Evaluation of Physiologic Alterations during Prehospital Paramedic-Performed Rapid Sequence Intubation.

OBJECTIVE: Physiologic alterations during rapid sequence intubation (RSI) have been studied in several emergency airway management settings, but few data exist to describe physiologic alterations during prehospital RSI performed by ground-based paramedics. To address this evidence gap and provide guidance for future quality improvement initiatives in our EMS system, we collected electronic monitoring data to evaluate peri-intubation vital signs changes occurring during prehospital RSI. METHODS: Electronic patient monitor data files from cases in which paramedic RSI was attempted were prospectively collected over a 15-month study period to supplement the standard EMS patient care documentation. Cases were analyzed to identify peri-intubation changes in oxygen saturation, heart rate, and blood pressure. RESULTS: Data from 134 RSI cases were available for analysis. Paramedic-assigned prehospital diagnostic impression categories included neurologic (42%), respiratory (26%), toxicologic (22%), trauma (9%), and cardiac (1%). The overall intubation success rate (95%) and first-attempt success rate (82%) did not differ across diagnostic impression categories. Peri-intubation desaturation (SpO2 decrease to below 90%) occurred in 43% of cases, and 70% of desaturation episodes occurred on first-attempt success. The incidence of desaturation varied among patient categories, with a respiratory diagnostic impression associated with more frequent, more severe, and more prolonged desaturations, as well as a higher incidence of accompanying cardiovascular instability. Bradycardia (HR decrease to below 60 bpm) occurred in 13% of cases, and 60% of bradycardia episodes occurred on first-attempt success. Hypotension (systolic blood pressure decrease to below 90 mmHg) occurred in 7% of cases, and 63% of hypotension episodes occurred on first-attempt success. Peri-intubation cardiac arrest occurred in 2 cases, one of which was on first-attempt success. Only 11% of desaturations and no instances of bradycardia were reflected in the standard EMS patient care documentation. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the majority of peri-intubation physiologic alterations occurred on first-attempt success, highlighting that first-attempt success is an incomplete and potentially deceptive measure of intubation quality. Supplementing the standard patient care documentation with electronic monitoring data can identify unrecognized physiologic instability during prehospital RSI and provide valuable guidance for quality improvement interventions.

Minor Variations in Electrode Pad Placement Impact Defibrillation Success.

Defibrillation is essential for resuscitating patients with ventricular fibrillation (VF), but shocks often fail to defibrillate. We hypothesized that small variations in pad placement affect shock success, and that defibrillation waveform and shock dose could compensate for suboptimal pad placement. In 10 swine experiments, electrode pads were attached at 3 adjacent anterolateral positions, less than 3 centimeters apart. At each position, 24 episodes of VF were induced and shocked, 8 episodes for each of 3 defibrillation therapies. This resulted in 9 tested combinations of pad position and defibrillation therapy, with 80 episodes of VF for each combination. An episode consisted of 15 seconds of untreated VF, followed by a first shock and, if necessary, a repeat shock. Episodes were separated by four minutes of recovery. Both electrode pad position and therapy order were randomized by experiment. Primary outcome was defined as successful VF termination after the first shock; secondary outcome was the cumulative success of the first and second shocks. First shock efficacy varied widely across the 9 tested combinations of pad position and defibrillation therapy, ranging from 11.3% to 86.3%. When grouped by therapy, first shock efficacy varied significantly between the 3 pad positions: 38.3%, 48.3%, 36.7% (p = 0.02, ANOVA), and, when grouped by pad position, it varied significantly between therapies: 15.0%, 32.5%, 75.8% (p < 0.001, ANOVA). Cumulative 2-shock success varied significantly with therapy (p < 0.001, ANOVA) but not with pad position (p = 0.30, ANOVA). The lowest first shock success was at one position in 6 of 10 animals, at another position in 4 of 10 animals, and never at the third position. Small variations in pad placement can significantly affect defibrillation shock efficacy. However, anatomical variation between individuals and the challenging conditions of real-world resuscitations make optimal pad placement impractical. Suboptimal pad placement can be overcome with defibrillation waveform and shock dose.

Alternating fast and slow chest compression rates during CPR improved hemodynamics.

INTRODUCTION: Mechanical chest compression devices allow for variation in chest compression (CCs) characteristics from moment to moment, enabling therapy that is not feasible for manual CCs. Effects of varying compressions over time have not been studied. In a randomized trial in an experimental model of prolonged cardiac arrest, we compared time-varying CPR (TVCPR), alternating between 100 and 200 compressions per minute (cpm) every 6 s, to guidelines CPR (Control). METHODS: Ventricular fibrillation (VF) was electrically induced in 20 anesthetized pigs (28.4-45.8 kg). Following 10 min of untreated VF, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) began, randomized to TVCPR or Control. Rate of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 4-h survival, and hemodynamics during the first 5 min of CPR were compared between groups. Moment-to-moment hemodynamic effects of changing the CC rate were analyzed. RESULTS: TVCPR improved the proportion of ROSC over time compared to Control (p < 0.05) but ROSC (9/10 vs. 5/10) and 4-h survival (8/10 vs 5/10) did not differ significantly between groups. During CPR, coronary and cerebral perfusion pressures and femoral artery pressure did not differ between groups; however, end-tidal CO2 and mixed venous O2 saturation were higher, and pulmonary artery pressure was lower (p < 0.05) for TVCPR than Control. During TVCPR, switching to 100 cpm increased coronary perfusion pressure (p < 0.05), and switching to 200 cpm increased cerebral perfusion pressure (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Time-varying CPR significantly improved indicators of net forward blood flow and proportion of ROSC over time without negatively impacting perfusion pressures. Alternating CC rate alternates between perfusion pressures favoring the brain and those favoring the heart. Time-varying CPR represents a new avenue of research for optimizing CPR. INSTITUTIONAL PROTOCOL NUMBER: University of Alabama at Birmingham Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) Protocol Number 140406860.

Mechanical chest compressions improved aspects of CPR in the LINC trial.

AIM: We studied resuscitation process metrics in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest enrolled in a randomized trial comparing one protocol designed to best use a mechanical CPR device, with another based on the 2005 European Resuscitation Council guidelines for manual CPR. METHODS: We analyzed clinical data, ECG signals, and transthoracic impedance signals for a subset of the patients in the LUCAS in Cardiac Arrest (LINC) trial, including 124 patients randomized to mechanical and 82 to manual CPR. Chest compression fraction (CCF) was defined as the fraction of time during cardiac arrest that chest compressions were administered. RESULTS: Patients in the mechanical CPR group had a higher CCF than those in the manual CPR group [0.84 (0.78, 0.91) vs. 0.79 (0.70, 0.86), p < 0.001]. The median duration of their pauses for defibrillation was also shorter [0 s (0, 6.0) vs. 10.0 s (7.0, 14.3), p < 0.001]. Compressions were interrupted for a median of 36.0 s to apply the compression device. There was no difference between groups in duration of the longest pause in compressions [32.5s vs. 26.0 s, p = 0.24], number of compressions received per minute [86.5 vs. 88.3, p = 0.47], defibrillation success rate [73.2% vs. 81.0%, p = 0.15], or refibrillation rate [74% vs. 77%, p = 0.79]. CONCLUSIONS: A protocol using mechanical chest compression devices reduced interruptions in chest compressions, and enabled defibrillation during ongoing compressions, without adversely affecting other resuscitation process metrics. Future emphasis on optimizing device deployment may be beneficial.