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.

The effects of prehospital TXA on mortality and neurologic outcomes in patients with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage: a subgroup analysis from the prehospital TXA for TBI trial.

BACKGROUND: In the Prehospital Tranexamic Acid (TXA) for TBI Trial, TXA administered within two hours of injury in the out-of-hospital setting did not reduce mortality in all patients with moderate/severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). We examined the association between TXA dosing arms, neurologic outcome, and mortality in patients with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) on computed tomography (CT). METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the Prehospital Tranexamic Acid for TBI Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT01990768]) that randomized adults with moderate/severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale<13) and systolic blood pressure > =90 mmHg within two hours of injury to a 2-gram out-of-hospital TXA bolus followed by an in-hospital saline infusion, a 1-gram out-of-hospital TXA bolus/1-gram in-hospital TXA infusion, or an out-of-hospital saline bolus/in-hospital saline infusion (placebo). This analysis included the subgroup with ICH on initial CT. Primary outcomes included 28-day mortality, 6-month Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) < = 4, and 6-month Disability Rating Scale (DRS). Outcomes were modeled using linear regression with robust standard errors. RESULTS: The primary trial included 966 patients. Among 541 participants with ICH, 28-day mortality was lower in the 2-gram TXA bolus group (17%) compared to the other two groups (1-gram bolus/1-gram infusion 26%, placebo 27%). The estimated adjusted difference between the 2-gram bolus and placebo groups was -8·5 percentage points (95% CI, -15.9 to -1.0) and between the 2-gram bolus and 1-gram bolus/1-gram infusion groups was -10.2 percentage points (95% CI, -17.6 to -2.9). DRS at 6 months was lower in the 2-gram TXA bolus group than the 1-gram bolus/1-gram infusion (estimated difference -2.1 [95% CI, -4.2 to -0.02]) and placebo groups (-2.2 [95% CI, -4.3, -0.2]). Six-month GOSE did not differ among groups. CONCLUSIONS: A 2-gram out-of-hospital TXA bolus in patients with moderate/severe TBI and ICH resulted in lower 28-day mortality and lower 6-month DRS than placebo and standard TXA dosing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management, Level II.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Considerations for the design of overdose education and naloxone distribution interventions: results of a multi-stakeholder workshop.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid overdose epidemic is a public health crisis that is impacting communities around the world. Overdose education and naloxone distribution programs equip and train lay people to respond in the event of an overdose. We aimed to understand factors to consider for the design of naloxone distribution programs in point-of-care settings from the point of view of community stakeholders. METHODS: We hosted a multi-stakeholder co-design workshop to elicit suggestions for a naloxone distribution program. We recruited people with lived experience of opioid overdose, community representatives, and other stakeholders from family practice, emergency medicine, addictions medicine, and public health to participate in a full-day facilitated co-design discussion wherein large and small group discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic approaches. RESULTS: A total of twenty-four participants participated in the multi-stakeholder workshop from five stakeholder groups including geographic and setting diversity. Collaborative dialogue and shared storytelling revealed seven considerations for the design of naloxone distribution programs specific to training needs and the provision of naloxone, these are: recognizing overdose, how much naloxone, impact of stigma, legal risk of responding, position as conventional first aid, friends and family as responders, support to call 911. CONCLUSION: To create an naloxone distribution program in emergency departments, family practice and substance use treatment services, stigma is a central design consideration for training and naloxone kits. Design choices that reference the iconography, type, and form of materials associated with first aid have the potential to satisfy the need to de-stigmatize overdose response.

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.

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.

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.

Design details for overdose education and take-home naloxone kits: Codesign with family medicine, emergency department, addictions medicine and community.

INTRODUCTION: Overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) programmes equip and train people who are likely to witness an opioid overdose to respond with effective first aid interventions. Despite OEND expansion across North America, overdose rates are increasing, raising questions about how to improve OEND programmes. We conducted an iterative series of codesign stakeholder workshops to develop a prototype for take-home naloxone (THN)-kit (i.e., two doses of intranasal naloxone and training on how to administer it). METHODS: We recruited people who use opioids, frontline healthcare providers and public health representatives to participate in codesign workshops covering questions related to THN-kit prototypes, training on how to use it, and implementation, including refinement of design artefacts using personas and journey maps. Completed over 9 months, the workshops were audio-recorded and transcribed with visible results of the workshops (i.e., sticky notes, sketches) archived. We used thematic analyses of these materials to identify design requirements for THN-kits and training. RESULTS: We facilitated 13 codesign workshops to identify and address gaps in existing opioid overdose education training and THN-kits and emphasize timely response and stigma in future THN-kit design. Using an iterative process, we created 15 prototypes, 3 candidate prototypes and a final prototype THN-kit from the synthesis of the codesign workshops. CONCLUSION: The final prototype is available for a variety of implementation and evaluation processes. The THN-kit offers an integrated solution combining ultra-brief training animation and physical packaging of nasal naloxone to be distributed in family practice clinics, emergency departments, addiction medicine clinics and community settings. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The codesign process was deliberately structured to involve community members (the public), with multiple opportunities for public contribution. In addition, patient/public participation was a principle for the management and structuring of the research team.

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.