Three-year trends in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest across the world: second report from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR)

BACKGROUND

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) Research and Registries Working Group previously reported data on systems of care and outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in 2015 from 16 national and regional registries. To describe the temporal trends with updated data on OHCA, we report the characteristics of OHCA from 2015 through 2017.

METHODS

We invited national and regional population-based OHCA registries for voluntary participation and included emergency medical services (EMS)-treated OHCA. We collected descriptive summary data of core elements of the latest Utstein style recommendation during 2016 and 2017 at each registry. For registries that participated in the previous 2015 report, we also extracted the 2015 data.

RESULTS

Eleven national registries in North America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania, and 4 regional registries in Europe were included in this report. Across registries, the estimated annual incidence of EMS-treated OHCA was 30.0-97.1 individuals per 100,000 population in 2015, 36.4-97.3 in 2016, and 40.8-100.2 in 2017. The provision of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) varied from 37.2% to 79.0% in 2015, from 2.9% to 78.4% in 2016, and from 4.1% to 80.3% in 2017. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day survival for EMS-treated OHCA ranged from 5.2% to 15.7% in 2015, from 6.2% to 15.8% in 2016, and from 4.6% to 16.4% in 2017.

CONCLUSION

We observed an upward temporal trend in provision of bystander CPR in most registries. Although some registries showed favourable temporal trends in survival, less than half of registries in our study demonstrated such a trend.

Accelerometry-based classification of circulatory states during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

OBJECTIVE

Exploit accelerometry data for an automatic, reliable, and prompt detection of spontaneous circulation during cardiac arrest, as this is both vital for patient survival and practically challenging.

METHODS

We developed a machine learning algorithm to automatically predict the circulatory state during cardiopulmonary resuscitation from 4-second-long snippets of accelerometry and electrocardiogram (ECG) data from pauses of chest compressions of real-world defibrillator records. The algorithm was trained based on 422 cases from the German Resuscitation Registry, for which ground truth labels were created by a manual annotation of physicians. It uses a kernelized Support Vector Machine classifier based on 49 features, which partially reflect the correlation between accelerometry and electrocardiogram data.

RESULTS

Evaluating 50 different test-training data splits, the proposed algorithm exhibits a balanced accuracy of 81.2%, a sensitivity of 80.6%, and a specificity of 81.8%, whereas using only ECG leads to a balanced accuracy of 76.5%, a sensitivity of 80.2%, and a specificity of 72.8%.

CONCLUSION

The first method employing accelerometry for pulse/no-pulse decision yields a significant increase in performance compared to single ECG-signal usage.

SIGNIFICANCE

This shows that accelerometry provides relevant information for pulse/no-pulse decisions. In application, such an algorithm may be used to simplify retrospective annotation for quality management and, moreover, to support clinicians to assess circulatory state during cardiac arrest treatment.

Importance of reporting survival as incidence: a cross-sectional comparative study on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest registry data from Germany and Norway

OBJECTIVES

Health registries are a unique source of information about current practice and can describe disease burden in a population. We aimed to understand similarities and differences in the German Resuscitation Registry (GRR) and the Norwegian Cardiac Arrest Registry (NorCAR) and compare incidence and survival for patients resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional comparative analysis reporting incidence and outcome on a population level.

SETTING

We included data from the cardiac arrest registries in Germany and Norway.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients resuscitated between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2019 were included, resulting in 29 222 cases from GRR and 16 406 cases from NorCAR. From GRR, only emergency medical services (EMS) reporting survival information for patients admitted to the hospital were included.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

This study focused on the EMS systems, the registries and the patients included in both registries. The results compare the total incidence, incidence of patients resuscitated by EMS, and the incidence of survival.

RESULTS

We found an incidence of 68 per 100 000 inhabitants in GRR and 63 in NorCAR. The incidence of patients treated by EMS was 67 in GRR and 53 in NorCAR. The incidence of patients arriving at a hospital was higher in GRR (24.3) than in NorCAR (15.1), but survival was similar (8 in GRR and 7.8 in NorCAR).

CONCLUSION

GRR is a voluntary registry, and in-hospital information is not reported for all cases. NorCAR has mandatory reporting from all EMS and hospitals. EMS in Germany starts treatment on more patients and bring a higher number to hospital, but we found no difference in the incidence of survival. This study has improved our knowledge of both registries and highlighted the importance of reporting survival as incidence when comparing registries.

The Automated External Defibrillator: Heterogeneity of Legislation, Mapping and Use across Europe. New Insights from the ENSURE Study

INTRODUCTION

The rapid use of an automated external defibrillator (AED) is crucial for increased survival after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Many factors could play a role in limiting the chance of an AED use. We aimed to verify the situation regarding AED legislation, the AED mapping system and first responders (FRs) equipped with an AED across European countries.

METHODS

We performed a survey across Europe entitled "European Study about AED Use by Lay Rescuers" (ENSURE), asking the national coordinators of the European Registry of Cardiac Arrest (EuReCa) program to complete it.

RESULTS

Nineteen European countries replied to the survey request for a population covering 128,297,955 inhabitants. The results revealed that every citizen can use an AED in 15 countries whereas a training certificate was required in three countries. In one country, only EMS personnel were allowed to use an AED. An AED mapping system and FRs equipped with an AED were available in only 11 countries. The AED use rate was 12-59% where AED mapping and FR systems were implemented, which was considerably higher than in other countries (0-7.9%), reflecting the difference in OHCA survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Our survey highlighted a heterogeneity in AED legislation, AED mapping systems and AED use in Europe, which was reflected in different AED use and survival.

Adult Basic Life Support: 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations

This2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation(CPR)and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendationson basic life support summarizes evidence evaluations performed for 22 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, 5 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.