A Randomized Trial of Drug Route in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: In patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the effectiveness of drugs such as epinephrine is highly time-dependent. An intraosseous route of drug administration may enable more rapid drug administration than an intravenous route; however, its effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, open-label, randomized trial across 11 emergency medical systems in the United Kingdom that involved adults in cardiac arrest for whom vascular access for drug administration was needed. Patients were randomly assigned to receive treatment from paramedics by means of an intraosseous-first or intravenous-first vascular access strategy. The primary outcome was survival at 30 days. Key secondary outcomes included any return of spontaneous circulation and favorable neurologic function at hospital discharge (defined by a score of 3 or less on the modified Rankin scale, on which scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability). No adjustment for multiplicity was made. RESULTS: A total of 6082 patients were assigned to a trial group: 3040 to the intraosseous group and 3042 to the intravenous group. At 30 days, 137 of 3030 patients (4.5%) in the intraosseous group and 155 of 3034 (5.1%) in the intravenous group were alive (adjusted odds ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 1.32; P = 0.74). At the time of hospital discharge, a favorable neurologic outcome was observed in 80 of 2994 patients (2.7%) in the intraosseous group and in 85 of 2986 (2.8%) in the intravenous group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.47); a return of spontaneous circulation at any time occurred in 1092 of 3031 patients (36.0%) and in 1186 of 3035 patients (39.1%), respectively (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.97). During the trial, one adverse event, which occurred in the intraosseous group, was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest requiring drug therapy, the use of an intraosseous-first vascular access strategy did not result in higher 30-day survival than an intravenous-first strategy. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research; PARAMEDIC-3 ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN14223494.).

Negotiating grey areas: an interview-based analysis of paramedic uncertainty and decision-making in cardiac arrest events.

BACKGROUND: Paramedics are responsible for critical resuscitation decisions when attending Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrests (OHCA). Existing research indicates that a range of clinical and non-clinical factors moderate their decision-making. Within the United Kingdom (UK), there is little evidence on how and why paramedics make their decisions at actual OHCA events. METHODS: We explored the experiences of UK paramedics using individually recalled OHCA events as catalysts for discussion. Pen portraits developed from semi-structured interviews with 31 paramedics across two UK ambulance services were thematically analysed, enabling cross-participant comparisons whilst retaining depth and context. RESULTS: We identified four themes: uncertainties encountered in resuscitation guidelines, influences on decision-making, holistic perspectives, and indirect moderators. We found that paramedics experienced uncertainty at all stages of the resuscitation process. Uncertainties arose from indeterminate, ambiguous or complex information and were described as having both clinical and ethical dimensions. Whilst guidelines drove paramedics' decisions, non-clinical personal, practical and relational factors moderated their assessments of survivability and decision-making, with attitudes to interactions between patient age, frailty and quality of life playing a substantial role. Coping strategies such as uncertainty reduction, assumption-based reasoning and weighing pros and cons were evident from interviews. CONCLUSIONS: The complexity of interactions between clinical and non-clinical factors points to an element of variability in paramedics' responses to uncertainty. Exploring UK paramedics' uncertainties and decision-making during specific OHCA events can help acknowledge and address uncertainties in resuscitation guidelines and paramedic training, providing paramedics with the tools to manage uncertainty in a consistent and transparent way.

Termination of Resuscitation Rules and Survival Among Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Termination of resuscitation (TOR) rules may help guide prehospital decisions to stop resuscitation, with potential effects on patient outcomes and health resource use. Rules with high sensitivity risk increasing inappropriate transport of nonsurvivors, while rules without excellent specificity risk missed survivors. Further examination of the performance of TOR rules in estimating survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is needed. Objective: To determine whether TOR rules can accurately identify patients who will not survive an OHCA. Data Sources: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched from database inception up to January 11, 2024. There were no restrictions on language, publication date, or time frame of the study. Study Selection: Two reviewers independently screened records, first by title and abstract and then by full text. Randomized clinical trials, case-control studies, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, retrospective analyses, and modeling studies were included. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were reviewed to identify primary studies. Studies predicting outcomes other than death, in-hospital studies, animal studies, and non-peer-reviewed studies were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Two reviewers assessed risk of bias using the Revised Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. Cochrane Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group recommendations were followed when conducting a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) statement and is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42019131010). Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity and specificity tables with 95% CIs and bivariate summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were produced. Estimates of effects at different prevalence levels were calculated. These estimates were used to evaluate the practical implications of TOR rule use at different prevalence levels. Results: This review included 43 nonrandomized studies published between 1993 and 2023, addressing 29 TOR rules and involving 1 125 587 cases. Fifteen studies reported the derivation of 20 TOR rules. Thirty-three studies reported external data validations of 17 TOR rules. Seven TOR rules had data to facilitate meta-analysis. One clinical study was identified. The universal termination of resuscitation rule had the best performance, with pooled sensitivity of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.54-0.71), pooled specificity of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.82-0.94), and a diagnostic odds ratio of 20.45 (95% CI, 13.15-31.83). Conclusions and Relevance: In this review, there was insufficient robust evidence to support widespread implementation of TOR rules in clinical practice. These findings suggest that adoption of TOR rules may lead to missed survivors and increased resource utilization.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of termination of resuscitation rules for patients transported in cardiac arrest.

AIM: To compare the cost-effectiveness of termination-of-resuscitation (TOR) rules for patients transported in cardiac arrest. METHODS: The economic analyses evaluated cost-effectiveness of alternative TOR rules for OHCA from a National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon. A systematic review was used to identify the different TOR rules included in the analyses. Data from the OHCAO outcomes registry, trial data and published literature were used to compare outcomes for the different rules identified. The economic analyses estimated discounted NHS and PSS costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each TOR rule, based on which incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 33 TOR rules and the economic analyses assessed the performance of 29 of these TOR rules plus current practice. The most cost-effective strategies were the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) termination of resuscitation rule (ICER of £8,111), the Korean Cardiac Arrest Research Consortium 2 (KOC 2) termination of resuscitation rule (ICER of £17,548), and the universal Basic Life Support (BLS) termination of resuscitation rule (ICER of £19,498,216). The KOC 2 TOR rule was cost-effective at the established cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000-£30,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: The KOC 2 rule is the most cost-effective at established cost-effectiveness thresholds used to inform health care decision-making in the UK. Further research on economic implications of TOR rules is warranted to support constructive discussion on implementing TOR rules.

Prehospital early warning scores for adults with suspected sepsis: the PHEWS observational cohort and decision-analytic modelling study.

Background: Guidelines for sepsis recommend treating those at highest risk within 1 hour. The emergency care system can only achieve this if sepsis is recognised and prioritised. Ambulance services can use prehospital early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to prioritise patients for treatment or early assessment in the emergency department. Objectives: To determine the accuracy, impact and cost-effectiveness of using early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to identify sepsis requiring urgent treatment. Design: Retrospective diagnostic cohort study and decision-analytic modelling of operational consequences and cost-effectiveness. Setting: Two ambulance services and four acute hospitals in England. Participants: Adults transported to hospital by emergency ambulance, excluding episodes with injury, mental health problems, cardiac arrest, direct transfer to specialist services, or no vital signs recorded. Interventions: Twenty-one early warning scores used alongside paramedic diagnostic impression, categorised as sepsis, infection, non-specific presentation, or other specific presentation. Main outcome measures: Proportion of cases prioritised at the four hospitals; diagnostic accuracy for the sepsis-3 definition of sepsis and receiving urgent treatment (primary reference standard); daily number of cases with and without sepsis prioritised at a large and a small hospital; the minimum treatment effect associated with prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective, compared to no prioritisation, assuming willingness to pay £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: Data from 95,022 episodes involving 71,204 patients across four hospitals showed that most early warning scores operating at their pre-specified thresholds would prioritise more than 10% of cases when applied to non-specific attendances or all attendances. Data from 12,870 episodes at one hospital identified 348 (2.7%) with the primary reference standard. The National Early Warning Score, version 2 (NEWS2), had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve when applied only to patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection (0.756, 95% confidence interval 0.729 to 0.783) or sepsis alone (0.655, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.68). None of the strategies provided high sensitivity (> 0.8) with acceptable positive predictive value (> 0.15). NEWS2 provided combinations of sensitivity and specificity that were similar or superior to all other early warning scores. Applying NEWS2 to paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection with thresholds of > 4, > 6 and > 8 respectively provided sensitivities and positive predictive values (95% confidence interval) of 0.522 (0.469 to 0.574) and 0.216 (0.189 to 0.245), 0.447 (0.395 to 0.499) and 0.274 (0.239 to 0.313), and 0.314 (0.268 to 0.365) and 0.333 (confidence interval 0.284 to 0.386). The mortality relative risk reduction from prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective exceeded 0.975 for all strategies analysed. Limitations: We estimated accuracy using a sample of older patients at one hospital. Reliable evidence was not available to estimate the effectiveness of prioritisation in the decision-analytic modelling. Conclusions: No strategy is ideal but using NEWS2, in patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of infection or sepsis could identify one-third to half of sepsis cases without prioritising unmanageable numbers. No other score provided clearly superior accuracy to NEWS2. Research is needed to develop better definition, diagnosis and treatments for sepsis. Study registration: This study is registered as Research Registry (reference: researchregistry5268). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/136/10) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 16. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Sepsis is a life-threatening condition in which an abnormal response to infection causes heart, lung or kidney failure. People with sepsis need urgent treatment. They need to be prioritised at the emergency department rather than waiting in the queue. Paramedics attempt to identify people with possible sepsis using an early warning score (based on simple measurements, such as blood pressure and heart rate) alongside their impression of the patient's diagnosis. They can then alert the hospital to assess the patient quickly. However, an inaccurate early warning score might miss cases of sepsis or unnecessarily prioritise people without sepsis. We aimed to measure how accurately early warning scores identified people with sepsis when used alongside paramedic diagnostic impression. We collected data from 71,204 people that two ambulance services transported to four different hospitals in 2019. We recorded paramedic diagnostic impressions and calculated early warning scores for each patient. At one hospital, we linked ambulance records to hospital records and identified who had sepsis. We then calculated the accuracy of using the scores alongside diagnostic impression to diagnose sepsis. Finally, we used modelling to predict how many patients (with and without sepsis) paramedics would prioritise using different strategies based on early warning scores and diagnostic impression. We found that none of the currently available early warning scores were ideal. When they were applied to all patients, they prioritised too many people. When they were only applied to patients whom the paramedics thought had infection, they missed many cases of sepsis. The NEWS2, score, which ambulance services already use, was as good as or better than all the other scores we studied. We found that using the NEWS2, score in people with a paramedic impression of infection could achieve a reasonable balance between prioritising too many patients and avoiding missing patients with sepsis.

Route of drug administration in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A protocol for a randomised controlled trial (PARAMEDIC-3).

Aims: The PARAMEDIC-3 trial evaluates the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an intraosseous first strategy, compared with an intravenous first strategy, for drug administration in adults who have sustained an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods: PARAMEDIC-3 is a pragmatic, allocation concealed, open-label, multi-centre, superiority randomised controlled trial. It will recruit 15,000 patients across English and Welsh ambulance services. Adults who have sustained an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are individually randomised to an intraosseous access first strategy or intravenous access first strategy in a 1:1 ratio through an opaque, sealed envelope system. The randomised allocation determines the route used for the first two attempts at vascular access. Participants are initially enrolled under a deferred consent model.The primary clinical-effectiveness outcome is survival at 30-days. Secondary outcomes include return of spontaneous circulation, neurological functional outcome, and health-related quality of life. Participants are followed-up to six-months following cardiac arrest. The primary health economic outcome is incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Conclusion: The PARAMEDIC-3 trial will provide key information on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of drug route in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Trial registration: ISRCTN14223494, registered 16/08/2021, prospectively registered.

2023 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Pediatric Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; and First Aid Task Forces.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation engages in a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed, published cardiopulmonary resuscitation and first aid science. Draft Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations are posted online throughout the year, and this annual summary provides more concise versions of the final Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations from all task forces for the year. Topics addressed by systematic reviews this year include resuscitation of cardiac arrest from drowning, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adults and children, calcium during cardiac arrest, double sequential defibrillation, neuroprognostication after cardiac arrest for adults and children, maintaining normal temperature after preterm birth, heart rate monitoring methods for diagnostics in neonates, detection of exhaled carbon dioxide in neonates, family presence during resuscitation of adults, and a stepwise approach to resuscitation skills training. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces list priority knowledge gaps for further research. Additional topics are addressed with scoping reviews and evidence updates.

2023 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Pediatric Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; and First Aid Task Forces.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation engages in a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed, published cardiopulmonary resuscitation and first aid science. Draft Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations are posted online throughout the year, and this annual summary provides more concise versions of the final Consensus on Science With Treatment Recommendations from all task forces for the year. Topics addressed by systematic reviews this year include resuscitation of cardiac arrest from drowning, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adults and children, calcium during cardiac arrest, double sequential defibrillation, neuroprognostication after cardiac arrest for adults and children, maintaining normal temperature after preterm birth, heart rate monitoring methods for diagnostics in neonates, detection of exhaled carbon dioxide in neonates, family presence during resuscitation of adults, and a stepwise approach to resuscitation skills training. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces list priority knowledge gaps for further research. Additional topics are addressed with scoping reviews and evidence updates.

Prehospital early warning scores for adults with suspected sepsis: retrospective diagnostic cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Ambulance services need to identify and prioritise patients with sepsis for early hospital assessment. We aimed to determine the accuracy of early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to identify sepsis that required urgent treatment. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective diagnostic cohort study involving adult emergency medical cases transported to Sheffield Teaching Hospitals ED by Yorkshire Ambulance Service in 2019. We used routine ambulance service data to calculate 21 early warning scores and categorise paramedic diagnostic impressions as sepsis, infection, non-specific presentation or other presentation. We linked cases to hospital records and identified those meeting the sepsis-3 definition who received urgent hospital treatment for sepsis (reference standard). Analysis determined the accuracy of strategies that combined early warning scores at varying thresholds for positivity with paramedic diagnostic impression. RESULTS: We linked 12 870/24 955 (51.6%) cases and identified 348/12 870 (2.7%) with a positive reference standard. None of the strategies provided sensitivity greater than 0.80 with positive predictive value greater than 0.15. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the National Early Warning Score, version 2 (NEWS2) applied to patients with a diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection was 0.756 (95% CI 0.729, 0.783). No other early warning score provided clearly superior accuracy to NEWS2. Paramedic impression of sepsis or infection had sensitivity of 0.572 (0.519, 0.623) and positive predictive value of 0.156 (0.137, 0.176). NEWS2 thresholds of >4, >6 and >8 applied to patients with a diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection, respectively, provided sensitivities and positive predictive values of 0.522 (0.469, 0.574) and 0.216 (0.189, 0.245), 0.447 (0.395, 0.499) and 0.274 (0.239, 0.313), and 0.314 (0.268, 0.365) and 0.333 (0.284, 0.386). CONCLUSION: No strategy is ideal but using NEWS2 alongside paramedic diagnostic impression of infection or sepsis could identify one-third to half of sepsis cases without prioritising unmanageable numbers. No other score provided clearly superior accuracy to NEWS2. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: researchregistry5268, https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry%23home/registrationdetails/5de7bbd97ca5b50015041c33/.

The incidence of remission and indicators of inadequate response to advanced therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis: results from medical charts in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: A considerable proportion of patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) treated with advanced therapies do not achieve remission, even after 1 year of treatment, and suboptimal response to advanced therapies is frequently observed in clinical practice. This study aimed to analyze clinical practice data in the United Kingdom (UK) and assess the rates of clinical remission and inadequate response with advanced therapies among patients with UC. METHODS: This retrospective chart review included patients with UC who initiated a new advanced therapy (i.e. adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, tofacitinib, or vedolizumab) between January 2017 and September 2019 from eight clinics across the UK. At least 12 months of data before and after starting an advanced therapy were required. Remission was assessed using components of the Mayo score. Inadequate response was defined by therapeutic adjustment or emergency treatment. RESULTS: Among 238 patients included (female: 46.6%; median age: 42.0 years; median follow-up: 28.8 months), 178 patients (74.8%) were biologic-naïve. At 12 months, 87 patients (53.9%) had achieved remission (median time to remission: 7.6 months), although 29 (33.3%) among them had required therapeutic modifications to achieve remission. At 12 months, 105 patients (44.3%) had at least one indicator of an inadequate response (median time to the first indicator of inadequate response: 18.0 months). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of the patients did not achieve remission, and almost half of the included patients had an inadequate response within 1 year after treatment initiation. More effective therapies are needed to effectively treat UC.

Treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) follows a stepwise approach that considers disease severity and disease activity. It has the goal of achieving and maintaining steroid-free remission and healing of the gut lining. Treatment options for UC include several conventional and advanced therapies. However, suboptimal response to treatment has been reported in previous observational studies. This results in treatment adjustments, such as therapy discontinuation, dose intensification, and addition of conventional therapies, as well as lengthy concurrent use of corticosteroids.This retrospective chart review evaluated clinical practice data from eight clinics across the United Kingdom. This was done to assess rates of clinical remission and indicators of suboptimal response to advanced therapies among patients with UC. The analysis included data from January 2017 to September 2019.Nearly half of the patients did not have clinical remission within 1 year after starting advanced therapies. Optimization of advanced therapies was often seen, even in patients in remission. The most common indicators of suboptimal therapy were therapy discontinuation, dose escalation of advanced therapy, and the addition of conventional therapies. Our findings suggest that the efficacy of advanced therapies to treat UC remains insufficient in clinical practice. Thus, there is a need for more effective treatment alternatives to achieve better outcomes for patients with UC.

2022 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Pediatric Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; and First Aid Task Forces.

This is the sixth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. This summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Task Force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews include cardiopulmonary resuscitation during transport; approach to resuscitation after drowning; passive ventilation; minimizing pauses during cardiopulmonary resuscitation; temperature management after cardiac arrest; use of diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound during cardiac arrest; use of vasopressin and corticosteroids during cardiac arrest; coronary angiography after cardiac arrest; public-access defibrillation devices for children; pediatric early warning systems; maintaining normal temperature immediately after birth; suctioning of amniotic fluid at birth; tactile stimulation for resuscitation immediately after birth; use of continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress at term birth; respiratory and heart rate monitoring in the delivery room; supraglottic airway use in neonates; prearrest prediction of in-hospital cardiac arrest mortality; basic life support training for likely rescuers of high-risk populations; effect of resuscitation team training; blended learning for life support training; training and recertification for resuscitation instructors; and recovery position for maintenance of breathing and prevention of cardiac arrest. Members from 6 task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and generated consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections, and priority knowledge gaps for future research are listed.

2022 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Pediatric Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; and First Aid Task Forces.

This is the sixth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. This summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Task Force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews include cardiopulmonary resuscitation during transport; approach to resuscitation after drowning; passive ventilation; minimizing pauses during cardiopulmonary resuscitation; temperature management after cardiac arrest; use of diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound during cardiac arrest; use of vasopressin and corticosteroids during cardiac arrest; coronary angiography after cardiac arrest; public-access defibrillation devices for children; pediatric early warning systems; maintaining normal temperature immediately after birth; suctioning of amniotic fluid at birth; tactile stimulation for resuscitation immediately after birth; use of continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress at term birth; respiratory and heart rate monitoring in the delivery room; supraglottic airway use in neonates; prearrest prediction of in-hospital cardiac arrest mortality; basic life support training for likely rescuers of high-risk populations; effect of resuscitation team training; blended learning for life support training; training and recertification for resuscitation instructors; and recovery position for maintenance of breathing and prevention of cardiac arrest. Members from 6 task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and generated consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections, and priority knowledge gaps for future research are listed.

2022 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Pediatric Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; and First Aid Task Forces.

This is the sixth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. This summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Task Force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews include cardiopulmonary resuscitation during transport; approach to resuscitation after drowning; passive ventilation; minimising pauses during cardiopulmonary resuscitation; temperature management after cardiac arrest; use of diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound during cardiac arrest; use of vasopressin and corticosteroids during cardiac arrest; coronary angiography after cardiac arrest; public-access defibrillation devices for children; pediatric early warning systems; maintaining normal temperature immediately after birth; suctioning of amniotic fluid at birth; tactile stimulation for resuscitation immediately after birth; use of continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress at term birth; respiratory and heart rate monitoring in the delivery room; supraglottic airway use in neonates; prearrest prediction of in-hospital cardiac arrest mortality; basic life support training for likely rescuers of high-risk populations; effect of resuscitation team training; blended learning for life support training; training and recertification for resuscitation instructors; and recovery position for maintenance of breathing and prevention of cardiac arrest. Members from 6 task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and generated consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections, and priority knowledge gaps for future research are listed.

Family presence during adult resuscitation from cardiac arrest: A systematic review.

AIM: Objective: To conduct a systematic review of the published evidence related to family presence during adult resuscitation from cardiac arrest. METHODS: This review, registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021242384) and reported according to PRISMA guidelines, included studies of adult cardiac arrest with family presence during resuscitation that reported one or more patient, family or provider outcomes. Three databases (Medline, CINAHL and EMBASE) were searched from inception to 10/05/2022. Two investigators screened the studies, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The synthesis approach was guided by Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) reporting guidelines and a narrative synthesis method. RESULTS: The search retrieved 9,459 citations of which 31 were included: 18 quantitative studies (including two RCTs), 12 qualitative studies, and one mixed methods study. The evidence was of very low or low certainty. There were four major findings. High-certainty evidence regarding the effect of family presence during resuscitation on patient outcomes is lacking. Family members had mixed outcomes in terms of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, and experience of witnessing resuscitation. Provider experience was variable and resuscitation setting, provider education, and provider experience were major influences on family presence during resuscitation. Finally, providers reported that a family support person and organisational guidelines were important for facilitating family presence during resuscitation. CONCLUSION: The effect of family presence during resuscitation varies between individuals. There was variability in the effect of family presence during resuscitation on patient outcomes, family and provider outcomes and perceptions.

Resuscitation guideline highlights.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review was to give an overview of the most significant updates in resuscitation guidelines and provide some insights into the new topics being considered in upcoming reviews. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent updates to resuscitation guidelines have highlighted the importance of the earlier links in the chain-of-survival aimed to improve early recognition, early cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation. Empowering lay rescuers with the support of emergency medical dispatchers or telecommunicators and engaging the community through dispatching volunteers and Automated External Defibrillators, are considered key in improving cardiac arrest outcomes. Novel CPR strategies such as passive insufflation and head-up CPR are being explored, but lack high-certainty evidence. Increased focus on survivorship also highlights the need for more evidence based guidance on how to facilitate the necessary follow-up and rehabilitation after cardiac arrest. Many of the systematic and scoping reviews performed within cardiac arrest resuscitation domains identifies significant knowledge gaps on key elements of our resuscitation practices. There is an urgent need to address these gaps to further improve survival from cardiac arrest in all settings. SUMMARY: A continuous evidence evaluation process for resuscitation after cardiac arrest is triggered by new evidence or request by the resuscitation community, and provides more current and relevant guidance for clinicians.