Compliance with CPR quality guidelines and survival after 30 days following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Our study assessed the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) given by emergency medical services in Southern Ostrobothnia Finland, as is advised in the international guidelines. The goal was to evaluate the current quality of CPR given to patients who suffered an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and to examine possible measures for improving emergency medical services. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients in Southern Ostrobothnia, Finland, during a three-year period. Confounding caused by each patient's individual medical history was addressed by calculating Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), a score describing individual's risk for death in 10 years. The Utstein analysis and the CPR metrics were acquired from the medical records hospital district in question and analysed in an orderly manner using SPSS. Descriptive statistics are presented as mean (SD) and median [IQR]. RESULTS: We found that of the 349 patients, 144 (41%) received ROSC, 96 (28%) survived to the hospital and 51 (15%) survived for at least 30 days. CPR metrics data were available for 181 patients. CCIs were 3.0 versus 5.0 (p = .157) for the ones who did and those who did not survive at least 30 days. Correspondingly, following metrics were as follows: Mean compression depth was 5.1 (1.3) versus 5.6 (0.8) cm (p = .088), median 28 [18;40] versus 40 [26;54]% of the compressions were in target depth (p = .015) and median compression rate was 113 [109;119] versus 112 [108;120] min-1 (p = .757). The median no-flow fraction was 5.1 [2.8;7.1] versus 3.7 [2.5;5.5] s (p = .073). Ventricular fibrillation (OR 8.74, 95% CI 2.89-26.43, p < .001), public location (OR 3.163, 95% CI 1.03-9.69, p = .044) and compression rate of 100-110/min (OR 7.923, 95% CI 2.11-29.82, p = .002) were related to survival. CONCLUSION: Patients who suffered out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Southern Ostrobothnia received CPR that met the international CPR quality target values. The proportion of unintentional pauses during CPR was low and the 30-day survival rate exceeded the international average.

Long-term outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair according to instructions for use adherence status.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the standard treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Endovascular device manufacturers have defined specific anatomic criteria for the aneurysm characteristics that should be observed as instructions for use (IFU) for specific grafts. In clinical practice, the prevalence of performing EVAR outside the IFU has been high. In the present study, we aimed to determine the effects of nonadherence to the IFU on the outcomes. METHODS: Patients who had undergone EVAR for an infrarenal AAA between 2005 and 2013 were included. IFU nonadherence was defined as any violation of device-specific IFU criteria and was compared with IFU adherence. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, AAA rupture, graft-related adverse events (GRAEs), including limb-related adverse events, and type Ia endoleaks. A second aim was to study whether the prevalence of EVAR performed outside the IFU has increased over time. RESULTS: A total of 258 patients were included, 144 (55.8%) of whom had been treated according to the IFU and 114 (44.2%) outside the IFU. In the IFU nonadherence group, all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.89; P = .037) and aneurysm-related mortality (HR, 5.1; 95% CI, 1.4-18.6; P = .015), and the incidence of AAA rupture (HR, 5.4; 95% CI, 1.1-26.6; P = .036) and GRAEs (HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.8; P = .025). No significant association was found between the incidence of type Ia endoleaks and neck-related IFU or limb-related adverse events and iliac-related IFU. However, neck length was a risk factor for type Ia endoleaks (HR, 18.2, 95% CI, 6.3-52.2; P < .001), aneurysm-related mortality (HR, 8.7; 95% CI, 1.8-41.6; P = .007), AAA rupture (HR, 21.7; 95% CI, 2.8-166; P = .003), and GRAEs (HR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.0-9.7; P < .001). An IFU violation regarding neck angulation was also a risk factor for all-cause mortality (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.7; P = .032), aneurysm-related mortality (HR, 7.6; 95% CI, 1.4-42.8; P = .021), AAA rupture (HR, 79.4; 95% CI, 6.3-999; P = .001), and GRAEs (HR, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.9-9.5; P < .001). The prevalence of EVAR performed outside the IFU did not increase over time. CONCLUSIONS: Performing EVAR outside the IFU had a negative effect on outcomes, including all-cause mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, AAA rupture, and GRAEs. Neck angulation and neck length seemed to be the most crucial aneurysm characteristics.

Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms is a Valid Alternative to Open Repair also in Patients Treated Outside of Instructions for Use Criteria.

PURPOSE: It remains unclear whether endovascular aneurysm repair, in the long term, is less effective than open surgery due to need for reinterventions and close monitoring. We aimed to evaluate this matter in a real-life cohort. METHODS: We collected consecutive patients treated with EVAR or OSR between January 2005 and December 2013. Primary outcomes were 30-day, 90-day and long-term all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day reintervention rate and reintervention-free survival. We evaluated also a subpopulation who did not adhere to IFU. RESULTS: The inclusion criteria were met by 416 patients. 258 (62%) received EVAR, while 158 (38%) underwent OSR. The 30- or 90-day mortality was similar between groups (p = 0.272 and p = 0.346), as ARM (p = 0.652). The 30-day reintervention rate was higher in the OSR group (p < 0.001), but during follow-up, it was significantly higher in the EVAR group (log-rank: 0.026). There were 114 (44.2%) non-IFU patients in the EVAR group, and we compared them with OSR group. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 30 or 90 days, nor in the long term (p = 1; p = 1 and p = 0.062). ARM was not affected by the procedure technique (p = 0.136). The short-term reintervention rate was higher in the OSR group (p = 0.003), while in the long-term EVAR, patients experienced more reinterventions (log-rank = 0.0.43). CONCLUSION: No significant difference in survival was found between EVAR and OSR, independent of adherence to IFU. EVAR may be considered for surgical candidates.