European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015: Section 3. Adult advanced life support

Airway management in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Finland: current practices and outcomes

Background

Though airway management methods during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remain controversial, no studies on the topic from Finland have examined adherence to OHCA recommendations in real life. In response, the aim of this study was to document the interventions, success rates, and adverse events in airway management processes in OHCA, as well as to analyse survival at hospital discharge and at follow-up a year later.

Methods

During a 6-month study period in 2010, data regarding all patients with OHCA and attempted resuscitation in southern and eastern Finland were prospectively collected. Emergency medical services (EMS) documented the airway techniques used and all adverse events related to the process. Study endpoints included the frequency of different techniques used, their success rates, methods used to verify the correct placement of the endotracheal tube, overall adverse events, and survival at hospital discharge and at follow-up a year later.

Results

A total of 614 patients were included in the study. The incidence of EMS-attempted resuscitation was determined to be 51/100,000 inhabitants per year. The final airway technique was endotracheal intubation (ETI) in 413 patients (67.3 %) and supraglottic airway device (SAD) in 188 patients (30.2 %). The overall success rate of ETI was 92.5 %, whereas that of SAD was 85.0 %. Adverse events were reported in 167 of the patients (27.2 %). Having a prehospital EMS physician on the scene (p < .001, OR 5.05, 95 % CI 2.94–8.68), having a primary shockable rhythm (p < .001, OR 5.23, 95 % CI 3.05–8.98), and being male (p = .049, OR 1.80, 95 % CI 1.00–3.22) were predictors for survival at hospital discharge.

Conclusions

This study showed acceptable ETI and SAD success rates among Finnish patients with OHCA. Adverse events related to airway management were observed in more than 25 % of patients, and overall survival was 17.8 % at hospital discharge and 14.0 % after 1 year.

Barriers in the implementation of the Resuscitation Guidelines: European survey of defibrillation techniques

Background

The European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Guidelines recommend providing chest compressions during defibrillator charging and using adhesive pads for defibrillation to increase the effectiveness of resuscitation. However, the most common defibrillation technique in each European country is unknown, as are the potential barriers in implementation of the guidelines. The aim of this study was to assess the techniques of defibrillation procedures performed by professional European healthcare providers and to estimate how frequently adhesive pads are used.

Methods

We sent an online questionnaire to the ERC National Representatives that contained 12 questions regarding the techniques of defibrillation and monitoring heart rhythm during cardiac arrest. We also evaluated the frequency and indications of manual paddles use.

Results

We collected questionnaires from 27 out of 33 invited ERC member countries. The response rate was 82 %. Seventeen (17/27; 63 %) declared the use of adhesive pads. The leading cause for not using adhesive pads was economic reason (9/17; 53 %). Some respondents declared resistance to using adhesive pads by healthcare providers or tradition connected with manual paddles use. We found three leading techniques of defibrillation with manual paddles: Charging paddles keeping them on the defibrillator during chest compressions being delivered (9/21; 43 %), Charging paddles keeping them on the patient chest during chest compressions being delivered (6/21; 29 %), Charging paddles on the patient chest without chest compressions (5/21; 24 %). Respondents from 11 countries declared the use of gel or electrode pastes during defibrillation with manual paddles.

Discussion

This study collected preliminary data showing how defibrillation is performed in Europe. It revealed the recommeded techniques underuse and identyfied barriers in the Resuscitation Guidelines implementation. The survey should be open to a wider group of respondents. in each country in future.

Conclusions

There are limitations and barriers in the implementation of the defibrillation technique guidelines. There are still countries where the use of adhesive pads is low due to economic and traditional reasons. There is a need for further efforts focused on guidelines implementation.

[New guidelines on resuscitation in adults: What has changed?]

In October 2015, new guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) were published, which represent a revision of the guidelines 2010. The new recommendations are based on an update of knowledge on resuscitation, which was evaluated for the first time by GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). The key messages of the guidelines 2010 were retained in 2015. Adult basic life support consists of a sequence of 30 chest compressions at a rate of 100-120/min with a depth of 5 to maximally 6 cm and 2 ventilations. As soon as possible, an automated external defibrillator (AED) should be applied. Interruptions of chest compressions should be minimized. To improve bystander CPR emergency medical dispatchers should diagnose cardiac arrest when informed about unconscious persons not breathing normally. In this case, emergency medical staff should inform bystanders to resuscitate with compression only CPR until the arrival of an emergency team. In postresuscitation care, mild hypothermia (body temperature 32-34 °C) has been replaced by targeted temperature management in unconscious patients. Now, the guidelines recommend a constant body temperature between 32-36 °C for at least 24 h. Fever should be prevented or treated.

Applying the termination of resuscitation rules to out-of-hospital cardiac arrests of both cardiac and non-cardiac etiologies: a prospective cohort study

Background

The 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation recommend Basic Life Support (BLS) and Advanced Life Support (ALS) rules for termination of resuscitation (TOR). However, it is unclear whether the TOR rules are valid for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) of both cardiac and non-cardiac etiologies. In this study, we validated the TOR rules for OHCA resulting from both etiologies.

Methods

This was a prospective multicenter observational study of OHCA patients transported to 67 emergency hospitals between January 2012 and March 2013 in the Kanto region of Japan. We calculated the specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) for neurologically unfavorable outcomes at one month in patients with OHCA of cardiac and non-cardiac etiologies.

Results

Of 11,505 eligible cases, 6,138 and 5,367 cases were of cardiac and non-cardiac etiology, respectively. BLS was performed on 2,818 and 2,606 patients with OHCA of cardiac and non-cardiac etiology, respectively. ALS was performed on 3,320 and 2,761 patients with OHCA of cardiac and non-cardiac etiology, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of the TOR rules for predicting unfavorable outcomes in patients with OHCA of cardiac etiology who received BLS included a specificity of 0.985 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.956–0.997) and a PPV of 0.999 (95 % CI: 0.996–1.000). In patients with OHCA from cardiac etiologies who received ALS, the TOR rules had a specificity of 0.963 (95 % CI: 0.896–0.992) and a PPV of 0.997 (95 % CI: 0.991–0.999). In patients with OHCA from non-cardiac etiologies who received BLS, the specificity was 0.915 (95 % CI: 0.796–0.976) and PPV was 0.998 (95 % CI: 0.995–0.999). For patients with OHCA from non-cardiac etiologies who received ALS, the specificity was 0.833 (95 % CI: 0.586–0.964) and PPV was 0.996 (95 % CI: 0.988–0.999).

Conclusions

Both TOR rules have high specificity and PPV in patients with OHCA from cardiac etiologies. For patients with OHCA from non-cardiac etiologies, the rules had a high PPV, but relatively low specificity. Therefore, TOR rules are useful in patients with OHCA from cardiac etiologies, but should be applied with caution to patients with OHCA from non-cardiac etiologies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1226-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

[Which drugs are useful during resuscitation? Which are not?]

INTRODUCTION

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation represents a therapeutic challenge. Evidence-based guidelines, which were updated in 2015, give detailed advice on how to treat the patient.

METHODS

Basic life support consists of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (30 chest compressions interrupted briefly to provide to 2 ventilations) and, if ventricular tachyarrhythmia is present, urgent cardiac defibrillation. Administration of drugs is one of the aspects of advanced life support. Vasopressors (adrenaline, vasopressin) aim to optimize coronary and cerebral perfusion. Antiarrhythmic drugs (amiodarone or lidocaine, when amiodarone is not available) are given during cardiac arrest to treat specific cardiac arrhythmias, mainly ventricular fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia.

CONCLUSION

However, even in current guidelines, there is growing ambivalence towards drug treatment in the setting of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This is mainly due to a paucity of robust clinical data. Most of the studies that have addressed the efficacy and safety of drugs during resuscitation are observational studies; however, a few small randomized controlled studies also exist. Recently, two large randomized controlled studies addressing the efficacy and safety of adrenaline versus placebo and amiodarone or lidocaine versus placebo have started. Both are currently recruiting patients. The hope is that the results of these studies will help to better define the role of drugs administered during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.