The American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care 2030 Impact Goals and Call to Action to Improve Cardiac Arrest Outcomes: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Every 10 years, the American Heart Association (AHA) Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee establishes goals to improve survival from cardiac arrest. These goals align with broader AHA Impact Goals and support the AHA's advocacy efforts and strategic investments in research, education, clinical care, and quality improvement programs. This scientific statement focuses on 2030 AHA emergency cardiovascular care priorities, with a specific focus on bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, early defibrillation, and neurologically intact survival. This scientific statement also includes aspirational goals, such as establishing cardiac arrest as a reportable disease and mandating reporting of standardized outcomes from different sources; advancing recognition of and knowledge about cardiac arrest; improving dispatch system response, availability, and access to resuscitation training in multiple settings and at multiple time points; improving availability, access, and affordability of defibrillators; providing a focus on early defibrillation, in-hospital programs, and establishing champions for debriefing and review of cardiac arrest events; and expanding measures to track outcomes beyond survival. The ability to track and report data from these broader aspirational targets will potentially require expansion of existing data sets, development of new data sets, and enhanced integration of technology to collect process and outcome data, as well as partnerships of the AHA with national, state, and local organizations. The COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, disparities in COVID-19 outcomes for historically excluded racial and ethnic groups, and the longstanding disparities in cardiac arrest treatment and outcomes for Black and Hispanic or Latino populations also contributed to an explicit focus and target on equity for the AHA Emergency Cardiovascular Care 2030 Impact Goals.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Bystander CPR for Witnessed Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Differences in the incidence of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) provided by bystanders contribute to survival disparities among persons with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. It is critical to understand whether the incidence of bystander CPR in witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrests at home and in public settings differs according to the race or ethnic group of the person with cardiac arrest in order to inform interventions. METHODS: Within a large U.S. registry, we identified 110,054 witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrests during the period from 2013 through 2019. We used a hierarchical logistic regression model to analyze the incidence of bystander CPR in Black or Hispanic persons as compared with White persons with witnessed cardiac arrests at home and in public locations. We analyzed the overall incidence as well as the incidence according to neighborhood racial or ethnic makeup and income strata. Neighborhoods were classified as predominantly White (>80% of residents), majority Black or Hispanic (>50% of residents), or integrated, and as high income (an annual median household income of >$80,000), middle income ($40,000-$80,000), or low income (<$40,000). RESULTS: Overall, 35,469 of the witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (32.2%) occurred in Black or Hispanic persons. Black and Hispanic persons were less likely to receive bystander CPR at home (38.5%) than White persons (47.4%) (adjusted odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 0.76) and less likely to receive bystander CPR in public locations than White persons (45.6% vs. 60.0%) (adjusted odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.66). The incidence of bystander CPR among Black and Hispanic persons was less than that among White persons not only in predominantly White neighborhoods at home (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.90) and in public locations (adjusted odds ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.75) but also in majority Black or Hispanic neighborhoods at home (adjusted odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.83) and in public locations (adjusted odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.68) and in integrated neighborhoods at home (adjusted odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.81) and in public locations (adjusted odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.77). Similarly, across all neighborhood income strata, the frequency of bystander CPR at home and in public locations was lower among Black and Hispanic persons with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest than among White persons. CONCLUSIONS: In witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, Black and Hispanic persons were less likely than White persons to receive potentially lifesaving bystander CPR at home and in public locations, regardless of the racial or ethnic makeup or income level of the neighborhood where the cardiac arrest occurred. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.).

Hospital Variation in Epinephrine Administration Before Defibrillation for Cardiac Arrest Due to Shockable Rhythm.

OBJECTIVES: Contrary to advanced cardiac life support guidelines that recommend immediate defibrillation for shockable in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA), epinephrine administration before first defibrillation is common and associated with lower survival at a "patient-level." Whether this practice varies across hospitals and its association with "hospital-level" IHCA survival remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine hospital variation in rates of epinephrine administration before defibrillation for shockable IHCA and its association with IHCA survival. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Five hundred thirteen hospitals participating in the Get With The Guidelines Resuscitation Registry. PATIENTS: A total of 37,668 adult patients with IHCA due to an initial shockable rhythm from 2000 to 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Epinephrine before first defibrillation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using multivariable hierarchical regression, we examined hospital variation in epinephrine administration before first defibrillation and its association with hospital-level rates of risk-adjusted survival. The median hospital rate of epinephrine administration before defibrillation was 18.8%, with large variation across sites (range, 0-68.8%; median odds ratio: 1.54; 95% CI, 1.47-1.61). Major teaching status and annual IHCA volume were associated with hospital rate of epinephrine administration before defibrillation. Compared with hospitals with the lowest rate of epinephrine administration before defibrillation (Q1), there was a stepwise decline in risk-adjusted survival at hospitals with higher rates of epinephrine administration before defibrillation (Q1: 44.3%, Q2: 43.4%; Q3: 41.9%; Q4: 40.3%; p for trend < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of epinephrine before defibrillation in shockable IHCA is common and varies markedly across U.S. hospitals. Hospital rates of epinephrine administration before defibrillation were associated with a significant stepwise decrease in hospital rates of risk-adjusted survival. Efforts to prioritize immediate defibrillation for patients with shockable IHCA and avoid early epinephrine administration are urgently needed.

Survival outcomes and resuscitation process measures in maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: Maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest is a rare event with the potential for resuscitation treatment delays because of the difficulty accessing hospital obstetrical units and limited simulation training or resuscitation experience of obstetrical staff. However, it is unclear whether survival rates and processes of care differ between women with a maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest and those with a nonmaternal in-hospital cardiac arrest. OBJECTIVE: We aimed determine whether to there are delays in process measures and differences in survival outcomes between pregnant and nonpregnant women who have in-hospital cardiac arrest. STUDY DESIGN: Using data from 2000 to 2019 in the Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry, we compared resuscitation outcomes between women aged 18 to 50 years with a maternal or nonmaternal in-hospital cardiac arrest. Using a nonparsimonious propensity score, we matched patients with a maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest to as many as 10 women with a nonmaternal in-hospital cardiac arrest. We constructed conditional logistic regression models to compare survival outcomes (survival to discharge, favorable neurologic survival [discharge cerebral performance score of 1], and return of spontaneous circulation) and processes of care (delayed defibrillation [>2 minutes] and administration of epinephrine [>5 minutes]) between women with a maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest vs those with a nonmaternal in-hospital cardiac arrest. RESULTS: Overall, 421 women with a maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest were matched by propensity score to 2316 women with a nonmaternal in-hospital cardiac arrest. The mean age among propensity score-matched women with a maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest was 31.4 (standard deviation, 6.5) years, where 33.7% were of Black race and 86.9% had an initial nonshockable cardiac arrest rhythm. Unadjusted survival rates were higher in women with a maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest than in women with a nonmaternal in-hospital cardiac arrest: survival to discharge of 45.1% vs 26.5%, survival with cerebral performance category 1 status of 36.1% vs 17.7%, and return of spontaneous circulation of 75.8% vs 70.6%. After adjustment, there was no difference in the likelihood of survival to discharge (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.73) or return of spontaneous circulation (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.35) between women with a maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest and those with a nonmaternal in-hospital cardiac arrest. However, women with a maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest were more likely to have favorable neurologic survival (odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.33). Compared with women with a nonmaternal in-hospital cardiac arrest, women with a maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest had similar rates of delayed defibrillation (42.5% vs 34.4%; odds ratio, 1.14 [95% confidence interval, 0.41-3.18]; P=.31) and delayed administration of epinephrine (13.8% vs 10.6%; odds ratio, 0.96 [95% confidence interval, 0.50-1.86]; P=.09). CONCLUSION: Although concerns have been raised about resuscitation outcomes in women with a maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest, the rates of survival and resuscitation processes of care were not worse in women with a maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest.

Reasons for discordance between positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) results and subsequent management.

BACKGROUND: Referral patterns to coronary angiography following positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and reasons for non-referral following abnormal PET MPI are largely unknown. METHODS: Referral rates to coronary angiography within 90 days post PET MPI were determined. A random subset of 100 patients with severe (≥ 10%) ischemia on MPI between 2014-16 who were not referred for angiography were examined to better understand reasons as to why patients with high-risk MPI findings did not undergo coronary angiography. RESULTS: Among 19,282 unique patients, overall rate of 90-day coronary angiography was 18.5% (3574/19282). Among patients with severe ischemia, 64.1% (1930/3011) underwent angiography within 90 days; the rate was lower in those with mild-moderate (20.6% [1010/4898]) and no ischemia (5.6% [634/11373]). In the random sample of 100 patients, the most common physician reasons for non-referral were uncertainty regarding whether the test results were responsible for the patient's presenting symptoms, renal failure, and patient age, frailty, or cognitive status, while patient preference for medical management was by far the most common patient reason. CONCLUSION: Referral rates for coronary angiography after PET correlate with severity of ischemia. However, there appear to be opportunities to reconsider testing for instances when results will not change clinical management.

Myocardial blood flow reserve assessed by positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging identifies patients with a survival benefit from early revascularization.

AIMS: Positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) can non-invasively measure myocardial blood flow reserve (MBFR). We aimed to examine whether MBFR identifies patients with a survival benefit after revascularization, helping to guide post-test management. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined all-cause mortality in 12 594 consecutive patients undergoing Rb82 rest/stress PET MPI from January 2010 to December 2016, after excluding those with cardiomyopathy, prior coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG), and missing MBFR. Myocardial blood flow reserve was calculated as the ratio of stress to rest absolute myocardial blood flow. A Cox model adjusted for patient and test characteristics, early revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention or CABG ≤90 days of MPI), and the interaction between MBFR and early revascularization was developed to identify predictors of all-cause mortality. After a median follow-up of 3.2 years, 897 patients (7.1%) underwent early revascularization and 1699 patients (13.5%) died. Ischaemia was present in 4051 (32.3%) patients, with 1413 (11.2%) having ≥10% ischaemia. Mean MBFR was 2.0 ± 1.3, with MBFR <1.8 in 4836 (38.5%). After multivariable adjustment, every 0.1 unit decrease in MBFR was associated with 9% greater hazard of all-cause death (hazard ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.08-1.10; P < 0.001). There was a significant interaction between MBFR and early revascularization (P < 0.001); such that patients with MBFR ≤1.8 had a survival benefit with early revascularization, regardless of type of revascularization or level of ischaemia. CONCLUSION: Myocardial blood flow reserve on PET MPI is associated with all-cause mortality and can identify patients who receive a survival benefit with early revascularization compared to medical therapy. This may be used to guide revascularization, and prospective validation is needed.

Pulselessness After Initiation of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Bradycardia in Hospitalized Children.

BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is initiated in hospitalized children with bradycardia and poor perfusion. However, their rate of progression to pulseless cardiac arrest despite CPR and the differences in survival compared with initially pulseless arrest are unknown. We examined the prevalence and predictors of survival of children who progress from bradycardia to pulseless in-hospital cardiac arrest despite CPR. METHODS: Pediatric patients >30 days and <18 years of age who received CPR at hospitals participating in Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation during 2000 to 2016 were included. Each CPR event was classified as bradycardia with pulse, bradycardia with subsequent pulselessness, and initial pulseless cardiac arrest. We assessed risk-adjusted rates of survival to hospital discharge using multilevel Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Overall, 5592 pediatric patients were treated with CPR, of whom 2799 (50.1%) received CPR for bradycardia with poor perfusion and 2793 (49.9%) for initial pulseless cardiac arrest. Among those with bradycardia, 869 (31.0%, or 15.5% of cohort) became pulseless after a median of 3 minutes of CPR (interquartile range, 1-9 minutes). Rates of survival to discharge were 70.0% (1351 of 1930) for bradycardia with pulse, 30.1% (262 of 869) for bradycardia progressing to pulselessness, and 37.5% (1046 of 2793) for initial pulseless cardiac arrest (P for difference across groups <0.001). Children who became pulseless despite CPR for bradycardia had a 19% lower likelihood (risk ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.70, 0.93]; P=0.004) of surviving to hospital discharge than those who were initially pulseless. Among children who progressed to pulselessness despite CPR for bradycardia, a longer interval between CPR and pulselessness was a predictor of lower survival (reference, <2 minutes; for 2-5 minutes, risk ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.41-0.70]; for >5 minutes, risk ratio, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.32-0.53]). CONCLUSIONS: Among hospitalized children in whom CPR is initiated, half have bradycardia with poor perfusion at the initiation of chest compressions, and nearly one-third of these progress to pulseless in-hospital cardiac arrest despite CPR. Survival was significantly lower for children who progress to pulselessness despite CPR compared with those who were initially pulseless. These findings suggest that pediatric patients who lose their pulse despite resuscitation attempts are at particularly high risk and require a renewed focus on postresuscitation care.

2019 American Heart Association Focused Update on Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support: Use of Advanced Airways, Vasopressors, and Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation During Cardiac Arrest: An Update to the American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.

The fundamentals of cardiac resuscitation include the immediate provision of high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation combined with rapid defibrillation (as appropriate). These mainstays of therapy set the groundwork for other possible interventions such as medications, advanced airways, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and post-cardiac arrest care, including targeted temperature management, cardiorespiratory support, and percutaneous coronary intervention. Since 2015, an increased number of studies have been published evaluating some of these interventions, requiring a reassessment of their use and impact on survival from cardiac arrest. This 2019 focused update to the American Heart Association advanced cardiovascular life support guidelines summarizes the most recent published evidence for and recommendations on the use of advanced airways, vasopressors, and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation during cardiac arrest. It includes revised recommendations for all 3 areas, including the choice of advanced airway devices and strategies during cardiac arrest (eg, bag-mask ventilation, supraglottic airway, or endotracheal intubation), the training and retraining required, the administration of standard-dose epinephrine, and the decisions involved in the application of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation and its potential impact on cardiac arrest survival.

2019 American Heart Association Focused Update on Systems of Care: Dispatcher-Assisted Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Cardiac Arrest Centers: An Update to the American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.

Survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest requires an integrated system of care (chain of survival) between the community elements responding to an event and the healthcare professionals who continue to care for and transport the patient for appropriate interventions. As a result of the dynamic nature of the prehospital setting, coordination and communication can be challenging, and identification of methods to optimize care is essential. This 2019 focused update to the American Heart Association systems of care guidelines summarizes the most recent published evidence for and recommendations on the use of dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation and cardiac arrest centers. This article includes the revised recommendations that emergency dispatch centers should offer and instruct bystanders in cardiopulmonary resuscitation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and that a regionalized approach to post-cardiac arrest care may be reasonable when comprehensive postarrest care is not available at local facilities.

Cardiac Arrest and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Outcome Reports: Update of the Utstein Resuscitation Registry Template for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Consensus Report From a Task Force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (American Heart Association, European Resuscitation Council, Australian and New Zealand Council on Resuscitation, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, InterAmerican Heart Foundation, Resuscitation Council of Southern Africa, Resuscitation Council of Asia).

Utstein-style reporting templates provide a structured framework with which to compare systems of care for cardiac arrest. The 2004 Utstein reporting template encompassed both out-of-hospital and in-hospital cardiac arrest. A 2015 update of the Utstein template focused on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, which makes this update of the in-hospital template timely. Representatives of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation developed an updated in-hospital Utstein reporting template iteratively by meeting face-to-face, by teleconference, and by online surveys between 2013 and 2018. Data elements were grouped by hospital factors, patient variables, pre-event factors, cardiac arrest and postresuscitation processes, and outcomes. Elements were classified as core or supplemental by use of a modified Delphi process. Variables were described as core if they were considered essential. Core variables should enable reasonable comparisons between systems and are considered essential for quality improvement programs. Together with core variables, supplementary variables are considered useful for research.

Risk of major cardiovascular and neurologic events with obstructive sleep apnea among patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a known risk factor for atrial fibrillation (AF). However, it remains unclear whether OSA is independently associated with worse cardiovascular and neurological outcomes in patients with AF. METHODS: We used the ORBIT-AF I and ORBIT-AF II to conduct a retrospective cohort study of 22,760 patients with AF with and without OSA. Adjusted multivariable Cox proportional hazards models was used to determine whether OSA was associated with increased risk for major adverse cardiac and neurologic events (MACNEs) (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischemic attack/non-central nervous system embolism (stroke/SE), and new-onset heart failure], combined and individually. RESULTS: A total of 4,045 (17.8%) patients had OSA at baseline. Median follow-up time was 1.5 (interquartile range: 1-2.2) years, and 1,895 patients experienced a MACNE. OSA patients were younger (median [interquartile range] 68 [61-75] years vs 74 [66-81] years), were more likely male (70.7% vs 55.3%), and had increased body mass index (median 34.6 kg/m2 [29.8-40.2] vs 28.7 kg/m2 [25.2-33.0]). Those with OSA had a higher prevalence of concomitant comorbidities such as diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and heart failure. OSA patients had higher use of antithrombotic therapy. After adjustment, the presence of OSA was significantly associated with MACNE (hazard ratio: 1.16 [95% CI: 1.03-1.31], P = .011). OSA was also an independent risk factor for stroke/SE beyond the CHA2DS2-VASc risk factors (HR: 1.38 [95% CI 1.12-1.70], P = .003) but not cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, new-onset heart failure, or major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with AF, OSA is an independent risk factor for MACNE and, more specifically, stroke/SE.

Guideline-directed therapies for comorbidities and clinical outcomes among individuals with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidities are common in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and affect prognosis, yet are often undertreated. However, contemporary rates of use of guideline-directed therapies (GDT) for non-AF comorbidities and their association with outcomes are not well described. METHODS: We used the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of AF (ORBIT-AF) to test the association between GDT for non-AF comorbidities and major adverse cardiac or neurovascular events (MACNE; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke/thromboembolism, or new-onset heart failure), all-cause mortality, new-onset heart failure, and AF progression. Adjustment was performed using Cox proportional hazards models and logistic regression. RESULTS: Only 6,782 (33%) of the 20,434 patients eligible for 1 or more GDT for non-AF comorbidities received all indicated therapies. Use of all comorbidity-specific GDT was highest for patients with hyperlipidemia (75.6%) and lowest for those with diabetes mellitus (43.1%). Use of "all eligible" GDT was associated with a nonsignificant trend toward lower rates of MACNE (HR 0.90 [0.79-1.02]) and all-cause mortality (HR 0.90 [0.80-1.01]). Use of GDT for heart failure was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.77 [0.67-0.89]), and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea was associated with a lower risk of AF progression (OR 0.75 [0.62-0.90]). CONCLUSIONS: In AF patients, there is underuse of GDT for non-AF comorbidities. The association between GDT use and outcomes was strongest in heart failure and obstructive sleep apnea patients where use of GDT was associated with lower mortality and less AF progression.

Global, regional and time-trend prevalence of central obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 13.2 million subjects.

We aimed to examine the global prevalences of central obesity according to age, sex, race, place of residence, geographical region, national income level, and the definitions of central obesity. MEDLINE and Embase were searched. Studies with sample size of ≥ 500 and investigated individuals aged ≥ 15 years were included. Metaprop (a Stata command) was adopted to conduct a meta-analysis of prevalence, and the Freeman-Tukey Double Arcsine Transformation was used to stabilize the variances. A random-effects model was used to evaluate the prevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of central obesity. There were 288 studies involving 13,233,675 individuals in this analysis. The overall prevalence of central obesity was 41.5% (95% CI 39.9-43.2%). A higher prevalence was found in older individuals, female subjects, urban residents, Caucasians, and populations of higher income level countries. Regarding regional variations, the highest prevalence was found in Sothern America (55.1%, 95% CI 45.8-64.3%) and Central American (52.9%, 95% CI 32.7-72.7%). Its prevalence was rapidly rising from 1985 to 2014. From 1985-1999 to 2010-2014, younger subjects aged 15-40 years showed a more drastic rise in prevalence (16.3 to 33.9%) than subjects aged > 40 years (43.6 to 57.9%). Male individuals have a more drastic rise (25.3 to 41.6%) than females (38.6 to 49.7%). Major increasing in prevalence of the condition in the past three decades, particularly in certain subgroups. These findings could act as a useful reference to inform public health strategies to minimize the impact of central obesity on population health.

Racial Differences in Long-Term Outcomes Among Older Survivors of In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Black patients have worse in-hospital survival than white patients after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA), but less is known about long-term outcomes. We sought to assess among IHCA survivors whether there are additional racial differences in survival after hospital discharge and to explore potential reasons for differences. METHODS: This was alongitudinal study of patients ≥65 years of age who had an IHCA and survived until hospital discharge between 2000 and 2011 from the national Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry whose data could be linked to Medicare claims data. Sequential hierarchical modified Poisson regression models evaluated the proportion of racial differences explained by patient, hospital, and unmeasured factors. Our exposure was black or white race. Our outcome was survival at 1, 3, and 5 years. RESULTS: Among 8764 patients who survived to discharge, 7652 (87.3%) were white and 1112 (12.7%) were black. Black patients with IHCA were younger, more frequently female, sicker with more comorbidities, less likely to have a shockable initial cardiac arrest rhythm, and less likely to be evaluated with coronary angiography after initial resuscitation. At discharge, black patients were also more likely to have at least moderate neurological disability and less likely to be discharged home. Compared with white patients and after adjustment only for hospital site, black patients had lower 1-year (43.6% versus 60.2%; relative risk [RR], 0.72), 3-year (31.6% versus 45.3%; RR, 0.71), and 5-year (23.5% versus 35.4%; RR, 0.67; all P<0.001) survival. Adjustment for patient factors explained 29% of racial differences in 1-year survival (RR, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.86), and further adjustment for hospital treatment factors explained an additional 17% of racial differences (RR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.92). Approximately half of the racial difference in 1-year survival remained unexplained, and the degree to which patient and hospital factors explained racial differences in 3-year and 5-year survival was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Black survivors of IHCA have lower long-term survival compared with white patients, and about half of this difference is not explained by patient factors or treatments after IHCA. Further investigation is warranted to better understand to what degree unmeasured but modifiable factors such as postdischarge care account for unexplained disparities.

Association of Pediatric Medical Emergency Teams With Hospital Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of medical emergency teams has been identified as a potential strategy to reduce hospital deaths, because these teams respond to patients with acute physiological decline in an effort to prevent in-hospital cardiac arrest. However, prior studies of the association between medical emergency teams and hospital mortality have been limited and typically have not accounted for preimplementation mortality trends. METHODS: Within the Pediatric Health Information System for freestanding pediatric hospitals, annual risk-adjusted mortality rates were calculated for sites between 2000 and 2015. A random slopes interrupted time series analysis then examined whether implementation of a medical emergency team was associated with lower-than-expected mortality rates based on preimplementation trends. RESULTS: Across 38 pediatric hospitals, mean annual hospital admission volume was 15 854 (range, 6684-33 024), and there were a total of 1 659 059 hospitalizations preimplementation and 4 392 392 hospitalizations postimplementation. Before medical emergency team implementation, hospital mortality decreased by 6.0% annually (odds ratio [OR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-0.96) across all hospitals. After medical emergency team implementation, hospital mortality continued to decrease by 6% annually (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.93-0.95), with no deepening of the mortality slope (ie, not lower OR) in comparison with the preimplementation trend, for the overall cohort (P=0.98) or when analyzed separately within each of the 38 study hospitals. Five years after medical emergency team implementation across study sites, there was no difference between predicted (hospital mean of 6.18 deaths per 1000 admissions based on preimplementation trends) and actual mortality rates (hospital mean of 6.48 deaths per 1000 admissions; P=0.57). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of medical emergency teams in a large sample of pediatric hospitals in the United States was not associated with a reduction in hospital mortality beyond existing preimplementation trends.

Association Between Prompt Defibrillation and Epinephrine Treatment With Long-Term Survival After In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have reported higher in-hospital survival with prompt defibrillation and epinephrine treatment in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). Whether this survival benefit persists after discharge is unknown. METHODS: We linked data from a national IHCA registry with Medicare files and identified 36 961 patients ≥65 years of age with an IHCA at 517 hospitals between 2000 and 2011. Patients with IHCA caused by pulseless ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation were stratified by prompt (≤2 minutes) versus delayed (>2 minutes) defibrillation, whereas patients with IHCA caused by asystole or pulseless electric activity were stratified by prompt (≤5 minutes) versus delayed (>5 minutes) epinephrine treatment. The association between prompt treatment and long-term survival for each rhythm type was assessed with multivariable hierarchical modified Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Of 8119 patients with an IHCA caused by ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, the rate of 1-year survival was higher in those treated with prompt defibrillation than with delayed defibrillation (25.7% [1466 of 5714] versus 15.5% [373 of 2405]; adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32-1.69; P<0.0001). This survival advantage persisted at 3 years (19.1% versus 11.0%; adjusted RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.23-1.69; P<0.0001) and at 5 years (14.7% versus 7.9%; adjusted RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.22-1.83; P<0.0001). Of 28 842 patients with an IHCA caused by asystole/pulseless electric activity, the rate of 1-year survival with prompt epinephrine treatment was higher than with delayed treatment (5.4% [1341 of 24 885] versus 4.3% [168 of 3957]; adjusted RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41; P=0.02), but this survival benefit was no longer present at 3 years (3.5% versus 2.9%; adjusted RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.95-1.45; P=0.15) and at 5 years (2.3% versus 1.9%; adjusted RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.88-1.58; P=0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Prompt defibrillation for IHCA caused by ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation was associated with higher rates of long-term survival throughout 5 years of follow-up, whereas prompt epinephrine treatment for asystole/pulseless electric activity was associated with greater survival at 1 year but not at 3 or 5 years. By quantifying the greater survival associated with timely defibrillation and epinephrine administration, these findings provide important insights into the durability of survival benefits for 2 process-of-care measures in current resuscitation guidelines.

How Do Resuscitation Teams at Top-Performing Hospitals for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Succeed? A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: In-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) is common, and outcomes vary substantially across US hospitals, but reasons for these differences are largely unknown. We set out to better understand how top-performing hospitals organize their resuscitation teams to achieve high survival rates for IHCA. METHODS: We calculated risk-standardized IHCA survival to discharge rates across American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry hospitals between 2012 and 2014. We identified geographically and academically diverse hospitals in the top, middle, and bottom quartiles of survival for IHCA and performed a qualitative study that included site visits with in-depth interviews of clinical and administrative staff at 9 hospitals. With the use of thematic analysis, data were analyzed to identify salient themes of perceived performance by informants. RESULTS: Across 9 hospitals, we interviewed 158 individuals from multiple disciplines including physicians (17.1%), nurses (45.6%), other clinical staff (17.1%), and administration (20.3%). We identified 4 broad themes related to resuscitation teams: (1) team design, (2) team composition and roles, (3) communication and leadership during IHCA, and (4) training and education. Resuscitation teams at top-performing hospitals demonstrated the following features: dedicated or designated resuscitation teams; participation of diverse disciplines as team members during IHCA; clear roles and responsibilities of team members; better communication and leadership during IHCA; and in-depth mock codes. CONCLUSIONS: Resuscitation teams at hospitals with high IHCA survival differ from non-top-performing hospitals. Our findings suggest core elements of successful resuscitation teams that are associated with better outcomes and form the basis for future work to improve IHCA.

2018 American Heart Association Focused Update on Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support Use of Antiarrhythmic Drugs During and Immediately After Cardiac Arrest: An Update to the American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.

Antiarrhythmic medications are commonly administered during and immediately after a ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia cardiac arrest. However, it is unclear whether these medications improve patient outcomes. This 2018 American Heart Association focused update on advanced cardiovascular life support guidelines summarizes the most recent published evidence for and recommendations on the use of antiarrhythmic drugs during and immediately after shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia cardiac arrest. This article includes the revised recommendation that providers may consider either amiodarone or lidocaine to treat shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia cardiac arrest.