male: 80%, mean age 65.5 years). There was no difference in hs-cTnI between patients treated with oxygen compared to patients treated with room air (P = .09) and no significant difference for hs-cTnT, ratio 1.08 (95% CI: 0.99–1.18) (P = .09). Median hs-cTnI difference before and after cardioversion was 0.1 (interquartile range (IQR): −0.5 to 0.5) ng/L for the high-flow oxygen group and −0.3 (IQR: −1.1 to 0.4) ng/L for the room air group. There was no difference in Copeptin between patients treated with oxygen compared to room air (ratio 1.06 (95% CI: 0.89–1.27) (P = .51) or NT-pro-BNP (difference− 6.0 ng/L (95% CI: −78.5 to 66.6) P = .87). Conclusion Direct current cardioversion of atrial fibrillation/flutter with and without high-flow oxygen supplement was not associated with myocardial injury evaluated by high sensitive myocardial biomarkers.

AIM: \ud \ud To assess the cost-effectiveness of LUCAS-2, a mechanical device for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) as compared to manual chest compressions in adults with non-traumatic, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.\ud \ud METHODS: \ud \ud We analysed patient-level data from a large, pragmatic, multi-centre trial linked to administrative secondary care data from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) to measure healthcare resource use, costs and outcomes in both arms. A within-trial analysis using quality adjusted life years derived from the EQ-5D-3L was conducted at 12-month follow-up and results were extrapolated to the lifetime horizon using a decision-analytic model.\ud \ud RESULTS: \ud \ud 4471 patients were enrolled in the trial (1652 assigned to the LUCAS-2 group, 2819 assigned to the control group). At 12 months, 89 (5%) patients survived in the LUCAS-2 group and 175 (6%) survived in the manual CPR group. In the vast majority of analyses conducted, both within-trial and by extrapolation of the results over a lifetime horizon, manual CPR dominates LUCAS-2. In other words, patients in the LUCAS-2 group had poorer health outcomes (i.e. lower QALYs) and incurred higher health and social care costs.\ud \ud CONCLUSION: \ud \ud Our study demonstrates that the use of the mechanical chest compression device LUCAS-2 represents poor value for money when compared to standard manual chest compression in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Introduction\ud \ud This study reports the epidemiology and outcomes from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in England during 2014.\ud \ud Methods\ud \ud Prospective observational study from the national OHCA registry. The incidence, demographic and outcomes of patients who were treated for an OHCA between 1st January 2014 and 31st December 2014 in 10 English ambulance service (EMS) regions, serving a population of almost 54 million, are reported in accordance with Utstein recommendations.\ud \ud Results\ud \ud 28,729 OHCA cases of EMS treated cardiac arrests were reported (53 per 100,000 of resident population). The mean age was 68.6 (SD = 19.6) years and 41.3% were female. Most (83%) occurred in a place of residence, 52.7% were witnessed by either the EMS or a bystander. In non-EMS witnessed cases, 55.2% received bystander CPR whilst public access defibrillation was used rarely (2.3%). Cardiac aetiology was the leading cause of cardiac arrest (60.9%). The initial rhythm was asystole in 42.4% of all cases and was shockable (VF or pVT) in 20.6%. Return of spontaneous circulation at hospital transfer was evident in 25.8% (n = 6302) and survival to hospital discharge was 7.9%.\ud \ud Conclusion\ud \ud Cardiac arrest is an important cause of death in England. With less than one in ten patients surviving, there is scope to improve outcomes. Survival rates were highest amongst those who received bystander CPR and public access defibrillation.

The chain of survival aims to demonstrate the interrelationship between key stages of resuscitation and emphasises the need for all links to be effective in order to optimise the chances of survival. The contribution of each of the four links diminishes rapidly as patients succumb at each stage and the actual attrition rate results in rapidly decreasing numbers of patients progressing along the chain. This revised representation adjusts the area of each link in order to graphically represent the flow of patients through the chain. Greatest benefit in improving outcome will be achieved by focussing on improving care at links in the chain where there is the greatest number of patients.