International facets of the 'chain of survival' for out-of-hospital and in-hospital cardiac arrest - A scoping review.

Background: The "chain of survival" was first systematically addressed in 1991, and its sequence still forms the cornerstone of current resuscitation guidelines. The term "chain of survival" is widely used around the world in literature, education, and awareness campaigns, but growing heterogeneity in the components of the chain has led to confusion. It is unclear which of these emerging chains is most suitable, or if adaptations are needed in particular contexts to depict key actions of resuscitation in the 21st century. This scoping review provides an overview of the variety of chains of survival described. Objectives: To identify published facets of the chain of survival, to assess views and strategies about adapting the chain, and to identify reports on how the chain of survival affects teaching, implementation, or patient outcomes. Methods eligibility criteria and sources of evidence: A scoping review as part of the continuous evidence evaluation process of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) was conducted. MEDLINE(R) ALL (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), APA PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebscohost), ERIC (Ebscohost), Web of Science (Clarivate), Scopus (Elsevier), and Cochrane Library (Wiley Online) were searched. All publications in all languages describing chains of survival were eligible, without time restrictions. Due to the heterogeneity and publication types of the relevant studies, we did not pursue a systematic review or meta-analysis. Results: A primary search yielded 1713 studies and after screening we included 43 publications. Modified versions of the chain of survival for specific contexts were found (e.g., in-hospital cardiac arrest or paediatric resuscitation). There were also numerous versions with minor adaptations of the existing chain. Three publications suggested an impact of the use of the chain of survival on patient outcomes. No educational or implementation outcomes were reported. Conclusion: There is a vast heterogeneity of chain of survival concepts published. Future research is warranted, especially into the concept's importance concerning educational, implementation, and clinical outcomes.

Intraosseous versus intravenous vascular access in upper extremity among adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: cluster randomised clinical trial (VICTOR trial).

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of intraosseous versus intravenous vascular access in the treatment of adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: The VICTOR (Venous Injection Compared To intraOsseous injection during resuscitation of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest) trial involved emergency medical service agencies with all four advanced life support ambulance teams in Taipei City, Taiwan. The enrolment period spanned 6 July 2020 to 30 June 2023 and was temporarily suspended between 20 May 2021 and 31 July 2021 owing to the covid-19 pandemic. PARTICIPANTS: Adult (age 20-80 years) patients with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. INTERVENTIONS: Biweekly randomised clusters of four participating advanced life support ambulance teams were assigned to insert either intravenous or intraosseous access. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation, sustained return of spontaneous circulation (≥2 hours), and survival with favourable neurological outcomes (cerebral performance category score ≤2) at hospital discharge. RESULTS: Among 1771 enrolled patients, 1732 (741 in the intraosseous group and 991 in the intravenous group) were included in the primary analysis (median age 65.0 years; 1234 (71.2%) men). In the intraosseous group, 79 (10.7%) patients were discharged alive, compared with 102 (10.3%) patients in the intravenous group (odds ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.42; P=0.81). The odds ratio of intraosseous versus intravenous access was 1.23 (0.89 to 1.69; P=0.21) for pre-hospital return of spontaneous circulation, 0.92 (0.75 to 1.13; P=0.44) for sustained return of spontaneous circulation, and 1.17 (0.82 to 1.66; P=0.39) for survival with favourable neurological outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, initial attempts to establish vascular access through the intraosseous route did not result in different outcomes compared with intravenous access in terms of the proportion of patients surviving to hospital discharge, pre-hospital return of spontaneous circulation, sustained return of spontaneous circulation, and favourable neurological outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04135547ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04135547.

Prehospital neurologic assessment using mobile phones: Comparison between neurologists and emergency physicians.

BACKGROUND: Ambulance-based telestroke may be a promising solution to improving stroke care. We assessed the technical feasibility and reliability of prehospital evaluations using commercial mobile phones with fifth-generation wireless communication technology. METHODS: Six standardized patients portrayed scripted stroke scenarios during ambulance transport in an urban city and were remotely evaluated by independent raters using tablets (three neurologists and three emergency physicians) in a hospital, assisted by paramedics (trained in National Institute of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] assessment) in the ambulance; commercial cellular networks were utilized for videoconferencing transmission. The primary outcomes were mean difference (MD) and correlation of NIHSS scores between the face-to-face and remote assessments. We also examined the Bland-Altman plot for itemized NIHSS components, and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare the differences in the duration of the two evaluations between neurologists and emergency physicians. RESULTS: We conducted 32 ambulance runs and successfully completed all NIHSS examinations. No significant difference was found between the face-to-face and remote evaluations (MD, 0.782; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.520-0.395). The correlation of NIHSS scores between the two methods was 0.994 (95% CI, 0.945-1.026), and three items exhibited the highest frequency of runs, with score differences between the two methods. There were no significant differences between neurologists and emergency physicians in the mean evaluation duration and NIHSS scores for the two methods. CONCLUSION: Prehospital evaluation using commercial mobile phones with fifth-generation wireless communication technology is feasible and reliable during ambulance transport in urban areas. Emergency physicians and neurologists performed similarly in stroke evaluations.

Effectiveness and safety of tourniquet utilization for civilian vascular extremity trauma in the pre-hospital settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tourniquets (TQ) have been increasingly adopted in pre-hospital settings recently. This study examined the effectiveness and safety of applying TQ in the pre-hospital settings for civilian patients with traumatic vascular injuries to the extremities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically searched the Ovid Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from their inception to June 2023. We compared pre-hospital TQ (PH-TQ) use to no PH-TQ, defined as a TQ applied after hospital arrival or no TQ use at all, for civilian vascular extremity trauma patients. The primary outcome was overall mortality rate, and the secondary outcomes were blood product use and hospital stay. We analyzed TQ-related complications as safety outcomes. We tried to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (including non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies, and case-control studies), if available. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated and the certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. RESULTS: Seven studies involving 4,095 patients were included. In the primary outcome, pre-hospital TQ (PH-TQ) use significantly decrease mortality rate in patients with extremity trauma (odds ratio [OR], 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.86, I2 = 47%). Moreover, the use of PH-TQ showed the decreasing trend of utilization of blood products, such as packed red blood cells (mean difference [MD]: -2.1 [unit], 95% CI: -5.0 to 0.8, I2 = 99%) or fresh frozen plasma (MD: -1.0 [unit], 95% CI: -4.0 to 2.0, I2 = 98%); however, both are not statistically significant. No significant differences were observed in the lengths of hospital and intensive care unit stays. For the safety outcomes, PH-TQ use did not significantly increase risk of amputation (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.43 to 1.68, I2 = 60%) or compartment syndrome (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.37 to 2.35, I2 = 0%). The certainty of the evidence was very low across all outcomes. CONCLUSION: The current data suggest that, in the pre-hospital settings, PH-TQ use for civilian patients with vascular traumatic injury of the extremities decreased mortality and tended to decrease blood transfusions. This did not increase the risk of amputation or compartment syndrome significantly.

Modified physiologic criteria for the field triage scheme: Efficacy of major trauma recognition in different age groups in Asia.

BACKGROUND: Major trauma is a leading cause of unexpected death globally, with increasing age-adjusted death rates for unintentional injuries. Field triage schemes (FTSs) assist emergency medical technicians in identifying appropriate medical care facilities for patients. While full FTSs may improve sensitivity, step-by-step field triage is time-consuming. A simplified FTS (sFTS) that uses only physiological and anatomical criteria may offer a more rapid decision-making process. However, evidence for this approach is limited, and its performance in identifying all age groups requiring trauma center resources in Asia remains unclear. METHODS: We conducted a multinational retrospective cohort study involving adult trauma patients admitted to emergency departments in the included countries from 2016 to 2020. Prehospital and hospital data were reviewed from the Pan-Asia Trauma Outcomes Study database. Patients aged ≥18 years transported by emergency medical services were included. Patients lacking data regarding age, sex, physiological criteria, or injury severity scores were excluded. We examined the performance of sFTS in all age groups and fine-tuned physiological criteria to improve sFTS performance in identifying high-risk trauma patients in different age groups. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of the physiological and anatomical criteria for identifying major trauma (injury severity score ≥ 16) were 80.6% and 58.8%, respectively. The modified sFTS showed increased sensitivity and decreased specificity, with more pronounced changes in the young age group. Adding the shock index further increased sensitivity in both age groups. CONCLUSIONS: sFTS using only physiological and anatomical criteria is suboptimal for Asian adult patients with trauma of all age groups. Adjusting the physiological criteria and adding a shock index as a triage tool can improve the sensitivity of severely injured patients, particularly in young age groups. A swift field triage process can maintain acceptable sensitivity and specificity in severely injured patients.