The chain of survival aims to demonstrate the interrelationship between key stages of resuscitation and emphasises the need for all links to be effective in order to optimise the chances of survival. ...The contribution of each of the four links diminishes rapidly as patients succumb at each stage and the actual attrition rate results in rapidly decreasing numbers of patients progressing along the chain.
This revised representation adjusts the area of each link in order to graphically represent the flow of patients through the chain. Greatest benefit in improving outcome will be achieved by focussing on improving care at links in the chain where there is the greatest number of patients.
These European Resuscitation Council Advanced Life Support guidelines, are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This ...section provides guidelines on the prevention of and ALS treatments for both in-hospital cardiac arrest and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
In a randomized trial involving 8014 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the use of epinephrine resulted in a significantly higher rate of 30-day survival than placebo but not a higher rate ...of survival with a favorable neurologic outcome.
The European Resuscitation Council and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine have collaborated to produce these post-resuscitation care guidelines, which are based on the 2015 International ...Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. Recent changes in post-resuscitation care include: (a) greater emphasis on the need for urgent coronary catheterisation and percutaneous coronary intervention following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of likely cardiac cause; (b) targeted temperature management remains important but there is now an option to target a temperature of 36 °C instead of the previously recommended 32–34 °C; (c) prognostication is now undertaken using a multimodal strategy and there is emphasis on allowing sufficient time for neurological recovery and to enable sedatives to be cleared; (d) increased emphasis on rehabilitation after survival from a cardiac arrest.
Summary Background Mechanical chest compression devices have the potential to help maintain high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but despite their increasing use, little evidence exists ...for their effectiveness. We aimed to study whether the introduction of LUCAS-2 mechanical CPR into front-line emergency response vehicles would improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods The pre-hospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC) trial was a pragmatic, cluster-randomised open-label trial including adults with non-traumatic, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from four UK Ambulance Services (West Midlands, North East England, Wales, South Central). 91 urban and semi-urban ambulance stations were selected for participation. Clusters were ambulance service vehicles, which were randomly assigned (1:2) to LUCAS-2 or manual CPR. Patients received LUCAS-2 mechanical chest compression or manual chest compressions according to the first trial vehicle to arrive on scene. The primary outcome was survival at 30 days following cardiac arrest and was analysed by intention to treat. Ambulance dispatch staff and those collecting the primary outcome were masked to treatment allocation. Masking of the ambulance staff who delivered the interventions and reported initial response to treatment was not possible. The study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN08233942. Findings We enrolled 4471 eligible patients (1652 assigned to the LUCAS-2 group, 2819 assigned to the control group) between April 15, 2010 and June 10, 2013. 985 (60%) patients in the LUCAS-2 group received mechanical chest compression, and 11 (<1%) patients in the control group received LUCAS-2. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 30 day survival was similar in the LUCAS-2 group (104 6% of 1652 patients) and in the manual CPR group (193 7% of 2819 patients; adjusted odds ratio OR 0·86, 95% CI 0·64–1·15). No serious adverse events were noted. Seven clinical adverse events were reported in the LUCAS-2 group (three patients with chest bruising, two with chest lacerations, and two with blood in mouth). 15 device incidents occurred during operational use. No adverse or serious adverse events were reported in the manual group. Interpretation We noted no evidence of improvement in 30 day survival with LUCAS-2 compared with manual compressions. On the basis of ours and other recent randomised trials, widespread adoption of mechanical CPR devices for routine use does not improve survival. Funding National Institute for Health Research HTA – 07/37/69.
To assess the use of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR), compared with manual or mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and ...in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in adults and children.
The PRISMA guidelines were followed. We searched Medline, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews for randomized clinical trials and observational studies published before May 22, 2018. The population included adult and pediatric patients with OHCA and IHCA of any origin. Two investigators reviewed studies for relevance, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the ROBINS-I tool. Outcomes included short-term and long-term survival and favorable neurological outcome.
We included 25 observational studies, of which 15 studies were in adult OHCA, 7 studies were in adult IHCA, and 3 studies were in pediatric IHCA. There were no studies in pediatric OHCA. No randomized trials were included. Results from individual studies were largely inconsistent, although several studies in adult and pediatric IHCA were in favor of ECPR. The risk of bias for individual studies was overall assessed to be critical, with confounding being the primary source of bias. The overall quality of evidence was assessed to be very low. Heterogeneity across studies precluded any meaningful meta-analyses.
There is inconclusive evidence to either support or refute the use of ECPR for OHCA and IHCA in adults and children. The quality of evidence across studies is very low.
Abstract Introduction This study reports the epidemiology and outcomes from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in England during 2014. Methods Prospective observational study from the national ...OHCA registry. The incidence, demographic and outcomes of patients who were treated for an OHCA between 1st January, 2014 and 31st December 2014 in 10 English ambulance service (EMS) regions, serving a population of almost 54 million, are reported in accordance with Utstein recommendations. Results 28,729 OHCA cases of EMS treated cardiac arrests were reported (53 per 100,000 of resident population). The mean age was 68.6 (SD = 19.6) years and 41.3% were female. Most (83%) occurred in a place of residence, 52.7% were witnessed by either the EMS or a bystander. In non-EMS witnessed cases, 55.2% received bystander CPR whilst public access defibrillation was used rarely (2.3%). Cardiac aetiology was the leading cause of cardiac arrest (60.9%). The initial rhythm was asystole in 42.4% of all cases and was shockable (VF or pVT) in 20.6%. Return of spontaneous circulation at hospital transfer was evident in 25.8% (n = 6302) and survival to hospital discharge was 7.9%. Conclusion Cardiac arrest is an important cause of death in England. With less than one in ten patients surviving, there is scope to improve outcomes. Survival rates were highest amongst those who received bystander CPR and public access defibrillation.
Cardiac arrests associated with shockable rhythms such as ventricular fibrillation or pulseless VT (VF/pVT) are associated with improved outcomes from cardiac arrest. The more defibrillation attempts ...required to terminate VF/pVT, the lower the survival. Double sequential defibrillation (DSD) has been used for refractory VF/pVT cardiac arrest despite limited evidence examining this practice. We performed a systematic review to summarize the evidence related to the use of DSD during cardiac arrest.
This review was performed according to PRISMA and registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020152575). We searched Embase, Pubmed, and the Cochrane library from inception to 28 February 2020. We included adult patients with VF/pVT in any setting. We excluded case studies, case series with less than five patients, conference abstracts, simulation studies, and protocols for clinical trials. We predefined our outcomes of interest as neurological outcome, survival to hospital discharge, survival to hospital admission, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and termination of VF/pVT. Risk of bias was examined using ROBINS-I or ROB-2 and certainty of studies were reported according to GRADE methodology.
Overall, 314 studies were identified during the initial search. One hundred and thirty studies were screened during title and abstract stage and 10 studies underwent full manuscript screening, nine included in the final analysis. Included studies were cohort studies (n = 4), case series (n = 3), case-control study (n = 1) and a prospective pilot clinical trial (n−1). All studies were considered to have serious or critical risk of bias and no meta-analysis was performed. Overall, we did not find any differences in terms of neurological outcome, survival to hospital discharge, survival to hospital admission, ROSC, or termination of VF/pVT between DSD and a standard defibrillation strategy.
The use of double sequential defibrillation was not associated with improved outcomes from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, however the current literature has a number of limitations to interpretation. Further high-quality evidence is needed to answer this important question.
PDF
