Delay to initiation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest EMS treatments

Prehospital point-of-care medication burden as a predictor of poor related outcomes in unselected acute diseases

How prehospital medication predicts patient outcomes is unclear. The aim of this work was to unveil the association between medication burden administration in prehospital care and short, mid, and long-term mortality (2, 30, and 365 day) in unselected acute diseases and to assess the potential of the number of medications administered for short, mid, and long-term mortality prediction. A prospective, multicenter, ambulance-based, cohort study was carried out in adults with unselected acute diseases managed by emergency medical services (EMS). The study was carried out in Spain with 44 ambulances and four hospitals. The principal outcome was cumulative mortality at 2, 30, and 365 days. Epidemiological variables, vital signs, and prehospital medications were collected. Patients were classified into four categories: no medication dispensed in prehospital care, one to two medications, three to four medications, and five or more medications. A total of 6401 patients were selected. The 2-day mortality associated with each group was 0.5%, 1.8%, 6.5%, and 18.8%. The 30-day mortality associated with each group was 3.8%, 6.2%, 13.5%, and 31.9%. The 365-day mortality associated with each group was 11%, 15.3%, 25.2%, and 45.7%. The predictive validity of the number of drugs administered, measured by the area under the curve, was 0.808, 0.720, and 0.660 for 2-, 30-, and 365-day mortality, respectively. Our results showed that prehospital drugs could provide relevant information regarding the mortality prediction of patients. The incorporation of this score could improve the management of high-risk patients by the EMS.

Survival by time-to-administration of amiodarone, lidocaine, or placebo in shock-refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND

Amiodarone and lidocaine have not been shown to have a clear survival benefit compared to placebo for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). However, randomized trials may have been impacted by delayed administration of the study drugs. We sought to evaluate how timing from emergency medical services (EMS) arrival on scene to drug administration affects the efficacy of amiodarone and lidocaine compared to placebo.

METHOD

This is a secondary analysis of the 10-site, 55-EMS-agency double-blind randomized controlled amiodarone, lidocaine, or placebo in OHCA study. We included patients with initial shockable rhythms who received the study drugs of amiodarone, lidocaine, or placebo before achieving return of spontaneous circulation. We performed logistic regression analyses evaluating survival to hospital discharge and secondary outcomes of survival to admission and functional survival (modified Rankin scale score ≤ 3). We evaluated the samples stratified by early (<8 min) and late administration groups (≥8 min). We compared outcomes for amiodarone and lidocaine compared to placebo and adjust for potential confounders.

RESULTS

There were 2802 patients meeting inclusion criteria, with 879 (31.4%) in the early (<8 min) and 1923 (68.6%) in the late (≥8 min) groups. In the early group, patients receiving amiodarone, compared to placebo, had significantly higher survival to admission (62.0% vs. 48.5%, p = 0.001; adjusted OR [95% CI] 1.76 [1.24-2.50]), survival to discharge (37.1% vs. 28.0%, p = 0.021; 1.56 [1.07-2.29]), and functional survival (31.6% vs. 23.3%, p = 0.029; 1.55 [1.04-2.32]). There were no significant differences with early lidocaine compared to early placebo (p > 0.05). Patients in the late group who received amiodarone or lidocaine had no significant differences in outcomes at discharge compared to placebo (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The early administration of amiodarone, particularly within 8 min, is associated with greater survival to admission, survival to discharge, and functional survival compared to placebo in patients with an initial shockable rhythm.

Development of a clinical decision rule for the early prediction of Shock-Refractory Out-of-Hospital cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND

Nearly half of ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia (VF/VT) out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients receive three or more shocks, often referred to as refractory VF/VT. Our objective was to derive a clinical decision rule (CDR) for the early stratification of patients into risk categories for refractory VF/VT.

METHODS

We included adults with non-traumatic OHCA in the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Epistry (2011-2015) with ≥ 1 EMS shock. We used Classification and Regression Tree analysis for CDR building using variables known at initial EMS rhythm analysis including age, sex, witness, location, bystander interventions, initial EMS rhythm, obvious non-cardiac etiology, and dispatch to arrival times. The outcome was refractory VF/VT (≥3 shocks). We calculated sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC), and odds ratios (OR). The rule was validated using the Portland Cardiac Arrest Epidemiologic Registry (2018-2020).

RESULTS

There were 17,140 eligible patients and 8,146 (47.5%) had refractory VF/VT. The optimal CDR (AUROC = 0.671) defined three groups: high-risk were any patients requiring an EMS shock after a bystander AED shock; moderate-risk were any non-EMS witnessed arrests with shockable initial EMS rhythms; and the remainder were low-risk. Refractory VF/VT increased across the low (30.7%), moderate (58.5%) and high-risk (84.8%) groups. Compared to low-risk, being moderate-risk or higher (OR [95% CI]:3.37 [3.16-3.59]; sensitivity 72.7%; specificity 55.9%) or high-risk (OR:12.63 [9.89-16.13]; sensitivity 5.4%; specificity 99.1%) had higher odds of refractory VF/VT. Results was similar in the validation cohort (n = 765, AUROC = 0.672).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients at higher risk for refractory VF/VT can be identified early in EMS care.

Importance of Analyzing Intervals to Emergency Medical Service Treatments

BACKGROUND

Although most US emergency medical services (EMS) systems collect time-to-treatment data in their electronic prehospital patient care reports (PCRs), analysis of these data seldom appears in publications. We believe EMS agencies should routinely analyze the initial time-to-treatment data for various potentially life-threatening conditions. This not only assures that protocol-required treatments have been provided but can discover avoidable delays and drive protocol/treatment priority change. Our study purpose was to analyze the interval from 9-1-1 call receipt until the first administration of naloxone to adult opioid overdose victims to demonstrate the quality assurance importance of analyzing time-to-treatment data.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of intervals from 9-1-1 call receipt to initial naloxone treatment in adult opioid overdose victims. We excluded victims <18 years of age and cases where a bystander, police, or a health care worker gave naloxone before EMS arrival. We compared data collected before and during the COVID-19 pandemic to determine its effect on the analysis.

RESULTS

The mean patient age of 582 opioid overdose victims was 40.7 years [95% CI 39.6, 41.8] with 405 males (69.6%). EMS units' scene arrival was 6.7 minutes from the 9-1-1 call receipt. It took 1.8 minutes to reach the victim, and 8.6 additional minutes to administer the first naloxone regardless of administration route (70.4% intravenous, 26.1% intranasal, 2.7% intraosseous, 0.7% intramuscular). EMS personnel administered the first naloxone 17.1 minutes after the 9-1-1 call receipt, with 50.3% of the delay occurring after patient contact. There was no statistically significant difference in the times-to-treatment before vs. during the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

The prepandemic interval from 9-1-1 call receipt until initial EMS administration of naloxone was substantial and did not change significantly during COVID-19. Our findings exemplify why EMS agencies should analyze initial time-to-treatment data, especially for life-threatening conditions, beyond assuring that protocol-required treatments have been provided. Based on our analysis, fire department crews now carry intranasal naloxone, and intranasal naloxone is given to "impaired" opioid overdose victims the first-arriving fire department or EMS personnel. We continue to collect data on intervals-to-treatment prospectively and monitor our critical process/treatment intervals using the plan-do-study-act model to improve our process/carry out change, and publish our results in a future publication.

Application of Automated External Defibrillators in Motorcycle Ambulances in Thailand’s Emergency Medical Services

Background

Access time to emergency patients is a critical factor that affects the outcomes of life-or-death situations, especially in the cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA). This study focused on developing a new model of emergency medical services (EMS) using a motorcycle-based ambulance (motorlance) with an automated external defibrillator (AED). There are currently no studies regarding access time for this vehicle. This study aimed at utilization of an AED in conjunction with motorlance and comparing the response time between a traditional ambulance and a motorlance.

Methods

This was a prospective study conducted in the EMS department of Srinagarind Hospital, located in Khon Kaen, Thailand, over a five-month period, from September 2021 to January 2022. Data were recorded employing a national standard of operations record form used for Thailand EMS departments nationwide.

Results

The 891 cases were divided into two groups which were motorlance and ambulance. The activation times for motorlance and ambulance were 0.44 minutes and 1.42 minutes, respectively (p < 0.001) and the response time in the motorlance group was 7.20 minutes compared with 9.25 minutes in the ambulance group. In OHCA, the motorlance with AED arrived at patients location and assisted to continue resuscitation at the hospital 88.9% of the time.

Conclusion

AED used in conjunction with motorcycle ambulances had shorter periods of both activation time and response time compared to ambulances. The use of AEDs clearly increases the number of continuous resuscitations in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.

The Association Between the Number of Prehospital Providers On-Scene and Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Outcomes

Objective: The ideal number of emergency medical services (EMS) providers needed on-scene during an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitation is unknown. Our objective was to evaluate the association between the number of providers on-scene and OHCA outcomes. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of adults (≥18 years old) with non-traumatic OHCA from a 10-site North American prospective cardiac arrest registry (Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium) including a 2005-2011 cohort and a 2011-2015 cohort. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. We calculated the median number of EMS providers on-scene during the first 10 minutes of the resuscitation and used multivariable logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, witness status, bystander CPR, arrest location, initial rhythm, and dispatch to EMS arrival time. Results: There were 30,613 and 41,946 patients with necessary variables in the 2005-2011 and 2011-2015 cohorts, respectively. Survival to hospital discharge (95% CI) was higher with 9 or more providers on-scene (17.2% [15.8-18.5] and 14.0% [12.6-15.4]) compared to 7-8 (14.1% [13.4-14.8] and 10.5% [9.9-11.1]), 5-6 (10.0% [9.5-10.5] and 8.5% [8.1-8.9]), 3-4 (10.5% [9.3-11.6] and 9.3% [8.5-10.1]), and 1-2 (8.6% [7.2-10.0] and 8.0% [7.1-9.0]) providers for the 2005-2011 and 2011-2015 cohorts, respectively. In multivariable logistic regressions, compared to 5-6 providers, there were no significant differences in survival to hospital discharge for 1-2 or 3-4 providers, while having 7-8 (adjusted odds ratios (aORs) 1.53 [1.39-1.67] and 1.31 [1.20-1.44]) and 9 or more (aORs 1.76 [1.56-1.98] and 1.63 [1.41-1.89]) providers were associated with improved survival in both the 2005-2011 and 2011-2015 cohorts, respectively. Conclusions: The presence of seven or more prehospital providers on-scene was associated with significantly greater adjusted odds of survival to hospital discharge after OHCA compared to fewer on-scene providers.