Accuracy of etiological classification of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

The Utstein reporting template classifies the etiology of OHCA into "presumed cardiac" and "obvious non-cardiac" or "medical" and "non-medical" categories; however, the accuracy of these classifications is unclear. Ascertaining more accurately the etiology of OHCA is important to tailor advanced life support and identify etiologically consistent patient cohorts for reporting incidence and outcome and enrollment in clinical trials. This scoping review was proposed to identify the state of agreement on etiological classification based on emergency medical service (EMS) data using the Utstein format against other sources.

METHOD

We searched Medline, EBM-Cochrane, and Embase databases from 1946-2023 to identify studies that reported initial and confirmed etiologies of OHCA. A descriptive review of the included studies was conducted.

RESULT

The search yielded 22,994 citations. After excluding duplicates, 16,932 citations were reviewed for titles and abstracts. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria of this review. The frequency of presumed cardiac etiologies based on EMS data was higher than confirmed cardiac etiologies (88% vs 33%) with 83-94% sensitivity and 73-76% specificity. In contrast, the frequency of presumed non-cardiac etiologies was lower than confirmed non-cardiac etiologies (3% vs 27%) with 52-74% sensitivity and 90-97.7% specificity estimated for respiratory disease.

CONCLUSION

Major disparities exist between current etiological classifications based on the Utstein reporting template and robust sources such as autopsy and medical records. Data linkage and validation are necessary to confirm the etiology of OHCA. Further research is needed on how this misclassification affects reported incidence and outcomes, and how contributing factors may improve etiological classifications.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who return to the emergency department: a multicentre observational study by the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN)

OBJECTIVE

Unplanned return emergency department (ED) visits can reflect clinical deterioration or unmet need from the original visit. We determined the characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who return to the ED for COVID-19-related revisits.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study used data for all adult patients visiting 47 Canadian EDs with COVID-19 between 1 March 2020 and 31 March 2022. Multivariable logistic regression assessed the characteristics associated with having a no return visit (SV=single visit group) versus at least one return visit (MV=return visit group) after being discharged alive at the first ED visit.

RESULTS

39 809 patients with COVID-19 had 44 862 COVID-19-related ED visits: 35 468 patients (89%) had one visit (SV group) and 4341 (11%) returned to the ED (MV group) within 30 days (mean 2.2, SD=0.5 ED visit). 40% of SV patients and 16% of MV patients were admitted at their first visit, and 41% of MV patients not admitted at their first ED visit were admitted on their second visit. In the MV group, the median time to return was 4 days, 49% returned within 72 hours. In multivariable modelling, a repeat visit was associated with a variety of factors including older age (OR=1.25 per 10 years, 95% CI (1.22 to 1.28)), pregnancy (1.86 (1.46 to 2.36)) and presence of comorbidities (eg, 1.72 (1.40 to 2.10) for cancer, 2.01 (1.52 to 2.66) for obesity, 2.18 (1.42 to 3.36) for organ transplant), current/prior substance use, higher temperature or WHO severe disease (1.41 (1.29 to 1.54)). Return was less likely for females (0.82 (0.77 to 0.88)) and those boosted or fully vaccinated (0.48 (0.34 to 0.70)).

CONCLUSIONS

Return ED visits by patients with COVID-19 within 30 days were common during the first two pandemic years and were associated with multiple factors, many of which reflect known risk for worse outcomes. Future studies should assess reasons for revisit and opportunities to improve ED care and reduce resource use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04702945.

Administrative data ICD-10 diagnostic codes identifies most lab-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 admissions but misses many discharged from the Emergency Department

We estimated the operating characteristics of ICD-10 code U07.1, introduced by the World Health Organization in 2020, to identify lab-confirmed SARS-CoV-2. CCEDRRN is a national research registry of adults (March 2020-August 2021) with suspected/confirmed SARS-CoV-2 identified in Canadian emergency departments (EDs) using chart review (symptoms, clinical information, and lab test results including SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction, PCR results). CCEDRRN data were linked to administrative hospitalization discharge and ED ICD-10 diagnostic codes (accessed centrally via the Canadian Institute for Health Information). We identified ICD-10 diagnostic codes in CCEDRRN participants. We defined lab-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 based on at least one positive PCR in the 0-14 days before the ED presentation and/or during hospitalization (in those admitted from ED). We performed separate analyses for CCEDRRN participants discharged from ED and those hospitalized from the ED. Additional analyses were stratified by province, sex, age, and (for hospitalized patients) timing of the first PCR test. The sensitivity of ICD-10 code U07.1 for a positive SARS-CoV-2 test was 93.6% (95% CI 93.0-94.1%) in those hospitalized from ED and 83.0% (95% CI 82.1-83.9%) in those discharged from the ED. Sensitivity was similar across provinces and demographics, but in each stratified analysis, values were higher in those hospitalized versus those discharged from ED. The ICD-10 diagnostic code for U07.1 within administrative data identified most lab-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 within persons hospitalized from ED, although a significant number of cases discharged from ED were missed. This should be considered when using administrative data for research and public health planning.

Duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and outcomes for adults with in-hospital cardiac arrest: retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To quantify time dependent probabilities of outcomes in patients after in-hospital cardiac arrest as a function of duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, defined as the interval between start of chest compression and the first return of spontaneous circulation or termination of resuscitation.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Multicenter prospective in-hospital cardiac arrest registry in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

348 996 adult patients (≥18 years) with an index in-hospital cardiac arrest who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation from 2000 through 2021.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Survival to hospital discharge and favorable functional outcome at hospital discharge, defined as a cerebral performance category score of 1 (good cerebral performance) or 2 (moderate cerebral disability). Time dependent probabilities of subsequently surviving to hospital discharge or having favorable functional outcome if patients pending the first return of spontaneous circulation at each minute received further cardiopulmonary resuscitation beyond the time point were estimated, assuming that all decisions on termination of resuscitation were accurate (that is, all patients with termination of resuscitation would have invariably failed to survive if cardiopulmonary resuscitation had continued for a longer period of time).

RESULTS

Among 348 996 included patients, 233 551 (66.9%) achieved return of spontaneous circulation with a median interval of 7 (interquartile range 3-13) minutes between start of chest compressions and first return of spontaneous circulation, whereas 115 445 (33.1%) patients did not achieve return of spontaneous circulation with a median interval of 20 (14-30) minutes between start of chest compressions and termination of resuscitation. 78 799 (22.6%) patients survived to hospital discharge. The time dependent probabilities of survival and favorable functional outcome among patients pending return of spontaneous circulation at one minute's duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation were 22.0% (75 645/343 866) and 15.1% (49 769/328 771), respectively. The probabilities decreased over time and were <1% for survival at 39 minutes and <1% for favorable functional outcome at 32 minutes' duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis of a large multicenter registry of in-hospital cardiac arrest quantified the time dependent probabilities of patients' outcomes in each minute of duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The findings provide resuscitation teams, patients, and their surrogates with insights into the likelihood of favorable outcomes if patients pending the first return of spontaneous circulation continue to receive further cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Comparing methods to classify admitted patients with SARS-CoV-2 as admitted for COVID-19 versus with incidental SARS-CoV-2: A cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Not all patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection develop symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), making it challenging to assess the burden of COVID-19-related hospitalizations and mortality. We aimed to determine the proportion, resource utilization, and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients admitted for COVID-19, and assess the impact of using the Center for Disease Control's (CDC) discharge diagnosis-based algorithm and the Massachusetts state department's drug administration-based classification system on identifying admissions for COVID-19.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we enrolled consecutive SARS-CoV-2 positive patients admitted to one of five hospitals in British Columbia between December 19, 2021 and May 31,2022. We completed medical record reviews, and classified hospitalizations as being primarily for COVID-19 or with incidental SARS-CoV-2 infection. We applied the CDC algorithm and the Massachusetts classification to estimate the difference in hospital days, intensive care unit (ICU) days and in-hospital mortality and calculated sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS

Of 42,505 Emergency Department patients, 1,651 were admitted and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, with 858 (52.0%, 95% CI 49.6-54.4) admitted for COVID-19. Patients hospitalized for COVID-19 required ICU admission (14.0% versus 8.2%, p<0.001) and died (12.6% versus 6.4%, p<0.001) more frequently compared with patients with incidental SARS-CoV-2. Compared to case classification by clinicians, the CDC algorithm had a sensitivity of 82.9% (711/858, 95% CI 80.3%, 85.4%) and specificity of 98.1% (778/793, 95% CI 97.2%, 99.1%) for COVID-19-related admissions and underestimated COVID-19 attributable hospital days. The Massachusetts classification had a sensitivity of 60.5% (519/858, 95% CI 57.2%, 63.8%) and specificity of 78.6% (623/793, 95% CI 75.7%, 81.4%) for COVID-19-related admissions, underestimating total number of hospital and ICU bed days while overestimating COVID-19-related intubations, ICU admissions, and deaths.

CONCLUSION

Half of SARS-CoV-2 hospitalizations were for COVID-19 during the Omicron wave. The CDC algorithm was more specific and sensitive than the Massachusetts classification, but underestimated the burden of COVID-19 admissions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04702945.

Organ Donation After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement From the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation

AIM OF THE REVIEW

Improving rates of organ donation among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who do not survive is an opportunity to save countless lives. The objectives of this scientific statement were to do the following: define the opportunity for organ donation among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; identify challenges and opportunities associated with organ donation by patients with cardiac arrest; identify strategies, including a generic protocol for organ donation after cardiac arrest, to increase the rate and consistency of organ donation from this population; and provide rationale for including organ donation as a key clinical outcome for all future cardiac arrest clinical trials and registries.

METHODS

The scope of this International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation scientific statement was approved by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation board and the American Heart Association, posted on ILCOR.org for public comment, and then assigned by section to primary and secondary authors. A unique literature search was completed and updated for each section.

RESULTS

There are a number of defining pathways for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to become organ donors; however, modifications in the Maastricht classification system need to be made to correctly identify these donors and to report outcomes with consistency. Suggested modifications to the minimum data set for reporting cardiac arrests will increase reporting of organ donation as an important resuscitation outcome. There are a number of challenges with implementing uncontrolled donation after cardiac death protocols, and the greatest impediment is the lack of legislation in most countries to mandate organ donation as the default option. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation has the potential to increase organ donation rates, but more research is needed to derive neuroprognostication rules to guide clinical decision-making about when to stop extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation and to evaluate cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

All health systems should develop, implement, and evaluate protocols designed to optimize organ donation opportunities for patients who have an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and failed attempts at resuscitation.

Predicting survival post-cardiac arrest: An observational cohort study

Introduction

Over 400,000 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) occur each year in Canada and the United States with less than 10% survival to hospital discharge. Cardiac arrest is a heterogenous condition and patient outcomes are impacted by a multitude of factors. Prognostication is recommended at 72 hours after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), however there may be other factors that could predict patient outcome earlier in the post-arrest period. The objective of our study was to develop and internally validate a novel clinical prediction rule to risk stratify patients early in the post-cardiac arrest period.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult (≥18 years) post-cardiac arrest patients between 2010 and 2015 from the Epistry Cardiac Arrest database in Toronto. Our primary analysis used ordinal logistic regression to examine neurologic outcome at discharge using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Our secondary analysis used logistic regression for neurologic outcome and survival to hospital discharge. Models were internally validated using bootstrap validation.

Results

A total of 3432 patients met our inclusion criteria. Our clinical prediction model was able to predict neurologic outcome on an ordinal scale using our predefined variables with an AUC of 0.89 after internal validation. The predictive performance was maintained when examining neurologic outcome as a binary variable and survival to hospital discharge.

Conclusion

We were able to develop a model to accurately risk stratify adult cardiac arrest patients early in the post-cardiac arrest period. Future steps are needed to externally validate this model in other healthcare settings.

Organ Donation After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement From the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation

AIM OF THE REVIEW

Improving rates of organ donation among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who do not survive is an opportunity to save countless lives. The objectives of this scientific statement were to do the following: define the opportunity for organ donation among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; identify challenges and opportunities associated with organ donation by patients with cardiac arrest; identify strategies, including a generic protocol for organ donation after cardiac arrest, to increase the rate and consistency of organ donation from this population; and provide rationale for including organ donation as a key clinical outcome for all future cardiac arrest clinical trials and registries.

METHODS

The scope of this International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation scientific statement was approved by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation board and the American Heart Association, posted on ILCOR.org for public comment, and then assigned by section to primary and secondary authors. A unique literature search was completed and updated for each section.

RESULTS

There are a number of defining pathways for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to become organ donors; however, modifications in the Maastricht classification system need to be made to correctly identify these donors and to report outcomes with consistency. Suggested modifications to the minimum data set for reporting cardiac arrests will increase reporting of organ donation as an important resuscitation outcome. There are a number of challenges with implementing uncontrolled donation after cardiac death protocols, and the greatest impediment is the lack of legislation in most countries to mandate organ donation as the default option. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation has the potential to increase organ donation rates, but more research is needed to derive neuroprognostication rules to guide clinical decision-making about when to stop extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation and to evaluate cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

All health systems should develop, implement, and evaluate protocols designed to optimise organ donation opportunities for patients who have an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and failed attempts at resuscitation.

Accuracy of Self-Reported COVID-19 Vaccination Status Compared With a Public Health Vaccination Registry in Québec: Observational Diagnostic Study

BACKGROUND

The accuracy of self-reported vaccination status is important to guide real-world vaccine effectiveness studies and policy making in jurisdictions where access to electronic vaccine registries is restricted.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the accuracy of self-reported vaccination status and reliability of the self-reported number of doses, brand, and time of vaccine administration.

METHODS

This diagnostic accuracy study was completed by the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network. We enrolled consecutive patients presenting to 4 emergency departments (EDs) in Québec between March 24, 2020, and December 25, 2021. We included adult patients who were able to consent, could speak English or French, and had a proven COVID-19 infection. We compared the self-reported vaccination status of the patients with their vaccination status in the electronic Québec Vaccination Registry. Our primary outcome was the accuracy of the self-reported vaccination status (index test) ascertained during telephone follow-up compared with the Québec Vaccination Registry (reference standard). The accuracy was calculated by dividing all correctly self-reported vaccinated and unvaccinated participants by the sum of all correctly and incorrectly self-reported vaccinated and unvaccinated participants. We also reported interrater agreement with the reference standard as measured by unweighted Cohen κ for self-reported vaccination status at telephone follow-up and at the time of their index ED visit, number of vaccine doses, and brand.

RESULTS

During the study period, we included 1361 participants. At the time of the follow-up interview, 932 participants reported at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. The accuracy of the self-reported vaccination status was 96% (95% CI 95%-97%). Cohen κ for self-reported vaccination status at phone follow-up was 0.91 (95% CI 0.89-0.93) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.77-0.92) at the time of their index ED visit. Cohen κ was 0.89 (95% CI 0.87-0.91) for the number of doses, 0.80 (95% CI 0.75-0.84) for the brand of the first dose, 0.76 (95% CI 0.70-0.83) for the brand of the second dose, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.34-0.83) for the brand of the third dose.

CONCLUSIONS

We reported a high accuracy of self-reported vaccination status for adult patients without cognitive disorders who can express themselves in English or French. Researchers can use self-reported COVID-19 vaccination data on the number of doses received, vaccine brand name, and timing of vaccination to guide future research with patients who are capable of self-reporting their vaccination data. However, access to official electronic vaccine registries is still needed to determine the vaccination status in certain susceptible populations where self-reported vaccination data remain missing or impossible to obtain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04702945; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04702945.

The burden of incidental SARS-CoV-2 infections in hospitalized patients across pandemic waves in Canada

Many health authorities differentiate hospitalizations in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 as being "for COVID-19" (due to direct manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection) versus being an "incidental" finding in someone admitted for an unrelated condition. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all SARS-CoV-2 infected patients hospitalized via 47 Canadian emergency departments, March 2020-July 2022 to determine whether hospitalizations with "incidental" SARS-CoV-2 infection are less of a burden to patients and the healthcare system. Using a priori standardized definitions applied to hospital discharge diagnoses in 14,290 patients, we characterized COVID-19 as (i) the "Direct" cause for the hospitalization (70%), (ii) a potential "Contributing" factor for the hospitalization (4%), or (iii) an "Incidental" finding that did not influence the need for admission (26%). The proportion of incidental SARS-CoV-2 infections rose from 10% in Wave 1 to 41% during the Omicron wave. Patients with COVID-19 as the direct cause of hospitalization exhibited significantly longer LOS (mean 13.8 versus 12.1 days), were more likely to require critical care (22% versus 11%), receive COVID-19-specific therapies (55% versus 19%), and die (17% versus 9%) compared to patients with Incidental SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, patients hospitalized with incidental SARS-CoV-2 infection still exhibited substantial morbidity/mortality and hospital resource use.

2022 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Pediatric Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; and First Aid Task Forces

This is the sixth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. This summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Task Force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews include cardiopulmonary resuscitation during transport; approach to resuscitation after drowning; passive ventilation; minimizing pauses during cardiopulmonary resuscitation; temperature management after cardiac arrest; use of diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound during cardiac arrest; use of vasopressin and corticosteroids during cardiac arrest; coronary angiography after cardiac arrest; public-access defibrillation devices for children; pediatric early warning systems; maintaining normal temperature immediately after birth; suctioning of amniotic fluid at birth; tactile stimulation for resuscitation immediately after birth; use of continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress at term birth; respiratory and heart rate monitoring in the delivery room; supraglottic airway use in neonates; prearrest prediction of in-hospital cardiac arrest mortality; basic life support training for likely rescuers of high-risk populations; effect of resuscitation team training; blended learning for life support training; training and recertification for resuscitation instructors; and recovery position for maintenance of breathing and prevention of cardiac arrest. Members from 6 task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and generated consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections, and priority knowledge gaps for future research are listed.

2022 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Pediatric Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; and First Aid Task Forces

This is the sixth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. This summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Task Force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews include cardiopulmonary resuscitation during transport; approach to resuscitation after drowning; passive ventilation; minimizing pauses during cardiopulmonary resuscitation; temperature management after cardiac arrest; use of diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound during cardiac arrest; use of vasopressin and corticosteroids during cardiac arrest; coronary angiography after cardiac arrest; public-access defibrillation devices for children; pediatric early warning systems; maintaining normal temperature immediately after birth; suctioning of amniotic fluid at birth; tactile stimulation for resuscitation immediately after birth; use of continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress at term birth; respiratory and heart rate monitoring in the delivery room; supraglottic airway use in neonates; prearrest prediction of in-hospital cardiac arrest mortality; basic life support training for likely rescuers of high-risk populations; effect of resuscitation team training; blended learning for life support training; training and recertification for resuscitation instructors; and recovery position for maintenance of breathing and prevention of cardiac arrest. Members from 6 task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and generated consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections, and priority knowledge gaps for future research are listed.

Derivation and validation of a clinical decision rule to risk-stratify COVID-19 patients discharged from the emergency department: The CCEDRRN COVID discharge score

Objective

To risk-stratify COVID-19 patients being considered for discharge from the emergency department (ED).

Methods

We conducted an observational study to derive and validate a clinical decision rule to identify COVID-19 patients at risk for hospital admission or death within 72 hours of ED discharge. We used data from 49 sites in the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) between March 1, 2020, and September 8, 2021. We randomly assigned hospitals to derivation or validation and prespecified clinical variables as candidate predictors. We used logistic regression to develop the score in a derivation cohort and examined its performance in predicting short-term adverse outcomes in a validation cohort.

Results

Of 15,305 eligible patient visits, 535 (3.6%) experienced the outcome. The score included age, sex, pregnancy status, temperature, arrival mode, respiratory rate, and respiratory distress. The area under the curve was 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.73) in derivation and 0.71 (95% CI 0.68-0.73) in combined derivation and validation cohorts. Among those with a score of 3 or less, the risk for the primary outcome was 1.9% or less, and the sensitivity of using 3 as a rule-out score was 89.3% (95% CI 82.7-94.0). Among those with a score of ≥9, the risk for the primary outcome was as high as 12.2% and the specificity of using 9 as a rule-in score was 95.6% (95% CI 94.9-96.2).

Conclusion

The CCEDRRN COVID discharge score can identify patients at risk of short-term adverse outcomes after ED discharge with variables that are readily available on patient arrival.

2022 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Pediatric Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; and First Aid Task Forces

This is the sixth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. This summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Task Force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews include cardiopulmonary resuscitation during transport; approach to resuscitation after drowning; passive ventilation; minimising pauses during cardiopulmonary resuscitation; temperature management after cardiac arrest; use of diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound during cardiac arrest; use of vasopressin and corticosteroids during cardiac arrest; coronary angiography after cardiac arrest; public-access defibrillation devices for children; pediatric early warning systems; maintaining normal temperature immediately after birth; suctioning of amniotic fluid at birth; tactile stimulation for resuscitation immediately after birth; use of continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress at term birth; respiratory and heart rate monitoring in the delivery room; supraglottic airway use in neonates; prearrest prediction of in-hospital cardiac arrest mortality; basic life support training for likely rescuers of high-risk populations; effect of resuscitation team training; blended learning for life support training; training and recertification for resuscitation instructors; and recovery position for maintenance of breathing and prevention of cardiac arrest. Members from 6 task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and generated consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections, and priority knowledge gaps for future research are listed.

Defibrillation Strategies for Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in defibrillation technology, shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation remains common during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Double sequential external defibrillation (DSED; rapid sequential shocks from two defibrillators) and vector-change (VC) defibrillation (switching defibrillation pads to an anterior-posterior position) have been proposed as defibrillation strategies to improve outcomes in patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation.

METHODS

We conducted a cluster-randomized trial with crossover among six Canadian paramedic services to evaluate DSED and VC defibrillation as compared with standard defibrillation in adult patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Patients were treated with one of these three techniques according to the strategy that was randomly assigned to the paramedic service. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included termination of ventricular fibrillation, return of spontaneous circulation, and a good neurologic outcome, defined as a modified Rankin scale score of 2 or lower (indicating no symptoms to slight disability) at hospital discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 405 patients were enrolled before the data and safety monitoring board stopped the trial because of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. A total of 136 patients (33.6%) were assigned to receive standard defibrillation, 144 (35.6%) to receive VC defibrillation, and 125 (30.9%) to receive DSED. Survival to hospital discharge was more common in the DSED group than in the standard group (30.4% vs. 13.3%; relative risk, 2.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33 to 3.67) and more common in the VC group than in the standard group (21.7% vs. 13.3%; relative risk, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.88). DSED but not VC defibrillation was associated with a higher percentage of patients having a good neurologic outcome than standard defibrillation (relative risk, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.26 to 3.88] and 1.48 [95% CI, 0.81 to 2.71], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation, survival to hospital discharge occurred more frequently among those who received DSED or VC defibrillation than among those who received standard defibrillation. (Funded by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada; DOSE VF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04080986.).

Sensitivity and Diagnostic Yield of the First SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Amplification Test Performed for Patients Presenting to the Hospital

IMPORTANCE

Early and accurate diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 is essential to initiate appropriate treatment and infection control and prevention measures among patients presenting to the hospital.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) performed within 24 hours of arrival to the emergency department among a nationally representative sample of patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This diagnostic study was conducted at 47 hospitals across 7 provinces in Canada participating in the Canadian COVID-19 Rapid Response Emergency Department Network among consecutive eligible patients presenting to a participating emergency department who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. Patients not tested within 24 hours of arrival and those presenting with a positive result from a test performed in the community were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was a positive result from the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT. Outcome measures were the diagnostic sensitivity and yield of the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT.

RESULTS

Of 132 760 eligible patients (66 433 women [50.0%]; median age, 57 years [IQR, 37-74 years]), 17 174 (12.9%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 14 days of their first NAAT. The diagnostic sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT was 96.2% (17 070 of 17 740 [95% CI, 95.9%-96.4%]) among all of the tests performed. Estimates ranged from a high of 97.7% (1710 of 1751 [95% CI, 96.8%-98.3%]) on day 2 of symptoms to a low of 90.4% (170 of 188 [95% CI, 85.3%-94.2%]) on day 11 of symptoms among patients presenting with COVID-19 symptoms. Among patients reporting COVID-19 symptoms, the sensitivity of the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT was 97.1% (11 870 of 12 225 [95% CI, 96.7%-97.3%]) compared with 87.6% (812 of 927 [95% CI, 85.2%-89.6%]) among patients without COVID-19 symptoms. The diagnostic yield of the SARS-CoV-2 NAAT was 12.0% (18 985 of 158 004 [95% CI, 11.8%-12.2%]) and varied from a high of 20.0% (445 of 2229 [95% CI, 18.3%-21.6%]) among patients tested on day 10 after symptom onset to a low of 8.1% (1686 of 20 719 [95% CI, 7.7%-8.5%]) among patients presenting within the first 24 hours of symptom onset.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study suggests that the diagnostic sensitivity was high for the first SARS-CoV-2 NAAT performed in the hospital and did not vary significantly by symptom duration. Repeated testing of patients with negative test results should be avoided unless their pretest probability of disease is high.

Resuscitation simulation among people who are likely to witness opioid overdose: Experiences from the SOONER Trial

The opioid crisis is a growing public health emergency and increasing resources are being directed towards overdose education. Simulation has emerged as a novel strategy for training overdose response, yet little is known about training non-clinicians in bystander resuscitation. Understanding the perspectives of individuals who are likely to experience or witness opioid overdose is critical to ensure that emergency response is effective. The Surviving Opioid Overdose with Naloxone Education and Resuscitation (SOONER) study evaluates the effectiveness of a novel naloxone education and distribution tool among people who are non-clinicians and likely to witness opioid overdose. Participants’ resuscitation skills are evaluated using a realistic overdose simulation as the primary outcome of the trial. The purpose of our study is to describe the experience of participants with the simulation process in the SOONER study. We employed a semi-structured debriefing interview and a follow up qualitative interview to understand the experience of participants with simulation. A qualitative content analysis was performed using data from 21 participants who participated in the SOONER study. Our qualitative analysis identified 5 themes and 17 subthemes which described the experience of participants within the simulation process. These themes included realism, valuing practical experience, improving self-efficacy, gaining new perspective and bidirectional learning. Our analysis found that simulation was a positive and empowering experience for participants in the SOONER trial, most of whom are marginalized in society. Our study supports the notion that expanding simulation-based education to non-clinicians may offer an acceptable and effective way of supplementing current opioid overdose education strategies. Increasing the accessibility of simulation-based education may represent a paradigm shift whereby simulation is transformed from a primarily academic practice into a patient-based community resource.

Establishing a multicenter, preclinical consortium in resuscitation: A pilot experimental trial evaluating epinephrine in cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND

Large animal studies are an important step in the translation pathway, but single laboratory experiments do not replicate the variability in patient populations. Our objective was to demonstrate the feasibility of performing a multicenter, preclinical, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled cardiac arrest trial. We evaluated the effect of epinephrine on coronary perfusion pressure (CPP) as previous single laboratory studies have reported mixed results.

METHODS

Forty-five swine from 5 different laboratories (Ann Arbor, MI; Baltimore, MD; Los Angeles, CA; Pittsburgh, PA; Toronto, ON) using a standard treatment protocol. Ventricular fibrillation was induced and left untreated for 6 min before starting continuous cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). After 2 min of CPR, 9 animals from each lab were randomized to 1 of 3 interventions given over 12 minutes: (1) Continuous IV epinephrine infusion (0.00375 mg/kg/min) with placebo IV normal saline (NS) boluses every 4 min, (2) Continuous placebo IV NS infusion with IV epinephrine boluses (0.015 mg/kg) every 4 min or (3) Placebo IV NS for both infusion and boluses. The primary outcome was mean CPP during the 12 mins of drug therapy.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in mean CPP between the three groups: 14.4 ± 6.8 mmHg (epinephrine Infusion), 16.9 ± 5.9 mmHg (epinephrine bolus), and 14.4 ± 5.5 mmHg (placebo) (p = NS). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated inter-laboratory variability in the magnitude of the treatment effect (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the feasibility of performing a multicenter, preclinical, randomized, double-blinded cardiac arrest trials. Standard dose epinephrine by bolus or continuous infusion did not increase coronary perfusion pressure during CPR when compared to placebo.

International Initiation and Termination of Resuscitation Practices

BACKGROUND

Substantial variation in survival following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is described both internationally and nationally. The Utstein factors account for half of the variation, but the remaining is not fully understood. Local regulations or guidelines concerning the withholding and termination of resuscitation may influence the reporting of cardiac arrests when comparing outcomes between different EMS systems.

METHOD

We have developed an online cross-sectional mixed-methods explanatory design survey aimed at describing the international and national variations in the initiation, the termination of resuscitation, and the refraining from resuscitation of adult patients (>18 years of age) suffering from non-traumatic OHCA. The respondents will be national experts and the questionnaire will be distributed among members of EUPHOREA, the International Liaison Committee of Resuscitation (ILCOR), the European Resuscitation Council, and the Resuscitation Academy. Each invited country will have to identify at least two national experts with special expertise in prehospital resuscitation practices. We exclude countries with less than two respondents.

RESULTS

The survey will provide both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data will be presented as frequencies and proportions. Qualitative data will be analyzed using content analysis.

CONCLUSION

This survey could be of importance in understanding the multiple factors leading to the substantial variation in survival found following OHCA. Furthermore, the interpretation of future studies on OHCA from different settings may be improved to further increase survival following OHCA.

Treatments, resource utilization, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients presenting to emergency departments across pandemic waves: an observational study by the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN)

Background

Treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) evolved between pandemic waves. Our objective was to compare treatments, acute care utilization, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients presenting to emergency departments (ED) across pandemic waves.

Methods

This observational study enrolled consecutive eligible COVID-19 patients presenting to 46 EDs participating in the Canadian COVID-19 ED Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) between March 1 and December 31, 2020. We collected data by retrospective chart review. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included treatments, hospital and ICU admissions, ED revisits and readmissions. Logistic regression modeling assessed the impact of pandemic wave on outcomes.

Results

We enrolled 9,967 patients in 8 provinces, 3,336 from the first and 6,631 from the second wave. Patients in the second wave were younger, fewer met criteria for severe COVID-19, and more were discharged from the ED. Adjusted for patient characteristics and disease severity, steroid use increased (odds ratio [OR] 7.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.2–8.9), and invasive mechanical ventilation decreased (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.4–0.7) in the second wave compared to the first. After adjusting for differences in patient characteristics and disease severity, the odds of hospitalization (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.6–0.8) and critical care admission (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.6–0.9) decreased, while mortality remained unchanged (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.5–1.1).

Interpretation

In patients presenting to cute care facilities, we observed rapid uptake of evidence-based therapies and less use of experimental therapies in the second wave. We observed increased rates of ED discharges and lower hospital and critical care resource use over time. Substantial reductions in mechanical ventilation were not associated with increasing mortality. Advances in treatment strategies created health system efficiencies without compromising patient outcomes.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04702945.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43678-022-00275-3.

Duration of cooling with water for thermal burns as a first aid intervention: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cooling thermal burns with running water is a recommended first aid intervention. However, guidance on the ideal duration of cooling remains controversial and inconsistent across organisations.

AIM

To perform a systematic review of the evidence for the question; Among adults and children with thermal burn, does active cooling using running water as an immediate first aid intervention for 20 min or more, compared with active cooling using running water for any other duration, change the outcomes of burn size, burn depth, pain, adverse outcome (hypothermia) or complications?

METHOD

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and used ROBINS-I to assess for risk of bias. We used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology for determining the certainty of evidence. We included all studies that compared the selected outcomes of the duration of cooling of thermal burns with water in all patient ages. (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021180665). From 560 screened references, we included four observational studies. In these studies, 48% of burns were cooled for 20 min or more. We found no benefit for a duration of 20 min or more of cooling when compared with less than 20 min of cooling for the outcomes of size and depth of burn, re-epithelialization, or skin grafting. The evidence is of very low certainty owing to limitations in study design, risk of bias and indirectness.

CONCLUSION

The optimal duration of cooling for thermal burns remains unknown and future prospective research is indicated to better define this treatment recommendation.

Optimizing Outcomes After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest With Innovative Approaches to Public-Access Defibrillation: A Scientific Statement From the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a global public health issue experienced by ≈3.8 million people annually. Only 8% to 12% survive to hospital discharge. Early defibrillation of shockable rhythms is associated with improved survival, but ensuring timely access to defibrillators has been a significant challenge. To date, the development of public-access defibrillation programs, involving the deployment of automated external defibrillators into the public space, has been the main strategy to address this challenge. Public-access defibrillator programs have been associated with improved outcomes for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; however, the devices are used in <3% of episodes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This scientific statement was commissioned by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation with 3 objectives: (1) identify known barriers to public-access defibrillator use and early defibrillation, (2) discuss established and novel strategies to address those barriers, and (3) identify high-priority knowledge gaps for future research to address. The writing group undertook systematic searches of the literature to inform this statement. Innovative strategies were identified that relate to enhanced public outreach, behavior change approaches, optimization of static public-access defibrillator deployment and housing, evolved automated external defibrillator technology and functionality, improved integration of public-access defibrillation with existing emergency dispatch protocols, and exploration of novel automated external defibrillator delivery vectors. We provide evidence- and consensus-based policy suggestions to enhance public-access defibrillation and guidance for future research in this area.

Optimizing outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with innovative approaches to public-access defibrillation: A scientific statement from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a global public health issue experienced by ≈3.8 million people annually. Only 8% to 12% survive to hospital discharge. Early defibrillation of shockable rhythms is associated with improved survival, but ensuring timely access to defibrillators has been a significant challenge. To date, the development of public-access defibrillation programs, involving the deployment of automated external defibrillators into the public space, has been the main strategy to address this challenge. Public-access defibrillator programs have been associated with improved outcomes for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; however, the devices are used in <3% of episodes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This scientific statement was commissioned by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation with 3 objectives: (1) identify known barriers to public-access defibrillator use and early defibrillation, (2) discuss established and novel strategies to address those barriers, and (3) identify high-priority knowledge gaps for future research to address. The writing group undertook systematic searches of the literature to inform this statement. Innovative strategies were identified that relate to enhanced public outreach, behavior change approaches, optimization of static public-access defibrillator deployment and housing, evolved automated external defibrillator technology and functionality, improved integration of public-access defibrillation with existing emergency dispatch protocols, and exploration of novel automated external defibrillator delivery vectors. We provide evidence- and consensus-based policy suggestions to enhance public-access defibrillation and guidance for future research in this area.

The CCEDRRN COVID-19 Mortality Score to predict death among nonpalliative patients with COVID-19 presenting to emergency departments: a derivation and validation study

BACKGROUND

Predicting mortality from COVID-19 using information available when patients present to the emergency department can inform goals-of-care decisions and assist with ethical allocation of critical care resources. The study objective was to develop and validate a clinical score to predict emergency department and in-hospital mortality among consecutive nonpalliative patients with COVID-19; in this study, we define palliative patients as those who do not want resuscitative measures, such as intubation, intensive care unit care or cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

METHODS

This derivation and validation study used observational cohort data recruited from 46 hospitals in 8 Canadian provinces participating in the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN). We included adult (age ≥ 18 yr) nonpalliative patients with confirmed COVID-19 who presented to the emergency department of a participating site between Mar. 1, 2020, and Jan. 31, 2021. We randomly assigned hospitals to derivation or validation, and prespecified clinical variables as candidate predictors. We used logistic regression to develop the score in a derivation cohort and examined its performance in predicting emergency department and in-hospital mortality in a validation cohort.

RESULTS

Of 8761 eligible patients, 618 (7.0%) died. The CCEDRRN COVID-19 Mortality Score included age, sex, type of residence, arrival mode, chest pain, severe liver disease, respiratory rate and level of respiratory support. The area under the curve was 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.93) in derivation and 0.92 (95% CI 0.90-0.93) in validation. The score had excellent calibration. These results suggest that scores of 6 or less would categorize patients as being at low risk for in-hospital death, with a negative predictive value of 99.9%. Patients in the low-risk group had an in-hospital mortality rate of 0.1%. Patients with a score of 15 or higher had an observed mortality rate of 81.0%.

INTERPRETATION

The CCEDRRN COVID-19 Mortality Score is a simple score that can be used for level-of-care discussions with patients and in situations of critical care resource constraints to accurately predict death using variables available on emergency department arrival. The score was derived and validated mostly in unvaccinated patients, and before variants of concern were circulating widely and newer treatment regimens implemented in Canada.

STUDY REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04702945.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the epidemiology of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly influenced epidemiology, yet its impact on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the impact of the pandemic on the incidence and case fatality rate (CFR) of OHCA. We also evaluated the impact on intermediate outcomes and clinical characteristics.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to May 3, 2021. Studies were included if they compared OHCA processes and outcomes between the pandemic and historical control time periods. Meta-analyses were performed for primary outcomes [annual incidence, mortality, and case fatality rate (CFR)], secondary outcomes [field termination of resuscitation (TOR), return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, and survival to hospital discharge], and clinical characteristics (shockable rhythm and etiologies). This study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42021253879).

RESULTS

The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a 39.5% increase in pooled annual OHCA incidence (p < 0.001). Pooled CFR was increased by 2.65% (p < 0.001), with a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 1.95 for mortality [95% confidence interval (95%CI) 1.51-2.51]. There was increased field TOR (OR = 2.46, 95%CI 1.62-3.74). There were decreased ROSC (OR = 0.65, 95%CI 0.55-0.77), survival to hospital admission (OR = 0.65, 95%CI 0.48-0.89), and survival to discharge (OR = 0.52, 95%CI 0.40-0.69). There was decreased shockable rhythm (OR = 0.73, 95%CI 0.60-0.88) and increased asphyxial etiology of OHCA (OR = 1.17, 95%CI 1.02-1.33).

CONCLUSION

Compared to the pre-pandemic period, the COVID-19 pandemic period was significantly associated with increased OHCA incidence and worse outcomes.

CCEDRRN COVID-19 Infection Score (CCIS): development and validation in a Canadian cohort of a clinical risk score to predict SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

To develop and validate a clinical risk score that can accurately quantify the probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients presenting to an emergency department without the need for laboratory testing.

DESIGN

Cohort study of participants in the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) registry. Regression models were fitted to predict a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result using clinical and demographic predictors, as well as an indicator of local SARS-CoV-2 incidence.

SETTING

32 emergency departments in eight Canadian provinces.

PARTICIPANTS

27 665 consecutively enrolled patients who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 in participating emergency departments between 1 March and 30 October 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Positive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test result within 14 days of an index emergency department encounter for suspected COVID-19 disease.

RESULTS

We derived a 10-item CCEDRRN COVID-19 Infection Score using data from 21 743 patients. This score included variables from history and physical examination and an indicator of local disease incidence. The score had a c-statistic of 0.838 with excellent calibration. We externally validated the rule in 5295 patients. The score maintained excellent discrimination and calibration and had superior performance compared with another previously published risk score. Score cut-offs were identified that can rule-in or rule-out SARS-CoV-2 infection without the need for nucleic acid testing with 97.4% sensitivity (95% CI 96.4 to 98.3) and 95.9% specificity (95% CI 95.5 to 96.0).

CONCLUSIONS

The CCEDRRN COVID-19 Infection Score uses clinical characteristics and publicly available indicators of disease incidence to quantify a patient's probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The score can identify patients at sufficiently high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection to warrant isolation and empirical therapy prior to test confirmation while also identifying patients at sufficiently low risk of infection that they may not need testing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04702945.

2021 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; First Aid Task Forces; and the COVID-19 Working Group

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the fifth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews in this summary include resuscitation topics of video-based dispatch systems; head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation; early coronary angiography after return of spontaneous circulation; cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prone patient; cord management at birth for preterm and term infants; devices for administering positive-pressure ventilation at birth; family presence during neonatal resuscitation; self-directed, digitally based basic life support education and training in adults and children; coronavirus disease 2019 infection risk to rescuers from patients in cardiac arrest; and first aid topics, including cooling with water for thermal burns, oral rehydration for exertional dehydration, pediatric tourniquet use, and methods of tick removal. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations or good practice statements. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces listed priority knowledge gaps for further research.

2021 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the fifth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews in this summary include resuscitation topics of video-based dispatch systems; head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation; early coronary angiography after return of spontaneous circulation; cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prone patient; cord management at birth for preterm and term infants; devices for administering positive-pressure ventilation at birth; family presence during neonatal resuscitation; self-directed, digitally based basic life support education and training in adults and children; coronavirus disease 2019 infection risk to rescuers from patients in cardiac arrest; and first aid topics, including cooling with water for thermal burns, oral rehydration for exertional dehydration, pediatric tourniquet use, and methods of tick removal. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations or good practice statements. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces listed priority knowledge gaps for further research.

Moderating effects of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest characteristics on the association between EMS response time and survival

BACKGROUND

Although several Utstein variables are known to independently improve survival, how they moderate the effect of emergency medical service (EMS) response times on survival is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify how public location, witnessed status, bystander CPR, and bystander AED shock individually and jointly moderate the effect of EMS response time delays on OHCA survival.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was a secondary analysis of the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Epistry-Cardiac Arrest database (December 2005 to June 2015). We included all adult, non-traumatic, non-EMS witnessed, and EMS-treated OHCAs from eleven sites across the US and Canada. We trained a logistic regression model with standard Utstein control variables and interaction terms between EMS response time and the four aforementioned OHCA characteristics.

RESULTS

102,216 patients were included. Three of the four characteristics - witnessed OHCAs (OR = 0.962), bystander CPR (OR = 0.968) and public location (OR = 0.980) - increased the negative effect of a one-minute delay on the odds of survival. In contrast, a bystander AED shock decreased the negative effect of a one-minute response time delay on the odds of survival (OR = 1.064). The magnitude of the effect of a one-minute delay in EMS response time on the odds of survival ranged from 1.3% to 9.8% (average: 5.3%), depending on the underlying OHCA characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Delays in EMS response time had the largest reduction in survival odds for OHCAs that did not receive a bystander AED shock but were witnessed, occurred in public, and/or received bystander CPR. A bystander AED shock appears to be protective against a delay in EMS response time.

Corrigendum to "Mixed methods feasibility study for the surviving opioid overdose with naloxone education and resuscitation (SOONER) trial" [Resuscitation Plus 6 (2021) 100131]

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.resplu.2021.100131.].

Compression depth measured by accelerometer vs. outcome in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND

Analyses of data recorded by monitor-defibrillators that measure CPR depth with different methods show significant relationships between the process and outcome of CPR. Our objective was to evaluate whether chest compression depth was significantly associated with outcome based on accelerometer-recordings obtained with monitor-defibrillators from a single manufacturer, and to assess whether an accelerometer-based analysis corroborated evidence-based practice guidelines on performance of CPR.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We included 5434 adult patients treated from seven US and Canadian cities between January 2007 and May 2015. These had mean (SD) age of 64.2 (17.2) years, mean compression depth of 45.9 (12.7) mm, ROSC sustained to ED arrival of 26%, and survival to hospital discharge of 8%. For survival to discharge, the adjusted odds ratios were 1.15 (95% CI, 0.86, 1.55) for cases within 2005 depth range (38-51 mm), and 1.17 (95% CI, 0.91, 1.50) for cases within 2010 depth range (>50 mm) compared to those with an average depth of <38 mm. The adjusted odds ratio of survival was 1.33 (95% CI, 1.01, 1.75) for cases within 2015 depth range (50 to 60 mm) for at least 60% of minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis of patients with OHCA demonstrated that increased chest compression depth measured by accelerometer is associated with better survival. It confirms that current evidence-based recommendations to compress within 50-60 mm are likely associated with greater survival than compressing to another depth.

Implications for cardiac arrest coverage using straight-line versus route distance to nearest automated external defibrillator

AIM

Quantifying the ratio describing the difference between "true route" and "straight-line" distances from out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) to the closest accessible automated external defibrillator (AED) can help correct likely overestimations in AED coverage. Furthermore, we aimed to examine to what extent the closest AED based on true route distance differed from the closest AED using "straight-line".

METHODS

OHCAs (1994-2016) and AEDs (2016) in Copenhagen, Denmark and in Toronto, Canada (2007-2015 and 2015, respectively) were identified. Three distances were calculated between OHCA and target AED: 1) the straight-line distance ("straight-line") to the closest AED, 2) the corresponding true route distance to the same AED ("true route"), and 3) the closest AED based only on true route distance ("shortest true route"). The ratio between "true route" and "straight-line" distance was calculated and differences in AED coverage (an OHCA ≤ 100 m of an accessible AED) were examined.

RESULTS

The "straight-line" AED coverage of 100 m was 24.2% (n = 2008/8295) in Copenhagen and 6.9% (n = 964/13916) in Toronto. The corresponding "true route" distance reduced coverage to 9.5% (n = 786) and 3.8% (n = 529), respectively. The median ratio between "true route" and "straight-line" distance was 1.6 in Copenhagen and 1.4 in Toronto. In 26.1% (n = 2167) and 22.9% (n = 3181) of all Copenhagen and Toronto OHCAs respectively, the closest AED in "shortest true route" was different than the closest AED initially found by "straight-line".

CONCLUSIONS

Straight-line distance is not an accurate measure of distance and overestimates the actual AED coverage compared to a more realistic true route distance by a factor 1.4-1.6.

Mixed methods feasibility study for the surviving opioid overdose with naloxone education and resuscitation (SOONER) trial

Aim

We plan to conduct a randomised clinical trial among people likely to witness opioid overdose to compare the educational effectiveness of point-of-care naloxone distribution with best-available care, by observing participants’ resuscitation skills in a simulated overdose. This mixed methods feasibility study aims to assess the effectiveness of recruitment and retention strategies and acceptability of study procedures.

Methods

We implemented candidate-driven recruitment strategies with verbal consent and destigmatizing study materials in a family practice, emergency department, and addictions service. People ≥16 years of age who are likely to witness overdose were randomized to point-of-care naloxone distribution or referral to an existing program. We evaluated participant skills as a responder to a simulated overdose 3–14 days post-recruitment. Retention strategies included flexible scheduling, reminders, cash compensation and refreshments. The primary outcome was recruitment and retention feasibility, defined as the ability to recruit 28 eligible participants in 28 days, with <50% attrition at the outcome simulation. Acceptability of study procedures and motivations for participation were assessed in a semi-structured interview.

Results

We enrolled 30 participants over 24 days, and retained 21 participants (70%, 95%CI 56.7–100). The most common motivation for participation was a desire to serve the community or loved ones in distress. Participants reported that study procedures were acceptable and that the outcome simulation provided a supportive and affirming environment.

Conclusion

The planned trial is ready for implementation. Recruitment and retention is feasible and study processes are acceptable for people who are likely to witness overdose. (Registration: NCT03821649).

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of routine early angiography in patients with return of spontaneous circulation after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

BACKGROUND

Early coronary angiography (CAG) has been reported in individual studies and systematic reviews to significantly improve outcomes of patients with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after cardiac arrest (CA).

METHODS

We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of early CAG on key clinical outcomes in comatose patients after ROSC following out-of-hospital CA of presumed cardiac origin. We searched the PubMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from 1990 until April 2020. Eligible studies compared patients undergoing early CAG to patients with late or no CAG. When randomized controlled trials (RCTs) existed for a specific outcome, we used their results to estimate the effect of the intervention. In the absence of randomized data, we used observational data. We excluded studies at high risk of bias according to the Robins-I tool from the meta-analysis. The GRADE system was used to assess certainty of evidence at an outcome level.

RESULTS

Of 3738 citations screened, 3 randomized trials and 41 observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Evidence certainty across all outcomes for the RCTs was assessed as low. Randomized data showed no benefit from early as opposed to late CAG across all critical outcomes of survival and survival with favourable neurologic outcome for undifferentiated patients and for patient subgroups without ST-segment-elevation on post ROSC ECG and shockable initial rhythm.

CONCLUSION

These results do not support routine early CAG in undifferentiated comatose patients and patients without STE on post ROSC ECG after OHCA.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO - CRD42020160152.

Development of the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network population-based registry: a methodology study

BACKGROUND

Emergency physicians lack high-quality evidence for many diagnostic and treatment decisions made for patients with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective is to describe the methods used to collect and ensure the data quality of a multicentre registry of patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

METHODS

This methodology study describes a population-based registry that has been enrolling consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 since Mar. 1, 2020. Most data are collected from retrospective chart review. Phone follow-up with patients at 30 days captures the World Health Organization clinical improvement scale and contextual, social and cultural variables. Phone follow-up also captures patient-reported quality of life using the Veterans Rand 12-Item Health Survey at 30 days, 60 days, 6 months and 12 months. Fifty participating emergency departments from 8 provinces in Canada currently enrol patients into the registry.

INTERPRETATION

Data from the registry of the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network will be used to derive and validate clinical decision rules to inform clinical decision-making, describe the natural history of the disease, evaluate COVID-19 diagnostic tests and establish the real-world effectiveness of treatments and vaccines, including in populations that are excluded or underrepresented in clinical trials. This registry has the potential to generate scientific evidence to inform our pandemic response, and to serve as a model for the rapid implementation of population-based data collection protocols for future public health emergencies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, no. NCT04702945.

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

This 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations for advanced life support includes updates on multiple advanced life support topics addressed with 3 different types of reviews. Topics were prioritized on the basis of both recent interest within the resuscitation community and the amount of new evidence available since any previous review. Systematic reviews addressed higher-priority topics, and included double-sequential defibrillation, intravenous versus intraosseous route for drug administration during cardiac arrest, point-of-care echocardiography for intra-arrest prognostication, cardiac arrest caused by pulmonary embolism, postresuscitation oxygenation and ventilation, prophylactic antibiotics after resuscitation, postresuscitation seizure prophylaxis and treatment, and neuroprognostication. New or updated treatment recommendations on these topics are presented. Scoping reviews were conducted for anticipatory charging and monitoring of physiological parameters during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Topics for which systematic reviews and new Consensuses on Science With Treatment Recommendations were completed since 2015 are also summarized here. All remaining topics reviewed were addressed with evidence updates to identify any new evidence and to help determine which topics should be the highest priority for systematic reviews in the next 1 to 2 years.

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

This 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations for advanced life support includes updates on multiple advanced life support topics addressed with 3 different types of reviews. Topics were prioritized on the basis of both recent interest within the resuscitation community and the amount of new evidence available since any previous review. Systematic reviews addressed higher-priority topics, and included double-sequential defibrillation, intravenous versus intraosseous route for drug administration during cardiac arrest, point-of-care echocardiography for intra-arrest prognostication, cardiac arrest caused by pulmonary embolism, postresuscitation oxygenation and ventilation, prophylactic antibiotics after resuscitation, postresuscitation seizure prophylaxis and treatment, and neuroprognostication. New or updated treatment recommendations on these topics are presented. Scoping reviews were conducted for anticipatory charging and monitoring of physiological parameters during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Topics for which systematic reviews and new Consensuses on Science With Treatment Recommendations were completed since 2015 are also summarized here. All remaining topics reviewed were addressed with evidence updates to identify any new evidence and to help determine which topics should be the highest priority for systematic reviews in the next 1 to 2 years.

Association of Intra-arrest Transport vs Continued On-Scene Resuscitation With Survival to Hospital Discharge Among Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Importance

There is wide variability among emergency medical systems (EMS) with respect to transport to hospital during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitative efforts. The benefit of intra-arrest transport during resuscitation compared with continued on-scene resuscitation is unclear.

Objective

To determine whether intra-arrest transport compared with continued on-scene resuscitation is associated with survival to hospital discharge among patients experiencing OHCA.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cohort study of prospectively collected consecutive nontraumatic adult EMS-treated OHCA data from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Cardiac Epidemiologic Registry (enrollment, April 2011-June 2015 from 10 North American sites; follow-up until the date of hospital discharge or death [regardless of when either event occurred]). Patients treated with intra-arrest transport (exposed) were matched with patients in refractory arrest (at risk of intra-arrest transport) at that same time (unexposed), using a time-dependent propensity score. Subgroups categorized by initial cardiac rhythm and EMS-witnessed cardiac arrests were analyzed.

Exposures

Intra-arrest transport (transport initiated prior to return of spontaneous circulation), compared with continued on-scene resuscitation.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge, and the secondary outcome was survival with favorable neurological outcome (modified Rankin scale <3) at hospital discharge.

Results

The full cohort included 43 969 patients with a median age of 67 years (interquartile range, 55-80), 37% were women, 86% of cardiac arrests occurred in a private location, 49% were bystander- or EMS-witnessed, 22% had initial shockable rhythms, 97% were treated by out-of-hospital advanced life support, and 26% underwent intra-arrest transport. Survival to hospital discharge was 3.8% for patients who underwent intra-arrest transport and 12.6% for those who received on-scene resuscitation. In the propensity-matched cohort, which included 27 705 patients, survival to hospital discharge occurred in 4.0% of patients who underwent intra-arrest transport vs 8.5% who received on-scene resuscitation (risk difference, 4.6% [95% CI, 4.0%- 5.1%]). Favorable neurological outcome occurred in 2.9% of patients who underwent intra-arrest transport vs 7.1% who received on-scene resuscitation (risk difference, 4.2% [95% CI, 3.5%-4.9%]). Subgroups of initial shockable and nonshockable rhythms as well as EMS-witnessed and unwitnessed cardiac arrests all had a significant association between intra-arrest transport and lower probability of survival to hospital discharge.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among patients experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, intra-arrest transport to hospital compared with continued on-scene resuscitation was associated with lower probability of survival to hospital discharge. Study findings are limited by potential confounding due to observational design.

Role of Vasopressors in Cardiac Arrest

Evidence provides weak support for the routine use of vasopressors in cardiac arrest where the quality of CPR and post arrest care are unknown and the drug is given late. In these pragmatic settings, epinephrine improves clinical outcomes, but does so at the price of increasing the proportion of patients surviving with poor neurologic function at 30 days. In settings where the quality of CPR and post arrest care are optimized the additive effect of epinephrine on clinical outcomes is not significantly different. Well designed efficacy trials are needed where routine cardiac arrest care is optimized.

Effect of Out-of-Hospital Tranexamic Acid vs Placebo on 6-Month Functional Neurologic Outcomes in Patients With Moderate or Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

IMPORTANCE

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the leading cause of death and disability due to trauma. Early administration of tranexamic acid may benefit patients with TBI.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether tranexamic acid treatment initiated in the out-of-hospital setting within 2 hours of injury improves neurologic outcome in patients with moderate or severe TBI.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Multicenter, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial at 20 trauma centers and 39 emergency medical services agencies in the US and Canada from May 2015 to November 2017. Eligible participants (N = 1280) included out-of-hospital patients with TBI aged 15 years or older with Glasgow Coma Scale score of 12 or less and systolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or higher.

INTERVENTIONS

Three interventions were evaluated, with treatment initiated within 2 hours of TBI: out-of-hospital tranexamic acid (1 g) bolus and in-hospital tranexamic acid (1 g) 8-hour infusion (bolus maintenance group; n = 312), out-of-hospital tranexamic acid (2 g) bolus and in-hospital placebo 8-hour infusion (bolus only group; n = 345), and out-of-hospital placebo bolus and in-hospital placebo 8-hour infusion (placebo group; n = 309).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was favorable neurologic function at 6 months (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended score >4 [moderate disability or good recovery]) in the combined tranexamic acid group vs the placebo group. Asymmetric significance thresholds were set at 0.1 for benefit and 0.025 for harm. There were 18 secondary end points, of which 5 are reported in this article: 28-day mortality, 6-month Disability Rating Scale score (range, 0 [no disability] to 30 [death]), progression of intracranial hemorrhage, incidence of seizures, and incidence of thromboembolic events.

RESULTS

Among 1063 participants, a study drug was not administered to 96 randomized participants and 1 participant was excluded, resulting in 966 participants in the analysis population (mean age, 42 years; 255 [74%] male participants; mean Glasgow Coma Scale score, 8). Of these participants, 819 (84.8%) were available for primary outcome analysis at 6-month follow-up. The primary outcome occurred in 65% of patients in the tranexamic acid groups vs 62% in the placebo group (difference, 3.5%; [90% 1-sided confidence limit for benefit, -0.9%]; P = .16; [97.5% 1-sided confidence limit for harm, 10.2%]; P = .84). There was no statistically significant difference in 28-day mortality between the tranexamic acid groups vs the placebo group (14% vs 17%; difference, -2.9% [95% CI, -7.9% to 2.1%]; P = .26), 6-month Disability Rating Scale score (6.8 vs 7.6; difference, -0.9 [95% CI, -2.5 to 0.7]; P = .29), or progression of intracranial hemorrhage (16% vs 20%; difference, -5.4% [95% CI, -12.8% to 2.1%]; P = .16).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with moderate to severe TBI, out-of-hospital tranexamic acid administration within 2 hours of injury compared with placebo did not significantly improve 6-month neurologic outcome as measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01990768.

Screening strategies to identify sepsis in the prehospital setting: a validation study

BACKGROUND

In the prehospital setting, differentiating patients who have sepsis from those who have infection but no organ dysfunction is important to initiate sepsis treatments appropriately. We aimed to identify which published screening strategies for paramedics to use in identifying patients with sepsis provide the most certainty for prehospital diagnosis.

METHODS

We identified published strategies for screening by paramedics through a literature search. We then conducted a validation study in Alberta, Canada, from April 2015 to March 2016. For adult patients (≥ 18 yr) who were transferred by ambulance, we linked records to an administrative database and then restricted the search to patients with infection diagnosed in the emergency department. For each patient, the classification from each strategy was determined and compared with the diagnosis recorded in the emergency department. For all strategies that generated numeric scores, we constructed diagnostic prediction models to estimate the probability of sepsis being diagnosed in the emergency department.

RESULTS

We identified 21 unique prehospital screening strategies, 14 of which had numeric scores. We linked a total of 131 745 eligible patients to hospital databases. No single strategy had both high sensitivity (overall range 0.02-0.85) and high specificity (overall range 0.38-0.99) for classifying sepsis. However, the Critical Illness Prediction (CIP) score, the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and the Quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score predicted a low to high probability of a sepsis diagnosis at different scores. The qSOFA identified patients with a 7% (lowest score) to 87% (highest score) probability of sepsis diagnosis.

INTERPRETATION

The CIP, NEWS and qSOFA scores are tools with good predictive ability for sepsis diagnosis in the prehospital setting. The qSOFA score is simple to calculate and may be useful to paramedics in screening patients with possible sepsis.

Effect of Optimized Versus Guidelines-Based Automated External Defibrillator Placement on Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Coverage: An In Silico Trial

Background

Mathematical optimization of automated external defibrillator (AED) placement may improve AED accessibility and out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) outcomes compared with American Heart Association (AHA) and European Resuscitation Council (ERC) placement guidelines. We conducted an in silico trial (simulated prospective cohort study) comparing mathematically optimized placements with placements derived from current AHA and ERC guidelines, which recommend placement in locations where OHCAs are usually witnessed.

Methods and Results

We identified all public OHCAs of presumed cardiac cause from 2008 to 2016 in Copenhagen, Denmark. For the control, we computationally simulated placing 24/7‐accessible AEDs at every unique, public, witnessed OHCA location at monthly intervals over the study period. The intervention consisted of an equal number of simulated AEDs placements, deployed monthly, at mathematically optimized locations, using a model that analyzed historical OHCAs before that month. For each approach, we calculated the number of OHCAs in the study period that occurred within a 100‐m route distance based on Copenhagen’s road network of an available AED after it was placed (“OHCA coverage”). Estimated impact on bystander defibrillation and 30‐day survival was calculated by multivariate logistic regression. The control scenario involved 393 AEDs at historical, public, witnessed OHCA locations, covering 15.8% of the 653 public OHCAs from 2008 to 2016. The optimized locations provided significantly higher coverage (24.2%; P<0.001). Estimated bystander defibrillation and 30‐day survival rates increased from 15.6% to 18.2% (P<0.05) and from 32.6% to 34.0% (P<0.05), respectively. As a baseline, the 1573 real AEDs in Copenhagen covered 14.4% of the OHCAs.

Conclusions

Mathematical optimization can significantly improve OHCA coverage and estimated clinical outcomes compared with a guidelines‐based approach to AED placement.