Clinical outcomes from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in low-resource settings - A scoping review.

AIM OF THE SCOPING REVIEW: Scientific recommendations on resuscitation are typically formulated from the perspective of an ideal resource environment, with little consideration of applicability in lower-income countries. We aimed to determine clinical outcomes from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in low-resource countries, to identify shortcomings related to resuscitation in these areas and possible solutions, and to suggest future research priorities. DATA SOURCES: This scoping review was part of the continuous evidence evaluation process of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR), and was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. We identified low-resource countries as countries with a low- or middle gross national income per capita (World Bank data). We performed a literature search on outcomes after OHCA in these countries, and we extracted data on the outcome. We applied descriptive statistics and conducted a post-hoc correlation analysis of cohort size and ROSC rates. RESULTS: We defined 24 eligible studies originating from middle-income countries, but none from low-income regions, suggesting a reporting bias. The number of reported patients in these studies ranged from 54 to 3214. Utstein-style reporting was rarely used. Return of spontaneous circulation varied from 0% to 62%. Fifteen studies reported on survival to hospital discharge (between 1.0 and 16.7%) or favourable neurological outcome (between 1.0 and 9.3%). An inverse correlation was found for study cohort size and the rate of return of spontaneous circulation (ρ = -0.48, p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: Studies of OHCA outcomes in low-resource countries are heterogeneous and may be compromised by reporting bias. Minimum cardiopulmonary resuscitation standards for low-resource settings should be developed collaboratively involving local experts, respecting culture and context while balancing competing health priorities.

The Canadian National EMS Research Agenda: Impact and Feasibility of Implementation of Previously Generated Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: A recent mixed-methods study on the state of emergency medical services (EMS) research in Canada led to the generation of nineteen actionable recommendations. As part of the dissemination plan, a survey was distributed to EMS stakeholders to determine the anticipated impact and feasibility of implementing these recommendations in Canadian systems. METHODS: An online survey explored both the implementation impact and feasibility for each recommendation using a five-point scale. The sample consisted of participants from the Canadian National EMS Research Agenda study (published in 2013) and additional EMS research stakeholders identified through snowball sampling. Responses were analysed descriptively using median and plotted on a matrix. Participants reported any planned or ongoing initiatives related to the recommendations, and required or anticipated resources. Free text responses were analysed with simple content analysis, collated by recommendation. RESULTS: The survey was sent to 131 people, 94 (71.8%) of whom responded: 30 EMS managers/regulators (31.9%), 22 researchers (23.4%), 15 physicians (16.0%), 13 educators (13.8%), and 5 EMS providers (5.3%). Two recommendations (11%) had a median impact score of 4 (of 5) and feasibility score of 4 (of 5). Eight recommendations (42%) had an impact score of 5, with a feasibility score of 3. Nine recommendations (47%) had an impact score of 4 and a feasibility score of 3. CONCLUSIONS: For most recommendations, participants scored the anticipated impact higher than the feasibility to implement. Ongoing or planned initiatives exist pertaining to all recommendations except one. All of the recommendations will require additional resources to implement.