Chest Decompressions - The Driver of CPR Efficacy: Exploring the Relationship Between Compression Rate, Depth, Recoil Velocity, and End-Tidal CO2.

OBJECTIVE: Cardiopulmonary arrest survival is dependent on optimization of perfusion via high quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), defined by a complex dynamic between rate, depth, and recoil velocity. Here we explore the interaction between these metrics and create a model that explores the impact of these variables on compression efficacy. METHODS: This study was performed in a large urban/suburban fire-based emergency medical services (EMS) system over a nine-month period from 2019 to 2020. Manual chest compression parameters [rate/depth/recoil velocity] from a cohort of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) victims were abstracted from monitor defibrillators (ZOLL X-series) and end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) from sensors. The mean values of these parameters were modeled against each other using multiple regression and structural equation modeling with ETCO2 as a dependent variable. RESULTS: Data from a total of 335 patients were analyzed. Strong linear relationships were observed between compression depth/recoil velocity (r = .87, p < .001), ETCO2/depth (r = .23, p < .001) and ETCO2/recoil velocity (r = .61, p < .001). Parabolic relationships were observed between rate/depth (r = .39, p < .001), rate/recoil velocity (r = .26, p < .001), and ETCO2/rate (r = .20, p = .003). Rate, depth, and recoil velocity were modeled as independent variables and ETCO2 as a dependent variable with excellence model performance suggesting the primary driver of stroke volume to be recoil velocity rather than compression depth. CONCLUSIONS: We used manual CPR metrics from out of hospital cardiac arrests to model the relationship between CPR metrics. These results consistently support the importance of chest recoil on CPR hemodynamics, suggesting that guidelines for optimal CPR should emphasize the importance of maximum chest recoil.

A Descriptive Analysis of Air Medical Pediatric Rapid Sequence Intubation: Successes and Opportunities.

OBJECTIVE: Advanced airway management, including the use of rapid sequence intubation (RSI), is fundamental in resuscitation. However, the reported experience with pediatric airway management is limited because of the relatively low number of emergency RSI procedures in children. The aim of this study was to document the experience with pediatric RSI in a large air medical database and explore opportunities for improvement. METHODS: All pediatric patients (age < 18 years) undergoing RSI by air medical crews between 2015 and 2019 were included in this analysis. Subjects were divided a priori into 3 age subgroups (0-2 years, 3-8 years, and 9-17 years). The primary variables of interest included overall intubation success, first-attempt intubation success, and first-attempt intubation success without desaturation. The rates of positive-pressure ventilation (PPV) use for preoxygenation and oxygen desaturation were also explored. RESULTS: A total of 1,091 pediatric RSI patients were included. The overall intubation success rate was 98% (0-2 years = 96%, 3-8 years = 97%, and 9-17 years = 98%), with 91% intubated on the first attempt (0-2 years = 86%, 3-8 years = 90%, and 9-17 years = 92%) and 87% intubated on the first attempt without oxygen desaturation (0-2 years = 80%, 3-8 years = 88%, and 9-17 years = 90%). A sharp decline in intubation success was observed with preoxygenation SpO2 values < 97% across all patients. Younger patients (0-2 years) had lower initial SpO2 values and decreased first-attempt success rates with and without desaturation. These patients were less likely to receive PPV during preoxygenation attempts and had lower use of video laryngoscopy or a bougie on the initial intubation attempt. CONCLUSION: In this study, we documented high success rates for air medical pediatric RSI. Higher target SpO2 values may be justified during preoxygenation. Intubation success, PPV use for preoxygenation, video laryngoscopy, and the use of a bougie were lower for younger patients.

Trends in naloxone prescribed at emergency department discharge: A national analysis (2012-2019).

BACKGROUND: While having access to naloxone is recommended for patients at risk for opioid overdose, little is known about trends in national naloxone prescribing rates in emergency departments (EDs) both for co-prescription with opioids and for patients who presented with opioid abuse or overdose. This study aims to evaluate the change in naloxone prescribing and opioid/naloxone co-prescribing at discharge using national data. METHODS: We conducted an IRB exempt retrospective review of data collected by the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2012 to 2019. The primary outcome was trend in rate of naloxone prescribing at discharge from ED visits. We also computed the proportion of visits where naloxone was both administered in the ED and prescribed at discharge, where naloxone and opioids were co-prescribed at discharge, and where an opioid was administered during the ED visit and naloxone was prescribed at discharge. All data were summarized using descriptive statistics and Spearman's Rho (SR) or Pearson's correlation (PR) were used to describe trends. RESULTS: There was an estimated total of 250,365 patient visits where naloxone was prescribed at discharge with an increasing rate over time (0% of all ED visits in 2012 to 0.075% in 2019, p = 0.002). There were also increases in naloxone being both administered in the ED and prescribed at discharge (PC: 0.8, p = 0.02) as well as in naloxone and opioid co-prescribing (SR: 0.76, P = 0.03). There was an increase in utilization of opioids during the ED visit and naloxone prescribing at discharge for the same visit (SR: 0.80, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: There are increases in naloxone prescribing at discharge, naloxone and opioid co-prescribing, and opioid utilization during the same visit where naloxone is prescribed at discharge. Future studies should be done to confirm such trends, and targeted interventions should be put into place to increase access to this life-saving antidote.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on emergency department substance use screens and overdose presentations.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic can exacerbate underlying substance use disorder and has impacted this vulnerable population in a variety of ways. There are limited data regarding how this pandemic has impacted emergency department (ED) patient presentations. METHODS: We extracted data on ED visits from the electronic health record (EHR) of a large healthcare system in the Washington, DC/Baltimore, MD metropolitan area. The dataset includes data from 7 hospitals on ED visits between 11/1/2019-6/30/2020. The health system utilizes a validated screening program for substance use, Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT), for ED patients who are clinically stable and willing to complete screening. We evaluated trends in patients with a positive SBIRT screen and those presenting with a clinical diagnosis of acute alcohol or substance intoxication/overdose before (11/1/19-2/29/2020-pre) and during the first wave of the COVID pandemic (3/1/2020-6/30/2020-post). Data were described using descriptive statistics. Bivariate analyses were conducted using chi-square test and two-sample t-tests. Interrupted time series analysis was used to evaluate the changes in the weekly trends with the start of the pandemic. RESULTS: There were 107,930 screens performed in the EDs during the study period (61,961 pre, 45,969 post). The population was primarily African American (64.7%) and female (57.1%). Positive SBIRT screens increased from 12.5% to 15.8% during COVID (p < 0.001). Alcohol intoxication presentations increased as a proportion of positive screens from 12.6% to 14.4% (p = 0.001). A higher percentage of screened patients reported problem drinking (AUDIT score ≥ 7) during the pandemic (2.4% pre vs 3.2% post, p < 0.001). Substance intoxication/overdoses among all screened increased from 2.1% to 3.1% (p < 0.001) and as a percentage of positive screens during the pandemic (16.8% to 20%, p < 0.001). The proportion of opioid vs. non-opioid overdoses remained unchanged before (67%) and during the pandemic (64%, p = 0.33). DISCUSSION: There was an increase in the proportion of positive SBIRT screens and visits for acute overdoses and intoxication during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional research should focus on mitigation strategies to address substance use during this vulnerable time.