Chest compression rates and survival following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation recommend a chest compression rate of at least 100 compressions/min. A recent clinical study reported optimal return of spontaneous circulation with rates between 100 and 120/min during cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. However, the relationship between compression rate and survival is still undetermined. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: Data is from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Prehospital Resuscitation IMpedance threshold device and Early versus Delayed analysis clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest treated by emergency medical service providers. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS MAIN RESULTS: Data were abstracted from monitor-defibrillator recordings for the first five minutes of emergency medical service cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Multiple logistic regression assessed odds ratio for survival by compression rate categories (<80, 80-99, 100-119, 120-139, ≥140), both unadjusted and adjusted for sex, age, witnessed status, attempted bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, location of arrest, chest compression fraction and depth, first rhythm, and study site. Compression rate data were available for 10,371 patients; 6,399 also had chest compression fraction and depth data. Age (mean±SD) was 67±16 years. Chest compression rate was 111±19 per minute, compression fraction was 0.70±0.17, and compression depth was 42±12 mm. Circulation was restored in 34%; 9% survived to hospital discharge. After adjustment for covariates without chest compression depth and fraction (n=10,371), a global test found no significant relationship between compression rate and survival (p=0.19). However, after adjustment for covariates including chest compression depth and fraction (n=6,399), the global test found a significant relationship between compression rate and survival (p=0.02), with the reference group (100-119 compressions/min) having the greatest likelihood for survival. CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment for chest compression fraction and depth, compression rates between 100 and 120 per minute were associated with greatest survival to hospital discharge.

Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium-Amiodarone, Lidocaine or Placebo Study (ROC-ALPS): Rationale and methodology behind an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest antiarrhythmic drug trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite their wide use, whether antiarrhythmic drugs improve survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is not known. The ROC-ALPS is evaluating the effectiveness of these drugs for OHCA due to shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VF/VT). METHODS: ALPS will randomize 3,000 adults across North America with nontraumatic OHCA, persistent or recurring VF/VT after ≥1 shock, and established vascular access to receive up to 450 mg amiodarone, 180 mg lidocaine, or placebo in the field using a double-blind protocol, along with standard resuscitation measures. The designated target population is all eligible randomized recipients of any dose of ALPS drug whose initial OHCA rhythm was VF/VT. A safety analysis includes all randomized patients regardless of their eligibility, initial arrhythmia, or actual receipt of ALPS drug. The primary outcome of ALPS is survival to hospital discharge; a secondary outcome is functional survival at discharge assessed as a modified Rankin Scale score ≤3. RESULTS: The principal aim of ALPS is to determine if survival is improved by amiodarone compared with placebo; secondary aim is to determine if survival is improved by lidocaine vs placebo and/or by amiodarone vs lidocaine. Prioritizing comparisons in this manner acknowledges where differences in outcome are most expected based on existing knowledge. Each aim also represents a clinically relevant comparison between treatments that is worth investigating. CONCLUSIONS: Results from ALPS will provide important information about the choice and value of antiarrhythmic therapies for VF/VT arrest with direct implications for resuscitation guidelines and clinical practice.

International adaptations of NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) are evidence- and consensus-based clinical practice guidelines addressing malignancies that affect more than 97% of all patients with cancer in the United States. The NCCN Guidelines are used extensively in the United States and globally. Use of the guidelines outside the United States has driven the need to adapt the guidelines based on local, regional, or national resources. The NCCN Guidelines Panels created, vetted, and continually update the NCCN Guidelines based on published scientific data on cancer detection, diagnosis, and treatment efficacy. The guidelines are developed within the context of commonly available resources, methods of payment, societal and cultural expectations, and governmental regulations as they exist in the United States. Although many of the cancer management recommendations contained in the NCCN Guidelines apply broadly from a global perspective, not all do. Disparities in availability and access to health care exist among countries, within countries, and among different social groups in the same country, especially regarding resources for cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment. In addition, different drug approval and payment processes result in regional variation in availability of and access to cancer treatment, especially highly expensive agents and radiation therapy. Differences in cancer risk, predictive biomarker expression, and pharmacogenetics exist across ethnic and racial groups, and therefore across geographic locations. Cultural and societal expectations and requirements may also require modification of NCCN Guidelines for use outside the United States. This article describes the adaptation process, using the recent Latin American adaptation of the 2013 NCCN Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer as an example.

Data Needs in Oncology: "Making Sense of The Big Data Soup"

Rising health care costs and continued concerns about safety, efficacy, and quality have resulted in the demand for more data and evidence by payors, regulators, providers, and patients alike. Stakeholders with different objectives for the use of data are driving the need for more and "better" data. It is important for organizations to not only understand how to handle and collect data but also translate it into actionable information that can help transform health care delivery. Appropriate use of data can lead to reduced health care costs and increased value to all stakeholders. In June 2012, NCCN assembled a work group composed of thought leaders from NCCN Member Institutions and other organizations to identify and examine the challenges of data generation, collection, and application for clinical, regulatory, and coverage decision-making. The NCCN Data Needs Work Group identified 4 main areas for consideration: data sources, patient-derived data, payor-collected data, and regulatory policy toward data generation and use.

What is the role of chest compression depth during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation?.

BACKGROUND: The 2010 international guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation recently recommended an increase in the minimum compression depth from 38 to 50 mm, although there are limited human data to support this. We sought to study patterns of cardiopulmonary resuscitation compression depth and their associations with patient outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest cases treated by the 2005 guideline standards. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING: Seven U.S. and Canadian urban regions. PATIENTS: We studied emergency medical services treated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Epistry-Cardiac Arrest for whom electronic cardiopulmonary resuscitation compression depth data were available, from May 2006 to June 2009. MEASUREMENTS: We calculated anterior chest wall depression in millimeters and the period of active cardiopulmonary resuscitation (chest compression fraction) for each minute of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We controlled for covariates including compression rate and calculated adjusted odds ratios for any return of spontaneous circulation, 1-day survival, and hospital discharge. MAIN RESULTS: We included 1029 adult patients from seven U.S. and Canadian cities with the following characteristics: Mean age 68 yrs; male 62%; bystander witnessed 40%; bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation 37%; initial rhythms: Ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia 24%, pulseless electrical activity 16%, asystole 48%, other nonshockable 12%; outcomes: Return of spontaneous circulation 26%, 1-day survival 18%, discharge 5%. For all patients, median compression rate was 106 per minute, median compression fraction 0.65, and median compression depth 37.3 mm with 52.8% of cases having depth <38 mm and 91.6% having depth <50 mm. We found an inverse association between depth and compression rate ( p < .001). Adjusted odds ratios for all depth measures (mean values, categories, and range) showed strong trends toward better outcomes with increased depth for all three survival measures. CONCLUSIONS: We found suboptimal compression depth in half of patients by 2005 guideline standards and almost all by 2010 standards as well as an inverse association between compression depth and rate. We found a strong association between survival outcomes and increased compression depth but no clear evidence to support or refute the 2010 recommendations of >50 mm. Although compression depth is an important component of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and should be measured routinely, the most effective depth is currently unknown.

Equity in cancer care: pathways, protocols, and guidelines.

The quality of patient care varies based on numerous factors, such as health care setting, geographic location, access to medications, insurance coverage, and treatment protocols. Recently, the issue of whether use of clinical pathways can reduce costs and inappropriate variability in care has been the subject of much debate. As clinical treatment guidelines and pathways are increasingly deployed in oncology practice, they have a growing impact on the quality of treatment and how it is delivered. To fulfill the current need to discuss the use of pathways and clinical treatment guidelines in oncology and to address how patient care is impacted by their use, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network convened the NCCN Oncology Policy Summit: Equity in Cancer Care-Pathways, Protocols, and Guidelines. The summit was a forum to discuss the use and implementation of pathways, including how much flexibility pathways should allow in care, pathways' impact on public and private health insurance benefit design, what data is used to select pathway regimens and protocols, and ultimately what impact pathways may have on variation in care. The use and implementation of clinical treatment guidelines in practice was also explored from a variety of perspectives.

Understanding of sepsis among emergency medical services: a survey study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency medical services (EMS) personnel commonly encounter sepsis, yet little is known about their understanding of sepsis. STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine the awareness, knowledge, current practice, and attitudes about sepsis among EMS personnel. METHODS: We performed an anonymous, multi-agency, online survey of emergency medical technicians (EMTs), firefighter-emergency medical technicians (FF-EMTs), and paramedics in a metropolitan, 2-tier EMS system. We compared responses according to the level of EMS training and used multivariable logistic regression to determine the odds of correctly identifying the definition of sepsis, independent of demographic and professional factors. RESULTS: Overall response rate of study participants was 57% (786/1390), and was greatest among EMTs (79%; 276/350). A total of 761 respondents (97%) had heard of the term "sepsis." EMTs and FF-EMTs were at significantly reduced odds of correctly defining sepsis compared to paramedics, independent of age, sex, and years of experience (EMTs: odds ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.3-0.8; FF-EMTs: odds ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.2-0.6. Overall, knowledge of the clinical signs and symptoms and recommended treatments for sepsis was typically>75%, though better among paramedics than EMTs or FF-EMTs (p<0.01). The majority of respondents believed sepsis is not recognized by EMS "some" or "a lot" of the time (76%, 596/786). CONCLUSIONS: EMS personnel demonstrated an overall sound awareness of sepsis. Knowledge of sepsis was less among FF-EMTs and EMTs compared to paramedics. These results suggest that paramedics could be integrated into strategies of early identification and treatment of sepsis, and EMTs may benefit from focused education and training.

What kind of science for dual diagnosis? A pragmatic examination of the enactive approach to psychiatry.

The recommended treatment for dual diagnosis - the co-occurrence of substance use and another mental disorder - requires seamless integration of the involved disciplines and services. However, no integrative framework exists for communicating about dual diagnosis cases across disciplinary or sectoral boundaries. We examine if Enactive Psychiatry may bridge this theoretical gap. We evaluate the enactive approach through a two-step pragmatic lens: Firstly, by taking a historical perspective to describe more accurately how the theoretical gap within the field of dual diagnosis initially developed. Secondly, by applying the Enactive Psychiatry approach to data from a longitudinal study on the trajectory of cannabis use in psychosis disorders. By applying the theory rather than simply presenting it, we position ourselves better to evaluate whether it may assist the purpose of achieving a more expedient pragmatic "grip" on the field of dual diagnosis. In our discussion, we suggest that this may very well be the case. Finally, we consider the enactive approach as one of a small handful of new theories of mental disorders that draw on systems thinking and ecological psychology, and discuss whether they have the potential for a wider progressive problemshift within psychiatry. The case in favor of such potential, we argue, is less strong unless the role of complexity, similar to that seen within the dual diagnosis field, may be demonstrated for other fields of clinical practice.

NCCN molecular testing white paper: effectiveness, efficiency, and reimbursement.

Personalized medicine in oncology is maturing and evolving rapidly, and the use of molecular biomarkers in clinical decision-making is growing. This raises important issues regarding the safe, effective, and efficient deployment of molecular tests to guide appropriate care, specifically regarding laboratory-developed tests and companion diagnostics. In May 2011, NCCN assembled a work group composed of thought leaders from NCCN Member Institutions and other organizations to identify challenges and provide guidance regarding molecular testing in oncology and its corresponding utility from clinical, scientific, and coverage policy standpoints. The NCCN Molecular Testing Work Group identified challenges surrounding molecular testing, including health care provider knowledge, determining clinical utility, coding and billing for molecular tests, maintaining clinical and analytic validity of molecular tests, efficient use of specimens, and building clinical evidence.

NCCN Biosimilars White Paper: regulatory, scientific, and patient safety perspectives.

Biologics are essential to oncology care. As patents for older biologics begin to expire, the United States is developing an abbreviated regulatory process for the approval of similar biologics (biosimilars), which raises important considerations for the safe and appropriate incorporation of biosimilars into clinical practice for patients with cancer. The potential for biosimilars to reduce the cost of biologics, which are often high-cost components of oncology care, was the impetus behind the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, a part of the 2010 Affordable Care Act. In March 2011, NCCN assembled a work group consisting of thought leaders from NCCN Member Institutions and other organizations, to provide guidance regarding the challenges health care providers and other key stakeholders face in incorporating biosimilars in health care practice. The work group identified challenges surrounding biosimilars, including health care provider knowledge, substitution practices, pharmacovigilance, naming and product tracking, coverage and reimbursement, use in off-label settings, and data requirements for approval.

Lower-dose epinephrine administration and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend administration of 1 mg of intravenous epinephrine every 3-5 min during cardiac arrest. The optimal dose of epinephrine is not known. We evaluated the association of reduced frequency and dose of epinephrine with survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). METHODS: Included were patients with non-traumatic OHCA treated by advanced life support (ALS) providers from January 1, 2008 to June 30, 2016. During the before period, providers were instructed to give epinephrine 1 mg intravenously at 4 min followed by additional 1 mg doses every eight minutes to patients with OHCA with a shockable rhythm and 1 mg doses every two minutes to patients with a non-shockable rhythm (higher dose). On October 1, 2012, providers were instructed to reduce the dose of epinephrine treatment during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA): 0.5 mg at 4 and 8 min followed by additional doses of 0.5 mg every 8 min for shockable rhythms and 0.5 mg every 2 min for non-shockable rhythms (lower dose). Patients with shockable initial rhythms were analyzed separately from those with non-shockable initial rhythms. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge with a secondary outcome of favorable neurological status (Cerebral Performance Category [CPC] 1 or 2) at hospital discharge. Multiple logistic regression modeling was used to adjust for age, sex, presence of a witness, bystander CPR, and response interval. RESULTS: 2255 patients with OHCA were eligible for analysis. Of these, 24.6% had an initially shockable rhythm. Total epinephrine dose per patient decreased from a mean ±â€¯standard deviation of 3.4 ±â€¯2.3 mg-2.6 ±â€¯1.9 mg (p < 0.001) in the shockable group and 3.5 ±â€¯1.9 mg-2.8 ±â€¯1.7 mg (p < 0.001) in the non-shockable group. Among those with a shockable rhythm, survival to hospital discharge was 35.0% in the higher dose group vs. 34.2% in the lower dose group. Among those with a non-shockable rhythm, survival was 4.2% in the higher dose group vs. 5.1% in the lower dose group. Lower dose vs. higher dose was not significantly associated with survival: adjusted odds ratio, aOR 0.91 (95% CI 0.62-1.32, p = 0.61) if shockable and aOR 1.26 (95% CI 0.79-2.01, p = 0.33) if non-shockable. Lower dose vs. higher dose was not significantly associated with favorable neurological status at discharge: aOR 0.84 (95% CI 0.57-1.24, p = 0.377) if shockable and aOR 1.17 (95% CI 0.68-2.02, p = 0.577) if non-shockable. CONCLUSION: Reducing the dose of epinephrine administered during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest was not associated with a change in survival to hospital discharge or favorable neurological outcomes after OHCA.

Briefer activation time is associated with better outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) requires prompt intervention. Better outcomes are associated with briefer time from dispatch of emergency medical services (EMS) providers to arrival on scene, application of a defibrillator or insertion of an advanced airway. We assessed whether time from receipt of a call by a telecommunicator to dispatch of EMS providers was associated with outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort study of persons who had OHCA treated by EMS providers in Seattle, WA. Activation interval was defined as time from call pick up by telecommunicator to notification of EMS providers to respond to the call. Response interval was defined as the time from notification of EMS providers to their arrival at patient side. We determined the association between time intervals and outcomes of sustained restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital discharge and neurologically favorable survival using multiple logistic regression. Secondary analyses assessed the relative contribution of activation versus response interval, and adjusted for post-treatment patient and EMS characteristics. RESULTS: Among 2,687 patients, activation interval was mean 1.2±0.6min. Response interval was mean 6.1±2.4min. 1,232 (45.9%) achieved ROSC; 475 (17.7%) survived to discharge; and 428 (15.9%) had favorable neurologic status at discharge. Compared to an activation interval of at least 1.5min, patients with briefer intervals were more likely to survive to discharge (adjusted odds ratio (OR) for <1min, 1.69 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.26, 2.28); adjusted odds ratio for 1 to 1.49min, 1.54 (95% CI, 1.14, 2.08); p value=0.002). With baseline survival of 10%, the absolute increase in survival associated with a 30s decrease in activation interval was 0.7% and for a 30s decrease in response interval was 0.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Briefer activation interval was independently associated with greater survival. Further research is needed to assess whether reduction of the activation interval improves outcome after OHCA.

An analysis of advanced prehospital airway management.

Considerable controversy persists regarding the optimal means and indications for airway management, the utility of paralytic agents to facilitate intubation, and the indications for advanced airway access techniques in the prehospital setting. To describe the use of intubation and advanced airway management in a system with extensive experience with both the use of paralytic agents and surgical airway techniques, a retrospective review was conducted of all prehospital airway procedures from January 1997 through November 1999. Data collected included demographics, airway management techniques, use of paralytic agents, and immediate outcome. The results showed there were 2700 patients intubated out of 50,118 patient encounters (5.4%). The indications for intubation included medical emergency in 82% of patients and traumatic injury in 18%. Fifty percent of patients were intubated with the use of succinylcholine. The overall oral intubation success rate was 98.4% and definitive airway access was achieved in all but 12 patients (0.6%), with 30 patients receiving surgical airway access (1%). The successful intubation rate for patients receiving paralytic agents was 97.8%. Previously published rates of prehospital surgical airway access range from 3.8 to 14.9% of patients. In this study, only 1.1% of patients required a surgical airway. We attribute this low rate to the use of paralytic agents. The availability of paralytic agents also allows expansion of the indications for prehospital airway control.

A descriptive analysis of Emergency Medical Service Systems participating in the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) network.

BACKGROUND: The optimal Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system characteristics have not been defined, resulting in substantial variability across systems. The Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) is a United States-Canada research network that organized EMS agencies from 11 different systems to perform controlled trials in cardiac arrest and life-threatening trauma resuscitation. OBJECTIVES: To describe EMS systems participating in ROC using a novel framework. METHODS: Standardized surveys were created by ROC investigators and distributed to each site for completion. These included separate questions for individual hospitals, EMS agencies, and dispatch centers. Results were collated and analyzed by using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 264 EMS agencies, 287 hospitals, and 154 dispatch centers were included. Agencies were described with respect to the type (fire-based, non-fire governmental, private), transport status (transport/non-transport), and training level (BLS/ALS). Hospitals were described with regard to their trauma designation and the presence of electrophysiology and cardiac catheterization laboratories. Dispatch center characteristics, including primary versus secondary public safety answering point (PSAP) status and the use of prearrival instructions, were also described. Differences in EMS system characteristics between ROC sites were observed with multiple intriguing patterns. Rural areas and fire-based agencies had more EMS units and providers per capita. This may reflect longer response and transport distances in rural areas and the additional duties of most fire-based providers. In addition, hospitals in the United States typically had catheterization laboratories, whereas Canadian hospitals generally did not. The vast majority of both primary and secondary PSAPs use computer-aided dispatch. CONCLUSIONS: Similarities and differences among EMS systems participating in the ROC network were described. The framework used in this analysis may serve as a template for future EMS research.