Inter-rater reliability and comfort in the application of a basic life support termination of resuscitation clinical prediction rule for out of hospital cardiac arrest

A simple decision rule predicts futile resuscitation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

AIM

Resuscitation of cardiac arrest involves invasive and traumatic interventions and places a large burden on limited EMS resources. Our aim was to identify prehospital cardiac arrests for which resuscitation is extremely unlikely to result in survival to hospital discharge.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of all cardiac arrests in San Mateo County, California, for which paramedics were dispatched, from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2018, using the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES) database. We described characteristics of patients, arrests, and EMS responses, and used recursive partitioning to develop decision rules to identify arrests unlikely to survive to hospital discharge, or to survive with good neurologic function.

RESULTS

From 2015-2018, 1750 patients received EMS dispatch for cardiac arrest in San Mateo County. We excluded 44 patients for whom resuscitation was terminated due to DNR directives. Median age was 69 years (IQR 57-81), 563 (33.0%) patients were female, 816 (47.8%) had witnessed arrests, 651 (38.2%) received bystander CPR, 421 (24.7%) had an initial shockable rhythm, and 1178 (69.1%) arrested at home. A simple rule (non-shockable initial rhythm, unwitnessed arrest, and age 80 or greater) excludes 223 (13.1%) arrests, of whom none survived to hospital discharge.

CONCLUSION

A simple decision rule (non-shockable rhythm, unwitnessed arrest, age ≥ 80) identifies arrests for which resuscitation is futile. If validated, this rule could be applied by EMS policymakers to identify cardiac arrests for which the trauma and expense of resuscitation are extremely unlikely to result in survival.

The Reliability of Modified Termination of Resuscitation Rules after Arrival at the Emergency Department

Introduction

Pre-hospital termination of resuscitation (TOR) is not a usual practice in many cities. The current study aimed to examine the reliability of the modified basic life support (ED-BLS) and advanced life support (ED-ALS) rules for TOR after patient arrival at the emergency department (ED).

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, adult non-traumatic cardiac arrest patients who received pre-hospital basic life support and defibrillator (BLS-D) mode of service in Taoyuan County in northern Taiwan during the study period were assessed. Data were retrieved from web-based registry records.

Results

Of the 1612 patients included, 40 (2.5%) achieved survival to discharge. The ED-ALS rule showed higher specificity (ED-ALS rule: 82.5% {95% confidence interval [CI]: 68.1-91.3} vs. ED-BLS rule: 50.0% {95%CI: 35.2-64.8}) and positive predictive value (ED-ALS rule: 99.0% {95% CI: 97.9-99.5} vs. ED-BLS rule: 98.6% {95%CI: 97.8-99.1}) than the ED-BLS rule in terms of predicting no survival to discharge after patient arrival at the ED. Among patients who fulfilled all criteria for the ED-BLS and ED-ALS rule, 20 (1.4%) and seven (1.0%) survived to discharge, respectively. Application of the ED-BLS and ED-ALS rules could have reduced further resuscitation efforts after arrival at the ED by 86.4% and 43.1%, respectively.

Conclusion

For non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients who receive BLS-D service, the ED-ALS rule has a higher specificity and PPV than the ED-BLS rule to predict no survival to discharge after patient arrival at the ED. Using the ED-ALS rule to terminate resuscitation after arrival at the ED should be prospectively validated. (Hong Kong j.emerg.med. 2014;21:283-290)

Withholding or termination of resuscitation in pediatric out-of-hospital traumatic cardiopulmonary arrest

This multiorganizational literature review was undertaken to provide an evidence base for determining whether or not recommendations for out-of-hospital termination of resuscitation could be made for children who are victims of traumatic cardiopulmonary arrest. Although there is increasing acceptance of out-of-hospital termination of resuscitation for adult traumatic cardiopulmonary arrest when there is no expectation of a good outcome, children are routinely excluded from state termination-of-resuscitation protocols. The decision to withhold resuscitative efforts in a child under specific circumstances (decapitation or dependent lividity, rigor mortis, etc) is reasonable. If there is any doubt as to the circumstances or timing of the traumatic cardiopulmonary arrest, under the current status of limiting termination of resuscitation in the field to persons older than 18 years in most states, resuscitation should be initiated and continued until arrival to the appropriate facility. If the patient has arrested, resuscitation has already exceeded 30 minutes, and the nearest facility is more than 30 minutes away, involvement of parents and family of these children in the decision-making process with assistance and guidance from medical professionals should be considered as part of an emphasis on family-centered care, because the evidence suggests that either death or a poor outcome is inevitable.

Withholding or termination of resuscitation in pediatric out-of-hospital traumatic cardiopulmonary arrest

This multiorganizational literature review was undertaken to provide an evidence base for determining whether recommendations for out-of-hospital termination of resuscitation could be made for children who are victims of traumatic cardiopulmonary arrest. Although there is increasing acceptance of out-of-hospital termination of resuscitation for adult traumatic cardiopulmonary arrest when there is no expectation of a good outcome, children are routinely excluded from state termination-of-resuscitation protocols. The decision to withhold resuscitative efforts in a child under specific circumstances (decapitation or dependent lividity, rigor mortis, etc) is reasonable. If there is any doubt as to the circumstances or timing of the traumatic cardiopulmonary arrest, under the current status of limiting termination of resuscitation in the field to persons older than 18 years in most states, resuscitation should be initiated and continued until arrival to the appropriate facility. If the patient has arrested, resuscitation has already exceeded 30 minutes, and the nearest facility is more than 30 minutes away, involvement of parents and family of these children in the decision-making process with assistance and guidance from medical professionals should be considered as part of an emphasis on family-centered care because the evidence suggests that either death or a poor outcome is inevitable.

Termination of resuscitation of nontraumatic cardiopulmonary arrest: resource document for the National Association of EMS Physicians position statement

In the development of an emergency medical services (EMS) system, medical directors should consider the implementation of protocols for the termination of resuscitation (TOR) of nontraumatic cardiopulmonary arrest. Such protocols have the potential to decrease unnecessary use of warning lights and sirens and save valuable public health resources. Termination-of-resuscitation protocols for nontraumatic cardiopulmonary arrest should be based on the determination that an EMS provider did not witness the arrest, there is no shockable rhythm identified, and there is no return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) prior to EMS transport. Further research is needed to determine the need for direct medical oversight in TOR protocols and the duration of resuscitation prior to EMS providers' determining that ROSC will not be achieved. This paper is the resource document to the National Association of EMS Physicians position statement on the termination of resuscitation for nontraumatic cardiopulmonary arrest.