1
|
Daya MR, Leroux BG, Dorian P, Rea TD, Newgard CD, Morrison LJ, Lupton JR, Menegazzi JJ, Ornato JP, Sopko G, Christenson J, Idris A, Mody P, Vilke GM, Herdeman C, Barbic D, Kudenchuk PJ. Survival After Intravenous Versus Intraosseous Amiodarone, Lidocaine, or Placebo in Out-of-Hospital Shock-Refractory Cardiac Arrest. Circulation 2020; 141:188-198. [PMID: 31941354 PMCID: PMC7009320 DOI: 10.1161/circulationaha.119.042240] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Antiarrhythmic drugs have not proven to significantly improve overall survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia. How this might be influenced by the route of drug administration is not known. METHODS In this prespecified analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial, we compared the differences in survival to hospital discharge in adults with shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who were randomly assigned by emergency medical services personnel to an antiarrhythmic drug versus placebo in the ALPS trial (Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Amiodarone, Lidocaine or Placebo Study), when stratified by the intravenous versus intraosseous route of administration. RESULTS Of 3019 randomly assigned patients with a known vascular access site, 2358 received ALPS drugs intravenously and 661 patients by the intraosseous route. Intraosseous and intravenous groups differed in sex, time-to-emergency medical services arrival, and some cardiopulmonary resuscitation characteristics, but were similar in others, including time-to-intravenous/intrasosseous drug receipt. Overall hospital discharge survival was 23%. In comparison with placebo, discharge survival was significantly higher in recipients of intravenous amiodarone (adjusted risk ratio, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.06-1.50]; adjusted absolute survival difference, 5.5% [95% CI, 1.5-9.5]) and intravenous lidocaine (adjusted risk ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.02-1.45]; adjusted absolute survival difference, 4.7% [95% CI, 0.7-8.8]); but not in recipients of intraosseous amiodarone (adjusted risk ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.66-1.32]) or intraosseous lidocaine (adjusted risk ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.74-1.44]). Survival to hospital admission also increased significantly when drugs were given intravenously but not intraosseously, and favored improved neurological outcome at discharge. There were no outcome differences between intravenous and intraosseous placebo, indicating that the access route itself did not demarcate patients with poor prognosis. The study was underpowered to assess intravenous/intraosseous drug interactions, which were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS We found no significant effect modification by drug administration route for amiodarone or lidocaine in comparison with placebo during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. However, point estimates for the effects of both drugs in comparison with placebo were significantly greater for the intravenous than for the intraosseous route across virtually all outcomes and beneficial only for the intravenous route. Given that the study was underpowered to statistically assess interactions, these findings signal the potential importance of the drug administration route during resuscitation that merits further investigation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohamud R. Daya
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR
| | - Brian G. Leroux
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington Clinical Trial Center, Seattle, WA
| | - Paul Dorian
- Division of Cardiology St Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Thomas D. Rea
- Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - Craig D. Newgard
- Center for Policy and Research in Emergency Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR
| | - Laurie J. Morrison
- Rescu, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Joshua R. Lupton
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR
| | - James J. Menegazzi
- Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
| | - Joseph P. Ornato
- Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, Virginia
| | - George Sopko
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
| | - Jim Christenson
- Department of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Ahamed Idris
- Departments of Emergency Medicine and Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
| | - Purav Mody
- Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX USA
| | - Gary M. Vilke
- Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA
| | - Caroline Herdeman
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI
| | - David Barbic
- Centre for Health Evaluation Outcome Sciences, St Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, Canada; University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Peter J. Kudenchuk
- Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Carlson JN, Zive D, Griffiths D, Brown KN, Schmicker RH, Herren H, Sopko G, DiFiore S, Climer D, Herdeman C, Idris A, Nichol G, Wang HE. Variations in the application of exception from informed consent in a multicenter clinical trial. Resuscitation 2019; 135:1-5. [PMID: 30572072 PMCID: PMC6939445 DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.12.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2018] [Revised: 11/08/2018] [Accepted: 12/10/2018] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Exception from infor med consent (EFIC) is allowed using federal regulations 21 CFR 50.24 and facilitates research on patients with critical conditions such as cardiac arrest. Little is known regarding the differences in the application of EFIC requirements such as community consultation (CC), public disclosure (PD) and patient notification. We sought to characterize variations in the fulfillment of EFIC requirements in a national multicenter clinical trial in the United States. METHODS We determined the strategies for fulfillment of EFIC requirements at five regional coordinating centers of the Pragmatic Airway Resuscitation Trial (PART), a cluster-crossover randomized trial comparing airway devices in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We collected information from the including site demographics, how CC and PD were implemented, methods undertaken by the site investigative team to meet the local IRB's interpretation, and patient notification timing (post-enrollment). We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics. RESULTS Sites had multiple approaches to CC, including social media advertising, random digit dialing surveys, working with city officials, and websites with embedded surveys. All sites used more than one approach for conducting CC. Public Disclosure activities included press releases through various means, website documentation, and letters to community members and local officials. Time from CC to study approval ranged from 42 days to 253 days. CONCLUSION EFIC implementation varies across sites and highlight community and regional variation. Different EFIC approaches may be needed to effectively accomplish the goals of community consultation, public disclosure, and patient notification.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jestin N Carlson
- Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Emergency Medicine, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA.
| | - Dana Zive
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR
| | - Denise Griffiths
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR
| | - Karen N Brown
- Department of Emergency Medicine University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL
| | - Robert H Schmicker
- Clinical Trial Center, Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - Heather Herren
- Clinical Trial Center, Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - George Sopko
- National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, Bethesda, MD
| | - Sara DiFiore
- Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Dixie Climer
- Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
| | - Caroline Herdeman
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI
| | - Ahamed Idris
- Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
| | - Graham Nichol
- Harborview Center for Prehospital Emergency Care, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - Henry E Wang
- Department of Emergency Medicine University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|