Bag-Valve-Mask Ventilation and Survival From Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have measured ventilation during early cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) before advanced airway placement. Resuscitation guidelines recommend pauses after every 30 chest compressions to deliver ventilations. The effectiveness of bag-valve-mask ventilation delivered during the pause in chest compressions is unknown. We sought to determine: (1) the incidence of lung inflation with bag-valve-mask ventilation during 30:2 CPR; and (2) the association of ventilation with outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: We studied patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from 6 sites of the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium CCC study (Trial of Continuous Compressions versus Standard CPR in Patients with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest). We analyzed patients assigned to the 30:2 CPR arm with ≥2 minutes of thoracic bioimpedance signal recorded with a cardiac defibrillator/monitor. Detectable ventilation waveforms were defined as having a bioimpedance amplitude ≥0.5 Ω (corresponding to ≥250 mL VT) and a duration ≥1 s. We defined a chest compression pause as a 3- to 15-s break in chest compressions. We compared the incidence of ventilation and outcomes in 2 groups: patients with ventilation waveforms in <50% of pauses (group 1) versus those with waveforms in ≥50% of pauses (group 2). RESULTS: Among 1976 patients, the mean age was 65 years; 66% were male. From the start of chest compressions until advanced airway placement, mean±SD duration of 30:2 CPR was 9.8±4.9 minutes. During this period, we identified 26 861 pauses in chest compressions; 60% of patients had ventilation waveforms in <50% of pauses (group 1, n=1177), and 40% had waveforms in ≥50% of pauses (group 2, n=799). Group 1 had a median of 12 pauses and 2 ventilations per patient versus group 2, which had 12 pauses and 12 ventilations per patient. Group 2 had higher rates of prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (40.7% versus 25.2%; P<0.0001), survival to hospital discharge (13.5% versus 4.1%; P<0.0001), and survival with favorable neurological outcome (10.6% versus 2.4%; P<0.0001). These associations persisted after adjustment for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, lung inflation occurred infrequently with bag-valve-mask ventilation during 30:2 CPR. Lung inflation in ≥50% of pauses was associated with improved return of spontaneous circulation, survival, and survival with favorable neurological outcome.

Severe Fatigue and Persistent Symptoms at 3 Months Following Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infections During the Pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron Time Periods: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Most research on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants focuses on initial symptomatology with limited longer-term data. We characterized prevalences of prolonged symptoms 3 months post-SARS-CoV-2 infection across 3 variant time-periods (pre-Delta, Delta, and Omicron). METHODS: This multicenter prospective cohort study of adults with acute illness tested for SARS-CoV-2 compared fatigue severity, fatigue symptoms, organ system-based symptoms, and ≥3 symptoms across variants among participants with a positive ("COVID-positive") or negative SARS-CoV-2 test ("COVID-negative") at 3 months after SARS-CoV-2 testing. Variant periods were defined by dates with ≥50% dominant strain. We performed multivariable logistic regression modeling to estimate independent effects of variants adjusting for sociodemographics, baseline health, and vaccine status. RESULTS: The study included 2402 COVID-positive and 821 COVID-negative participants. Among COVID-positives, 463 (19.3%) were pre-Delta, 1198 (49.9%) Delta, and 741 (30.8%) Omicron. The pre-Delta COVID-positive cohort exhibited more prolonged severe fatigue (16.7% vs 11.5% vs 12.3%; P = .017) and presence of ≥3 prolonged symptoms (28.4% vs 21.7% vs 16.0%; P < .001) compared with the Delta and Omicron cohorts. No differences were seen in the COVID-negatives across time-periods. In multivariable models adjusted for vaccination, severe fatigue and odds of having ≥3 symptoms were no longer significant across variants. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection were more common among participants infected during pre-Delta than with Delta and Omicron; however, these differences were no longer significant after adjusting for vaccination status, suggesting a beneficial effect of vaccination on risk of long-term symptoms. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04610515.

Three-Month Symptom Profiles Among Symptomatic Adults With Positive and Negative Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Tests: A Prospective Cohort Study From the INSPIRE Group.

BACKGROUND: Long-term symptoms following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are a major concern, yet their prevalence is poorly understood. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study comparing adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection (coronavirus disease-positive [COVID+]) with adults who tested negative (COVID-), enrolled within 28 days of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved SARS-CoV-2 test result for active symptoms. Sociodemographic characteristics, symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection (assessed with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] Person Under Investigation Symptom List), and symptoms of post-infectious syndromes (ie, fatigue, sleep quality, muscle/joint pains, unrefreshing sleep, and dizziness/fainting, assessed with CDC Short Symptom Screener for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) were assessed at baseline and 3 months via electronic surveys sent via text or email. RESULTS: Among the first 1000 participants, 722 were COVID+ and 278 were COVID-. Mean age was 41.5 (SD 15.2); 66.3% were female, 13.4% were Black, and 15.3% were Hispanic. At baseline, SARS-CoV-2 symptoms were more common in the COVID+ group than the COVID- group. At 3 months, SARS-CoV-2 symptoms declined in both groups, although were more prevalent in the COVID+ group: upper respiratory symptoms/head/eyes/ears/nose/throat (HEENT; 37.3% vs 20.9%), constitutional (28.8% vs 19.4%), musculoskeletal (19.5% vs 14.7%), pulmonary (17.6% vs 12.2%), cardiovascular (10.0% vs 7.2%), and gastrointestinal (8.7% vs 8.3%); only 50.2% and 73.3% reported no symptoms at all. Symptoms of post-infectious syndromes were similarly prevalent among the COVID+ and COVID- groups at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of COVID+ participants, as compared with one-quarter of COVID- participants, had at least 1 SARS-CoV-2 symptom at 3 months, highlighting the need for future work to distinguish long COVID. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04610515.

Prevalence of Symptoms ≤12 Months After Acute Illness, by COVID-19 Testing Status Among Adults - United States, December 2020-March 2023.

To further the understanding of post-COVID conditions, and provide a more nuanced description of symptom progression, resolution, emergence, and reemergence after SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-like illness, analysts examined data from the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE), a prospective multicenter cohort study. This report includes analysis of data on self-reported symptoms collected from 1,296 adults with COVID-like illness who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 using a Food and Drug Administration-approved polymerase chain reaction or antigen test at the time of enrollment and reported symptoms at 3-month intervals for 12 months. Prevalence of any symptom decreased substantially between baseline and the 3-month follow-up, from 98.4% to 48.2% for persons who received a positive SARS-CoV-2 test results (COVID test-positive participants) and from 88.2% to 36.6% for persons who received negative SARS-CoV-2 test results (COVID test-negative participants). Persistent symptoms decreased through 12 months; no difference between the groups was observed at 12 months (prevalence among COVID test-positive and COVID test-negative participants = 18.3% and 16.1%, respectively; p>0.05). Both groups reported symptoms that emerged or reemerged at 6, 9, and 12 months. Thus, these symptoms are not unique to COVID-19 or to post-COVID conditions. Awareness that symptoms might persist for up to 12 months, and that many symptoms might emerge or reemerge in the year after COVID-like illness, can assist health care providers in understanding the clinical signs and symptoms associated with post-COVID-like conditions.

Gender-Based Differences in Outcomes Among Resuscitated Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Studies examining gender-based differences in outcomes of patients experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest have demonstrated that, despite a higher likelihood of return of spontaneous circulation, women do not have higher survival. METHODS: Patients successfully resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest enrolled in the CCC trial (Trial of Continuous or Interrupted Chest Compressions during CPR) were included. Hierarchical multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to evaluate the association between gender and survival after adjustment for age, gender, cardiac arrest rhythm, witnessed status, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, episode location, epinephrine dose, emergency medical services response time, and duration of resuscitation. Do not resuscitate (DNR) and withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy (WLST) order status were used to assess whether differences in postresuscitation outcomes were modified by baseline prognosis. The analysis was replicated among ALPS trial (Amiodarone, Lidocaine, or Placebo in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) participants. RESULTS: Among 4875 successfully resuscitated patients, 1825 (37.4%) were women and 3050 (62.6%) were men. Women were older (67.5 versus 65.3 years), received less bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (49.1% versus 54.9%), and had a lower proportion of cardiac arrests that were witnessed (55.1% versus 64.5%) or had shockable rhythm (24.3% versus 44.6%, P<0.001 for all). A significantly higher proportion of women received DNR orders (35.7% versus 32.1%, P=0.009) and had WLST (32.8% versus 29.8%, P=0.03). Discharge survival was significantly lower in women (22.5% versus 36.3%, P<0.001; adjusted odds ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.66-0.93]; P=0.005). The association between gender and survival to discharge was modified by DNR and WLST order status such that women had significantly reduced survival to discharge among patients who were not designated DNR (31.3% versus 49.9%, P=0.005; adjusted odds ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.60-0.91]) or did not have WLST (32.3% versus 50.7%, P=0.002; adjusted odds ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.60-0.89]). In contrast, no gender difference in survival was noted among patients receiving a DNR order (6.7% versus 7.4%, P=0.90) or had WLST (2.8% versus 2.4%, P=0.93). Consistent patterns of association between gender and postresuscitation outcomes were observed in the secondary cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients resuscitated after experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, discharge survival was significantly lower in women than in men, especially among patients considered to have a favorable prognosis.

Association of Advanced Airway Insertion Timing and Outcomes After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: While often prioritized in the resuscitation of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the optimal timing of advanced airway insertion is unknown. We evaluated the association between the timing of advanced airway (laryngeal tube and endotracheal intubation) insertion attempt and survival to hospital discharge in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of the Pragmatic Airway Resuscitation Trial (PART), a clinical trial comparing the effects of laryngeal tube and endotracheal intubation on outcomes after adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We stratified the cohort by randomized airway strategy (laryngeal tube or endotracheal intubation). Within each subset, we defined a time-dependent propensity score using patients, arrest, and emergency medical services systems characteristics. Using the propensity score, we matched each patient receiving an initial attempt of laryngeal tube or endotracheal intubation with a patient at risk of receiving laryngeal tube or endotracheal intubation attempt within the same minute. RESULTS: Of 2,146 eligible patients, 1,091 (50.8%) and 1,055 (49.2%) were assigned to initial laryngeal tube and endotracheal intubation strategies, respectively. In the propensity score-matched cohort, timing of laryngeal tube insertion attempt was not associated with survival to hospital discharge: 0 to lesser than 5 minutes (risk ratio [RR]=1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 3.44); 5 to lesser than10 minutes (RR=1.07, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.73); 10 to lesser than 15 minutes (RR=1.17, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.31); or 15 to lesser than 20 minutes (RR=2.09, 95% CI 0.35 to 12.47) after advanced life support arrival. Timing of endotracheal intubation attempt was also not associated with survival: 0 to lesser than 5 minutes (RR=0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.87); 5 to lesser than10 minutes (RR=1.20, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.81); 10 to lesser than15 minutes (RR=1.03, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.14); 15 to lesser than 20 minutes (RR=0.85, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.42); or more than/equal to 20 minutes (RR=0.71, 95% CI 0.07 to 7.14). CONCLUSION: In the PART, timing of advanced airway insertion attempt was not associated with survival to hospital discharge.

Procainamide for shockable rhythm cardiac arrest in the Resuscitation Outcome Consortium.

BACKGROUND: With recent negative studies of amiodarone and lidocaine for cardiac arrest, research into other antiarrhythmics is warranted. Literature on procainamide in cardiac arrest is limited. We evaluated procainamide for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC). METHODS: We included all ROC Epistry 3 OHCAs with an initial shockable rhythm that received an antiarrhythmic. We stratified cases by antiarrhythmic: procainamide, amiodarone, or lidocaine. The outcomes were prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), ROSC in the ED, and survival to hospital discharge. We defined propensity scores based on possible confounders utilizing 1:1 propensity score matching to compare procainamide to amiodarone and lidocaine. We analyzed the matched data using logistic regression. We also used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the association between antiarrhythmic and outcomes. RESULTS: 3087 subjects met inclusion criteria; 51 patients received only procainamide, 1776 received amiodarone, and 1418 received lidocaine. On propensity score analysis and compared to procainamide, amiodarone had similar prehospital ROSC (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.3-1.8), ED ROSC (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3-1.3), and survival (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.3-3.1). Lidocaine also had a similar prehospital ROSC (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.4-2.2), ED ROSC (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.5-2.7), and survival (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.5-4.0). However, using multivariable regression, amiodarone had lower prehospital ROSC than procainamide (aOR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.6). CONCLUSIONS: While associated with increased prehospital ROSC when compared with amiodarone using multivariable regression, procainamide otherwise had similar prehospital ROSC, ED ROSC, and survival. The role of procainamide in OHCA remains unclear.

Variation in Bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Delivery and Subsequent Survival From Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Based on Neighborhood-Level Ethnic Characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (B-CPR) delivery and survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest vary at the neighborhood level, with lower survival seen in predominantly black neighborhoods. Although the Hispanic population is the fastest-growing minority population in the United States, few studies have assessed whether the proportion of Hispanic residents in a neighborhood is associated with B-CPR delivery and survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We assessed whether B-CPR rates and survival vary by neighborhood-level ethnicity. We hypothesized that neighborhoods with a higher proportion of Hispanic residents have lower B-CPR rates and lower survival. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Epistry at US sites. Neighborhoods were classified by census tract based on percentage of Hispanic residents: <25%, 25% to 50%, 51% to 75%, or >75%. We independently modeled the likelihood of receipt of B-CPR and survival by neighborhood-level ethnicity controlling for site and patient-level confounding characteristics. RESULTS: From 2011 to 2015, the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium collected 27 481 US arrest events; after excluding pediatric arrests, emergency medical services-witnessed arrests, or arrests occurring in a healthcare or institutional facility, 18 927 were included. B-CPR was administered in 37% of events. In neighborhoods with <25% Hispanic residents, B-CPR was administered in 39% of events, whereas it was administered in 27% of events in neighborhoods with >75% Hispanic residents. Compared with <25% Hispanic neighborhoods in a multivariable analysis, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods had lower B-CPR rates (51% to 75% Hispanic: odds ratio, 0.79 [CI, 0.65-0.95], P=0.014; >75% Hispanic: odds ratio, 0.72 [CI, 0.55-0.96], P=0.025) and lower survival rates (global P value 0.029; >75% Hispanic: odds ratio, 0.56 [CI, 0.34-0.93], P=0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods were less likely to receive B-CPR and had lower likelihood of survival. These findings suggest a need to understand the underlying disparities in cardiopulmonary resuscitationdelivery and an unmet cardiopulmonary resuscitationtraining need in Hispanic communities.

Survival After Intravenous Versus Intraosseous Amiodarone, Lidocaine, or Placebo in Out-of-Hospital Shock-Refractory Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Antiarrhythmic drugs have not proven to significantly improve overall survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia. How this might be influenced by the route of drug administration is not known. METHODS: In this prespecified analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial, we compared the differences in survival to hospital discharge in adults with shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who were randomly assigned by emergency medical services personnel to an antiarrhythmic drug versus placebo in the ALPS trial (Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Amiodarone, Lidocaine or Placebo Study), when stratified by the intravenous versus intraosseous route of administration. RESULTS: Of 3019 randomly assigned patients with a known vascular access site, 2358 received ALPS drugs intravenously and 661 patients by the intraosseous route. Intraosseous and intravenous groups differed in sex, time-to-emergency medical services arrival, and some cardiopulmonary resuscitation characteristics, but were similar in others, including time-to-intravenous/intrasosseous drug receipt. Overall hospital discharge survival was 23%. In comparison with placebo, discharge survival was significantly higher in recipients of intravenous amiodarone (adjusted risk ratio, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.06-1.50]; adjusted absolute survival difference, 5.5% [95% CI, 1.5-9.5]) and intravenous lidocaine (adjusted risk ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.02-1.45]; adjusted absolute survival difference, 4.7% [95% CI, 0.7-8.8]); but not in recipients of intraosseous amiodarone (adjusted risk ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.66-1.32]) or intraosseous lidocaine (adjusted risk ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.74-1.44]). Survival to hospital admission also increased significantly when drugs were given intravenously but not intraosseously, and favored improved neurological outcome at discharge. There were no outcome differences between intravenous and intraosseous placebo, indicating that the access route itself did not demarcate patients with poor prognosis. The study was underpowered to assess intravenous/intraosseous drug interactions, which were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant effect modification by drug administration route for amiodarone or lidocaine in comparison with placebo during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. However, point estimates for the effects of both drugs in comparison with placebo were significantly greater for the intravenous than for the intraosseous route across virtually all outcomes and beneficial only for the intravenous route. Given that the study was underpowered to statistically assess interactions, these findings signal the potential importance of the drug administration route during resuscitation that merits further investigation.

A Machine Learning Model for the Prognosis of Pulseless Electrical Activity during Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

Pulseless electrical activity (PEA) is characterized by the disassociation of the mechanical and electrical activity of the heart and appears as the initial rhythm in 20-30% of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) cases. Predicting whether a patient in PEA will convert to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) is important because different therapeutic strategies are needed depending on the type of PEA. The aim of this study was to develop a machine learning model to differentiate PEA with unfavorable (unPEA) and favorable (faPEA) evolution to ROSC. An OHCA dataset of 1921 5s PEA signal segments from defibrillator files was used, 703 faPEA segments from 107 patients with ROSC and 1218 unPEA segments from 153 patients with no ROSC. The solution consisted of a signal-processing stage of the ECG and the thoracic impedance (TI) and the extraction of the TI circulation component (ICC), which is associated with ventricular wall movement. Then, a set of 17 features was obtained from the ECG and ICC signals, and a random forest classifier was used to differentiate faPEA from unPEA. All models were trained and tested using patientwise and stratified 10-fold cross-validation partitions. The best model showed a median (interquartile range) area under the curve (AUC) of 85.7(9.8)% and a balance accuracy of 78.8(9.8)%, improving the previously available solutions at more than four points in the AUC and three points in balanced accuracy. It was demonstrated that the evolution of PEA can be predicted using the ECG and TI signals, opening the possibility of targeted PEA treatment in OHCA.

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.

Towards the Prediction of Rearrest during Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

A secondary arrest is frequent in patients that recover spontaneous circulation after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Rearrest events are associated to worse patient outcomes, but little is known on the heart dynamics that lead to rearrest. The prediction of rearrest could help improve OHCA patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to develop a machine learning model to predict rearrest. A random forest classifier based on 21 heart rate variability (HRV) and electrocardiogram (ECG) features was designed. An analysis interval of 2 min after recovery of spontaneous circulation was used to compute the features. The model was trained and tested using a repeated cross-validation procedure, on a cohort of 162 OHCA patients (55 with rearrest). The median (interquartile range) sensitivity (rearrest) and specificity (no-rearrest) of the model were 67.3% (9.1%) and 67.3% (10.3%), respectively, with median areas under the receiver operating characteristics and the precision-recall curves of 0.69 and 0.53, respectively. This is the first machine learning model to predict rearrest, and would provide clinically valuable information to the clinician in an automated way.

Time to Epinephrine Administration and Survival From Nonshockable Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Among Children and Adults.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated that earlier epinephrine administration is associated with improved survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with shockable initial rhythms. However, the effect of epinephrine timing on patients with nonshockable initial rhythms is unclear. The objective of this study was to measure the association between time to epinephrine administration and survival in adults and children with emergency medical services (EMS)-treated OHCA with nonshockable initial rhythms. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of OHCAs prospectively identified by the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium network from June 4, 2011, to June 30, 2015. We included patients of all ages with an EMS-treated OHCA and an initial nonshockable rhythm. We excluded those with return of spontaneous circulation in <10 minutes. We conducted a subgroup analysis involving patients <18 years of age. The primary exposure was time (minutes) from arrival of the first EMS agency to the first dose of epinephrine. Secondary exposure was time to epinephrine dichotomized as early (<10 minutes) or late (≥10 minutes). The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. We adjusted for Utstein covariates and Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium study site. RESULTS: From 55 568 EMS-treated OHCAs, 32 101 patients with initial nonshockable rhythms were included. There were 12 238 in the early group, 14 517 in the late group, and 5346 not treated with epinephrine. After adjusting for potential confounders, each minute from EMS arrival to epinephrine administration was associated with a 4% decrease in odds of survival for adults, odds ratio=0.96 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-0.98). A subgroup analysis (n=13 290) examining neurological outcomes showed a similar association (adjusted odds ratio, 0.94 per minute; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-0.98). When epinephrine was given late in comparison with early, odds of survival were 18% lower (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.98). In a pediatric analysis (n=595), odds of survival were 9% lower (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.01) for each minute delay in epinephrine. CONCLUSIONS: Among OHCAs with nonshockable initial rhythms, the majority of patients were administered epinephrine >10 minutes after EMS arrival. Each minute delay in epinephrine administration was associated with decreased survival and unfavorable neurological outcomes. EMS agencies should consider strategies to reduce epinephrine administration times in patients with initial nonshockable rhythms.

Impact of Bystander Automated External Defibrillator Use on Survival and Functional Outcomes in Shockable Observed Public Cardiac Arrests.

BACKGROUND: Survival following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with shockable rhythms can be improved with early defibrillation. Although shockable OHCA accounts for only ≈25% of overall arrests, ≈60% of public OHCAs are shockable, offering the possibility of restoring thousands of individuals to full recovery with early defibrillation by bystanders. We sought to determine the association of bystander automated external defibrillator use with survival and functional outcomes in shockable observed public OHCA. METHODS: From 2011 to 2015, the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium prospectively collected detailed information on all cardiac arrests at 9 regional centers. The exposures were shock administration by a bystander-applied automated external defibrillator in comparison with initial defibrillation by emergency medical services. The primary outcome measure was discharge with normal or near-normal (favorable) functional status defined as a modified Rankin Score ≤2. Survival to hospital discharge was the secondary outcome measure. RESULTS: Among 49 555 OHCAs, 4115 (8.3%) observed public OHCAs were analyzed, of which 2500 (60.8%) were shockable. A bystander shock was applied in 18.8% of the shockable arrests. Patients shocked by a bystander were significantly more likely to survive to discharge (66.5% versus 43.0%) and be discharged with favorable functional outcome (57.1% versus 32.7%) than patients initially shocked by emergency medical services. After adjusting for known predictors of outcome, the odds ratio associated with a bystander shock was 2.62 (95% confidence interval, 2.07-3.31) for survival to hospital discharge and 2.73 (95% confidence interval, 2.17-3.44) for discharge with favorable functional outcome. The benefit of bystander shock increased progressively as emergency medical services response time became longer. CONCLUSIONS: Bystander automated external defibrillator use before emergency medical services arrival in shockable observed public OHCA was associated with better survival and functional outcomes. Continued emphasis on public automated external defibrillator utilization programs may further improve outcomes of OHCA.

Amiodarone, Lidocaine, or Placebo in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Antiarrhythmic drugs are used commonly in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest for shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia, but without proven survival benefit. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind trial, we compared parenteral amiodarone, lidocaine, and saline placebo, along with standard care, in adults who had nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia after at least one shock, and vascular access. Paramedics enrolled patients at 10 North American sites. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge; the secondary outcome was favorable neurologic function at discharge. The per-protocol (primary analysis) population included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received any dose of a trial drug and whose initial cardiac-arrest rhythm of ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia was refractory to shock. RESULTS: In the per-protocol population, 3026 patients were randomly assigned to amiodarone (974), lidocaine (993), or placebo (1059); of those, 24.4%, 23.7%, and 21.0%, respectively, survived to hospital discharge. The difference in survival rate for amiodarone versus placebo was 3.2 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.4 to 7.0; P=0.08); for lidocaine versus placebo, 2.6 percentage points (95% CI, -1.0 to 6.3; P=0.16); and for amiodarone versus lidocaine, 0.7 percentage points (95% CI, -3.2 to 4.7; P=0.70). Neurologic outcome at discharge was similar in the three groups. There was heterogeneity of treatment effect with respect to whether the arrest was witnessed (P=0.05); active drugs were associated with a survival rate that was significantly higher than the rate with placebo among patients with bystander-witnessed arrest but not among those with unwitnessed arrest. More amiodarone recipients required temporary cardiac pacing than did recipients of lidocaine or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, neither amiodarone nor lidocaine resulted in a significantly higher rate of survival or favorable neurologic outcome than the rate with placebo among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to initial shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01401647.).

Deep Neural Networks for ECG-Based Pulse Detection during Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

The automatic detection of pulse during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is necessary for the early recognition of the arrest and the detection of return of spontaneous circulation (end of the arrest). The only signal available in every single defibrillator and valid for the detection of pulse is the electrocardiogram (ECG). In this study we propose two deep neural network (DNN) architectures to detect pulse using short ECG segments (5 s), i.e., to classify the rhythm into pulseless electrical activity (PEA) or pulse-generating rhythm (PR). A total of 3914 5-s ECG segments, 2372 PR and 1542 PEA, were extracted from 279 OHCA episodes. Data were partitioned patient-wise into training (80%) and test (20%) sets. The first DNN architecture was a fully convolutional neural network, and the second architecture added a recurrent layer to learn temporal dependencies. Both DNN architectures were tuned using Bayesian optimization, and the results for the test set were compared to state-of-the art PR/PEA discrimination algorithms based on machine learning and hand crafted features. The PR/PEA classifiers were evaluated in terms of sensitivity (Se) for PR, specificity (Sp) for PEA, and the balanced accuracy (BAC), the average of Se and Sp. The Se/Sp/BAC of the DNN architectures were 94.1%/92.9%/93.5% for the first one, and 95.5%/91.6%/93.5% for the second one. Both architectures improved the performance of state of the art methods by more than 1.5 points in BAC.

Antiarrhythmic Drugs for Nonshockable-Turned-Shockable Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: The ALPS Study (Amiodarone, Lidocaine, or Placebo).

BACKGROUND: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) commonly presents with nonshockable rhythms (asystole and pulseless electric activity). It is unknown whether antiarrhythmic drugs are safe and effective when nonshockable rhythms evolve to shockable rhythms (ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia [VF/VT]) during resuscitation. METHODS: Adults with nontraumatic OHCA, vascular access, and VF/VT anytime after ≥1 shock(s) were prospectively randomized, double-blind, to receive amiodarone, lidocaine, or placebo by paramedics. Patients presenting with initial shock-refractory VF/VT were previously reported. The current study was a prespecified analysis in a separate cohort that initially presented with nonshockable OHCA and was randomized on subsequently developing shock-refractory VF/VT. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included discharge functional status and adverse drug-related effects. RESULTS: Of 37 889 patients with OHCA, 3026 with initial VF/VT and 1063 with initial nonshockable-turned-shockable rhythms were treatment-eligible, were randomized, and received their assigned drug. Baseline characteristics among patients with nonshockable-turned-shockable rhythms were balanced across treatment arms, except that recipients of a placebo included fewer men and were less likely to receive bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Active-drug recipients in this cohort required fewer shocks, supplemental doses of their assigned drug, and ancillary antiarrhythmic drugs than recipients of a placebo (P<0.05). In all, 16 (4.1%) amiodarone, 11 (3.1%) lidocaine, and 6 (1.9%) placebo-treated patients survived to hospital discharge (P=0.24). No significant interaction between treatment assignment and discharge survival occurred with the initiating OHCA rhythm (asystole, pulseless electric activity, or VF/VT). Survival in each of these categories was consistently higher with active drugs, although the trends were not statistically significant. Adjusted absolute differences (95% confidence interval) in survival from nonshockable-turned-shockable arrhythmias with amiodarone versus placebo were 2.3% (-0.3, 4.8), P=0.08, and for lidocaine versus placebo 1.2% (-1.1, 3.6), P=0.30. More than 50% of these survivors were functionally independent or required minimal assistance. Drug-related adverse effects were infrequent. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome from nonshockable-turned-shockable OHCA is poor but not invariably fatal. Although not statistically significant, point estimates for survival were greater after amiodarone or lidocaine than placebo, without increased risk of adverse effects or disability and consistent with previously observed favorable trends from treatment of initial shock-refractory VF/VT with these drugs. Together the findings may signal a clinical benefit that invites further investigation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01401647.

Trial of Continuous or Interrupted Chest Compressions during CPR.

BACKGROUND: During cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the interruption of manual chest compressions for rescue breathing reduces blood flow and possibly survival. We assessed whether outcomes after continuous compressions with positive-pressure ventilation differed from those after compressions that were interrupted for ventilations at a ratio of 30 compressions to two ventilations. METHODS: This cluster-randomized trial with crossover included 114 emergency medical service (EMS) agencies. Adults with non-trauma-related cardiac arrest who were treated by EMS providers received continuous chest compressions (intervention group) or interrupted chest compressions (control group). The primary outcome was the rate of survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included the modified Rankin scale score (on a scale from 0 to 6, with a score of ≤3 indicating favorable neurologic function). CPR process was measured to assess compliance. RESULTS: Of 23,711 patients included in the primary analysis, 12,653 were assigned to the intervention group and 11,058 to the control group. A total of 1129 of 12,613 patients with available data (9.0%) in the intervention group and 1072 of 11,035 with available data (9.7%) in the control group survived until discharge (difference, -0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.5 to 0.1; P=0.07); 7.0% of the patients in the intervention group and 7.7% of those in the control group survived with favorable neurologic function at discharge (difference, -0.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.4 to 0.1, P=0.09). Hospital-free survival was significantly shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (mean difference, -0.2 days; 95% CI, -0.3 to -0.1; P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, continuous chest compressions during CPR performed by EMS providers did not result in significantly higher rates of survival or favorable neurologic function than did interrupted chest compressions. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ROC CCC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01372748.).

Effect of a Strategy of Initial Laryngeal Tube Insertion vs Endotracheal Intubation on 72-Hour Survival in Adults With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Emergency medical services (EMS) commonly perform endotracheal intubation (ETI) or insertion of supraglottic airways, such as the laryngeal tube (LT), on patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). The optimal method for OHCA advanced airway management is unknown. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of a strategy of initial LT insertion vs initial ETI in adults with OHCA. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter pragmatic cluster-crossover clinical trial involving EMS agencies from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium. The trial included 3004 adults with OHCA and anticipated need for advanced airway management who were enrolled from December 1, 2015, to November 4, 2017. The final date of follow-up was November 10, 2017. Interventions: Twenty-seven EMS agencies were randomized in 13 clusters to initial airway management strategy with LT (n = 1505 patients) or ETI (n = 1499 patients), with crossover to the alternate strategy at 3- to 5-month intervals. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 72-hour survival. Secondary outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge, favorable neurological status at hospital discharge (Modified Rankin Scale score ≤3), and key adverse events. Results: Among 3004 enrolled patients (median [interquartile range] age, 64 [53-76] years, 1829 [60.9%] men), 3000 were included in the primary analysis. Rates of initial airway success were 90.3% with LT and 51.6% with ETI. Seventy-two hour survival was 18.3% in the LT group vs 15.4% in the ETI group (adjusted difference, 2.9% [95% CI, 0.2%-5.6%]; P = .04). Secondary outcomes in the LT group vs ETI group were return of spontaneous circulation (27.9% vs 24.3%; adjusted difference, 3.6% [95% CI, 0.3%-6.8%]; P = .03); hospital survival (10.8% vs 8.1%; adjusted difference, 2.7% [95% CI, 0.6%-4.8%]; P = .01); and favorable neurological status at discharge (7.1% vs 5.0%; adjusted difference, 2.1% [95% CI, 0.3%-3.8%]; P = .02). There were no significant differences in oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal injury (0.2% vs 0.3%), airway swelling (1.1% vs 1.0%), or pneumonia or pneumonitis (26.1% vs 22.3%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with OHCA, a strategy of initial LT insertion was associated with significantly greater 72-hour survival compared with a strategy of initial ETI. These findings suggest that LT insertion may be considered as an initial airway management strategy in patients with OHCA, but limitations of the pragmatic design, practice setting, and ETI performance characteristics suggest that further research is warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02419573.

The past, present, and future of ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To evaluate the past and present literature on ventilation during out of hospital cardiac arrest, highlighting research that has informed current guidelines. RECENT FINDINGS: Previous studies have studied what are optimal compression-to-ventilation ratios, ventilation rates, and methods of ventilation. Continuous chest compression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has not shown to provide a significant survival benefit over the traditional 30 : 2 CPR. The optimal ventilation rate is recommended at 8 to 10 breaths per minute. Methods such as capnography and thoracic impedance are being used to evaluate ventilation in research studies. SUMMARY: Future out of hospital cardiac arrest studies are still exploring how to optimize the delivery of ventilation during the initial stages of resuscitation. More prospective studies focusing on ventilation are needed to inform guidelines.